Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
I just found this site and have read some stuff that sounds like the situation that I find myself in. I refinanced my house on 5-5-05. It was an ARM. We choose to pay our taxes and insurance ourselves. Soon after the loan was stared we noticed that they(Wells Fargo) was taking out for insurance. We argued and fought and finally got that figured out and they gave us our money back. Then at the beginning of the next year they took our mortgage payments and used them for taxes which put us behind 2 months. Then they threatened us with foreclosure and would not take any payments. We finally ended up paying them 8k and went thru a repayment plan to catch up. Then they sent us paper work for a loan mod to a fixed rate loan and said our new investor was EMC.  Also noted is this was around the time Bear Stearns was bought out by JP Morgan. In our loan docs it said our loan was in a trust called Bears Stearns asset backed securities trust 2006 - 6 and this is what's on the foreclosure papers too.
At the end of 2009 we lost 2k from our income and was served foreclosure in august in 2010. I immediately in april of 2009 let the bank know and started the long fruitless battle for a loan mod to stay in our home.  We went to court  and a judgement was pronounced to the foreclosure. A sheriff's sale was set for the next year (This Year 2011) which was delayed and set for another date. We were still trying to get a loan mod. Then that date hit and it was canceled.  They gave us a loan mod but we did not accept it because it was no change in the interest rate they added 37k and 10 years.  We asked why they could not lower the interest rate and they sited that could not because of investor guidelines. So I ask who is the investor? They said bnym. I called again and asked them it was bears stearns. Every time I called it was different. So I sent a complaint to my local US senator who sent on to the OCC. Nothing has happened since. It's been 3 months since we had the sheriff's sale canceled. No word from Wells Fargo or the OCC yet. But we have received papers from United Guarantee who claims to be the insurer on the loan and wants us to do a loan mod with them. I am trying to figure what happens next and what I can do to save my loan. Anyone?

Quote 0 0
George Burns
I do not understand why during all this time, you have not engaged the services of a lawyer. Your situation has developed to such an extent that a doubt that going pro se would be sensible. Your available time is uncertain so you need to take action ASAP.

Useless, irrelevant letters to senators and the OCC are of no value since they have no power to intervene or do anything for you in Court or regarding the sale. What did you think that they have the power, authority or standing to do for you in this matter?
Quote 0 0
I understand what you are saying. We tried to get a lawyer but they all wanted to much up front whiles other said why fight it just let them have your home you can't beat them anyway.  It may be true but I am still a homeowner and they have not taken my house yet. But all that is water under the bridge. I need to know what I can do now. 
 I don't know what power the OCC or the Senator has. I wish I would have found this site  a year ago. But what's done is done.  By the way who are you as in what profession? George Burns?

Quote 0 0
Bill
Unfortunately George is most likely correct.  Your time to take significant action has most likely passed.  Your best course of action would have been to give the 8K you paid to "catch up" to an attorney at that point and let him sort it out.  Once you had a judgment entered against you and you allowed the appellate window to lapse you have VERY VERY limited options.  The time to raise the issues you have was PRIOR to the judgment and MAYBE shortly there after.  You can read the rules for your jurisdiction to check what the limitations are but I think you are going to find they may have already lapsed.  An attorney is really your best bet.  Pro Se post judgment just isn't going to get a lot done.  I'd even consider bankruptcy (chapter 13) as an avenue to preserve ownership of your home.  Usually the consultation is free. 

Sorry to hear about your situation.
Quote 0 0
George Burns
What does it matter who or what profession I or anyone else might be or be in? What should matter is whether you get relevant opinions etc.

In most of the areas with large numbers of foreclosures, there seems to be a fairly good supply and availability of legal help. If you state the area that you are in, maybe someone can give you some directions.
Quote 0 0

I paid 8k the 1st time they threatened to foreclose in 2006 not recently. I guess I found this site to late. I am doomed.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
It looks like you prefer to gripe and whine rather than actually seek relevant help.

What does it matter that you paid 8k to the bank in 2006?

Why are you readily answering a question that was not asked but avoiding the simple question which could get you some help, of What area are you in??????? Is it a BIG secret.
Quote 0 0
This is not legal advice. Consult an attorney.

I would file Motion for Reconsideration and Vacate the Summary Judgdment. This will re-open the file and give me another window to do Appeal.  I would set the Hearing date and bring a Court Reporter to get certified transcript for Appeal later. See a sample of Motion for Reconsideration.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53323570/Foreclosure-Motion-for-Rehearing-Reconsideration-Saxon-v-Jordan

I can also check if I was properly served i.e If there is a Notice, if the summons was personally delivered to me etc. If not, I would file Motion to Quash Service, this will stop the case on its tract. More info about Quash Service and legal pleadings at http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections

If you are serious about keeping your home and financially it is worthy to keep the house, please hire a good attorney. He can bring the lawsuit to a stop, negotiate a solution acceptable to you. Try to negotiate a payment plan with your lawyer for his fee. If you think financially it is not worthy to spend  lot of money and effort to keep the house, then fight it pro se to buy some time for your next move.
I saw many foreclosure cases are now at a standstill because the Banks have no standing to foreclose and people are still in their homes with the help of their lawyers. If you get a lawyers, show him legal pleadings at http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections so he can see what other good lawyers already achieve.
Best wishes
Quote 0 0
Cut me some slack man. You are the one making it sound impossible to win. Trying to find a lawyer that will help is not easy. I live in Wisconsin. I have been looking for someone who gets it and not charge me an arm and a leg up front. If you have someone in mind let me know.  I had a lawyer the 1st time the bank sent us foreclosure letters. He wrote one letter. Luckily (or not) my brother in law came into some money and helped us catch up thus canceling the up coming court case. The lawyer, even though he was nice didn't really accomplish anything.
 So does anyone know of a lawyer who gets it in the Madison Wisconsin area? 

Thank you very much Ann for your positive feedback. I will look this over right away.

Quote 0 0
There are many foreclosure defense info on this Forum, just type in the subject and do the search.
I also store many useful info in my  thread  "TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN FIGHTING FORECLOSURE" in this forum.
Best wishes
Quote 0 0
Florida Appeal Court : La Salle Bank v. Parker - Judgment reversed - Insufficient process service

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2011

CATHERINE PAIGE PARKER, et. al.,

Appellants,

v.

LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE

REGISTERED HOLDERS OF THE STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES

CORPORATION, STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST,

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES M SERIES 2003-BC8,

Appellee.

No. 4D10-482

[August 10, 2011]

CONNER, J.

Appellee LaSalle Bank (“LaSalle”) filed a complaint to foreclose on a

note and mortgage o n February 12, 2009. LaSalle unsuccessfully

attempted to personally serve Parker. LaSalle then filed an affidavit of

constructive service with an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry from

Scott Harris, a process server, showing that personal service could not be

made despite a diligent search and inquiry to determine the whereabouts

of Parker. LaSalle constructively served Parker by publishing notice of

action in the newspaper two weeks in a row, on May 27, 2009, and June

3, 2009.

A default and final judgment of foreclosure was entered in LaSalle’s

favor, and a public sale was scheduled for December 1, 2009. On

December 22, 2009, Parker filed an emergency motion to quash service

of process. After a n evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the

emergency motion to quash, stating that service was proper. We

determine that LaSalle did not conduct a sufficient diligent search and

inquiry to support constructive service of process and reverse the trial

court’s decision.

Parker argues that LaSalle’s affidavit of constructive service is

insufficient to demonstrate due diligence because the affidavit of diligent

search and inquiry was insufficient to demonstrate reasonable and

conscientious efforts to actually locate Parker. LaSalle primarily relies on

Reina v. Barnett Bank, 766 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) to support its

2

arguments. In Reina, the bank attempted to serve Reina with a

complaint to foreclose a mortgage. The property was vacant when the

bank attempted service. An affidavit was filed to show that diligent

search for Reina occurred. The affidavit stated service by the sheriff was

attempted, and a return of no service was received. The affidavit

provided that the bank attempted to locate Reina through the post office,

mortgage service records, telephone directories, and speaking to former

neighbors. Notice was then published in the newspaper two weeks in a

row. A default and summary judgment were entered when Reina failed

to file an answer. Ten months later, Reina served a motion to quash

service of process and to vacate the judgment. Id. at 291. Reina argued

that the bank knew at all times of his whereabouts because of his

checking account. The court determined that the bank’s “constructive

service was not so defective that it amounted to no notice at all.” Even

though the bank did not exhaust all options to inquire about Reina’s

whereabouts, at most the judgment was voidable. Id. at 292. Since

Reina had waited several months to file his motion to vacate, the court

held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to

vacate.

This case is more akin to Demars v. Village of Sandalwood Lakes

Homeowners Association, 625 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In that

case, a homeowners association filed suit to foreclose o n a lien for

unpaid assessments and obtained judgment. The association attempted

personal service twice at the homeowner’s residence. A tenant at the

residence did not know how to contact the homeowner. To establish a

diligent search for constructive service, the association’s attorney called a

mortgage holder a n d th e power company. Neither would divulge

information over the phone, and the association’s attorney did not follow

up with a letter. The court held the association’s search did not meet the

standards of reasonable diligence because the attorney for the

association did not follow up on any of his inquiries. Therefore, the

constructive service was defective, rendering the judgment of foreclosure

voidable.

In this case, the record reflects only one return of service. According

to the affidavit of diligent search and inquiry, Harris next searched credit

information, directory assistance, motor vehicle records, the post office,

property tax records, national death records, and prison records to try

and locate Parker. However, the affidavit shows the search for Parker

was less than diligent. Regarding efforts to locate Parker at her last

known address (the subject property) is a statement that “Process Server

stated: Tenant occupied.” No indication exists as to when the process

server went to the premises or how h e determined it was “tenant

3

occupied.” Further, no indication exists that the process server inquired

of the tenant the whereabouts of Parker. Under the section of the

affidavit titled “Inquiry of Neighbors at Last Known Address,” it merely

states: “Unable to contact neighbors,” with no statement as to who made

attempt, or on what dates or any description of any attempt made.

Under the section “Freedom of Information Act Inquiry Made to US Postal

Service,” it says “Requested change of address or boxholder information

[at property address] on 2/19/09. Upon receipt of their response, will

promptly revert,” with no follow-up of any information received from the

post office.

“[P]roof of a few attempts at service of process are insufficient to prove

diligent search.” Demars, 625 So. 2d at 1221. In this case, personal

service was attempted only once. As in Demars, the affidavit of diligent

search filed in this case displays a pattern of failure to follow up on

inquiries and leads that could have revealed Parker’s location. Therefore,

we find LaSalle’s search did not meet the standards of reasonable

diligence. Further, this case is distinguishable from Reina in that Parker

was diligent in pursuing the motion to quash. Parker’s trial counsel filed

a special limited appearance to attack the service of process fourteen

days after entry of final judgment and filed an emergency motion to

quash six days later. Therefore, we reverse, finding the final judgment

entered in this case voidable, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Meenu T. Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA005370.

Matthew D. Vales of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, LLC, Orlando, for

appellant.

Katherine J. Pauls Walke of Van Ness Law Firm, P.A., Deerfield

Beach, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73855840/FL-Defendant-Motion-to-Quash-Service-and-Set-Aside-Default


http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com
Our entire justice system is based on the quaint notion that lawyers and their employees, like process servers, are telling the truth. Here’s a big secret…….THEY’RE NOT ALL TELLING THE TRUTH.

The depositions from David Sterns’ employees describe disturbing, systemic failures and abuses of the system and reports rolling in from all over the state of flawed Service of Process and no notice of hearings and proceedings are very disturbing. Process servers are not delivering proper service on Defendants and some of the foreclosure mills in some cases are not sending notices of hearings and other pleadings to defendants. Any defense practitioner can cite any number of cases where they are not receiving hearing notices and pleadings….and if it’s happening when a Defendant is represented by counsel, what do you think is happening to unrepresented people? Let me sketch this out on a chart….

No Service of Process = No Due Process

No Service of Process = The Homeowner Still Owns The Home

Homeowner Ownership Claims = Massive Title Insurance Claims

Massive Title Insurance = Insolvency of the Title Insurance Market

Just wait until the smaller local press picks up on these issues and starts advising the minority members of the community about their Constitutional Right to Due Process. (The minority communities are going to be hardest hit by abuses by the process servers and the trash out companies.) It’s going to be hard to explain how Rosita Diaz got served on January 1, 2009 in Miami Dade when she just happened to be in Puerto Rico at the time. Process in some cases is just thrown on doorsteps or tossed at strangers….but we know that in too many cases, the process servers have abused the process. Forget about Robo Signers, Sewer Servers are where the real title claims are going to come from and you cannot just ignore those issues.

Attached below is an example of claims of no service based on a local attorney who I know well. I am certain that this attorney has absolute confidence and belief in his client’s claims and we are going to see many more such claims going forward. Remember, there are no statues of limitations on No Service of Process claims and that any Final Judgments or Titles to property based on fraudulent service of process is void. I expect that we’re going to hear wild stories and see quite a bit of documentation that will show just how out of control and flawed the process servers have become in the middle of this foreclosure chaos…..

NoService

 

BUT THERE’S A PROBLEM THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO WORK AROUND–THE FACT THAT TOO MANY PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY FRAUD IN THE SERVICE OF PROCESS, PROCESS….READ ON.

I’ve been posting about this for some time, and now the mainstream press has picked up on it….Read Story Here. Our entire foreclosure process, and now a significant portion of the title to real property in this country now rests on the shoulders of largely unregulated, unpoliced and until now, unnoticed subset of the foreclosure mill/foreclosure cockroach community. The Private Process Servers. Who are process servers? In Florida, a Plaintiff must personally hand an original summons issued by the court, along with the lawsuit to every defendant in a foreclosure case. The Sheriff appoints private parties to serve these lawsuits on these people, but any knucklehead can become a process server. The requirements are to become a process server are defined in Florida Statutes, but here’s the bombshell.

THERE IS SO MUCH BAD SERVICE OF PROCESS FLOATING ACROSS THIS STATE THAT IT’S GOING TO MAKE THE ROBOSIGNER CONTROVERSY SEEM SMALL

What is bad service? Not actually serving the defendant in the case, but lying to the court and saying the person was served. You see, a process server must file with the court an Affidavit of Service, an original document where he swears to the court, “On February 1, 2o10 at 4:10 pm, I personally served Matthew Weidner with a copy of the lawsuit and summons at his home at 1229 Central, St. Petersburg 33705. Weidner was 5 feet 2 inches tall, black and weighed about 200 pounds.” The problem is Matthew Weidner is white, 6 foot 1, weighs 165 and on February 1, 2010 at 4:10 pm he was on a flight bound for California….that service could never have happened so the process server lied. The big, big, big problem with service such as this example is…..

JUDGMENTS BASED ON FRAUDULENT SERVICE ARE VOID

Let that sink in and think about it. VOID. Not Voidable, but VOID AB INITIO or invalid from the outset. How many tens of thousands of titles to real property across this country are affected by this problem? Impossible to say at this point in time, but anecdotally, I see far too many cases of flawed service than we should ever permit. Elderly people, illiterate people, minorities that couldn’t avoid service or leave their homes even if they wanted to. And yet, the numbers of Affidavits of Diligent Search and Inquiry and Constructive Service in foreclosure cases is HUGE. No one was supervising the process servers. The lowly process server who got paid the same $25 if he was serving (or not serving) a foreclosure complaint on a $50,000 mortgage or a $5,000,000 mortgage. And now the fate of our entire title insurance industry and in fact our entire economy rests on the truth and veracity of the Affidavits of Service of Process that have been filed by these unregulated, unsupervised process servers.

Have a look at just two initial reports that were produced which provide some insight into this problem. How in God’s name have courts permitted this many summons to be lost? How in God’s name have we allowed so many foreclosure lawsuits to proceed based on constructive service? There are no legitimate answers to these questions. But then read the very lax requirements that are in place for process servers in this state.

GOD HELP US ALL.

Copy of LostSummonsReport

constructiveService

Now, just have a look at the signatures on these Affidavits of Service.

processserversignatures

processserversignatures1

processserversignatures2

processserversignatures3

Here is just a sampling of what we’re talking about….stay tuned we’re pulling info day and night. To all of you who are out there working in the process service industry and who read this, please pay attention. We know what you have done and are continuing to do. I also know that some of you were not aware what you were doing was wrong and that you got sucked into this. As discussed, come in now, come forward now and be part of the solution. You cannot hide from this. All the documents are filed in courts and the abuses and fraud will be there for all to see….FOREVER. Remember, if you come in now, you may get immunity from prosecution for all the crimes you’ve committed…..and seriously, why would you want to proctect those above you who pocketed all the money and put you at risk? Just call me or call law enforcement directly. Let’s work together to start making this right.

For press looking for the next story, this is it and this is bigger and much worse than anything else out there. If they won’t come forward, go out and find them….It is so easy and the wrongdoing so plain to see.

Margaret
10/24/10 at 11:18 AM

Quote 0 0
Florida Appeal Court : La Salle Bank v. Parker - Judgment reversed - Insufficient process service

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2011

CATHERINE PAIGE PARKER, et. al.,

Appellants,

v.

LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE

REGISTERED HOLDERS OF THE STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES

CORPORATION, STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST,

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES M SERIES 2003-BC8,

Appellee.

No. 4D10-482

[August 10, 2011]

CONNER, J.

Appellee LaSalle Bank (“LaSalle”) filed a complaint to foreclose on a

note and mortgage o n February 12, 2009. LaSalle unsuccessfully

attempted to personally serve Parker. LaSalle then filed an affidavit of

constructive service with an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry from

Scott Harris, a process server, showing that personal service could not be

made despite a diligent search and inquiry to determine the whereabouts

of Parker. LaSalle constructively served Parker by publishing notice of

action in the newspaper two weeks in a row, on May 27, 2009, and June

3, 2009.

A default and final judgment of foreclosure was entered in LaSalle’s

favor, and a public sale was scheduled for December 1, 2009. On

December 22, 2009, Parker filed an emergency motion to quash service

of process. After a n evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the

emergency motion to quash, stating that service was proper. We

determine that LaSalle did not conduct a sufficient diligent search and

inquiry to support constructive service of process and reverse the trial

court’s decision.

Parker argues that LaSalle’s affidavit of constructive service is

insufficient to demonstrate due diligence because the affidavit of diligent

search and inquiry was insufficient to demonstrate reasonable and

conscientious efforts to actually locate Parker. LaSalle primarily relies on

Reina v. Barnett Bank, 766 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) to support its

2

arguments. In Reina, the bank attempted to serve Reina with a

complaint to foreclose a mortgage. The property was vacant when the

bank attempted service. An affidavit was filed to show that diligent

search for Reina occurred. The affidavit stated service by the sheriff was

attempted, and a return of no service was received. The affidavit

provided that the bank attempted to locate Reina through the post office,

mortgage service records, telephone directories, and speaking to former

neighbors. Notice was then published in the newspaper two weeks in a

row. A default and summary judgment were entered when Reina failed

to file an answer. Ten months later, Reina served a motion to quash

service of process and to vacate the judgment. Id. at 291. Reina argued

that the bank knew at all times of his whereabouts because of his

checking account. The court determined that the bank’s “constructive

service was not so defective that it amounted to no notice at all.” Even

though the bank did not exhaust all options to inquire about Reina’s

whereabouts, at most the judgment was voidable. Id. at 292. Since

Reina had waited several months to file his motion to vacate, the court

held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to

vacate.

This case is more akin to Demars v. Village of Sandalwood Lakes

Homeowners Association, 625 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In that

case, a homeowners association filed suit to foreclose o n a lien for

unpaid assessments and obtained judgment. The association attempted

personal service twice at the homeowner’s residence. A tenant at the

residence did not know how to contact the homeowner. To establish a

diligent search for constructive service, the association’s attorney called a

mortgage holder a n d th e power company. Neither would divulge

information over the phone, and the association’s attorney did not follow

up with a letter. The court held the association’s search did not meet the

standards of reasonable diligence because the attorney for the

association did not follow up on any of his inquiries. Therefore, the

constructive service was defective, rendering the judgment of foreclosure

voidable.

In this case, the record reflects only one return of service. According

to the affidavit of diligent search and inquiry, Harris next searched credit

information, directory assistance, motor vehicle records, the post office,

property tax records, national death records, and prison records to try

and locate Parker. However, the affidavit shows the search for Parker

was less than diligent. Regarding efforts to locate Parker at her last

known address (the subject property) is a statement that “Process Server

stated: Tenant occupied.” No indication exists as to when the process

server went to the premises or how h e determined it was “tenant

3

occupied.” Further, no indication exists that the process server inquired

of the tenant the whereabouts of Parker. Under the section of the

affidavit titled “Inquiry of Neighbors at Last Known Address,” it merely

states: “Unable to contact neighbors,” with no statement as to who made

attempt, or on what dates or any description of any attempt made.

Under the section “Freedom of Information Act Inquiry Made to US Postal

Service,” it says “Requested change of address or boxholder information

[at property address] on 2/19/09. Upon receipt of their response, will

promptly revert,” with no follow-up of any information received from the

post office.

“[P]roof of a few attempts at service of process are insufficient to prove

diligent search.” Demars, 625 So. 2d at 1221. In this case, personal

service was attempted only once. As in Demars, the affidavit of diligent

search filed in this case displays a pattern of failure to follow up on

inquiries and leads that could have revealed Parker’s location. Therefore,

we find LaSalle’s search did not meet the standards of reasonable

diligence. Further, this case is distinguishable from Reina in that Parker

was diligent in pursuing the motion to quash. Parker’s trial counsel filed

a special limited appearance to attack the service of process fourteen

days after entry of final judgment and filed an emergency motion to

quash six days later. Therefore, we reverse, finding the final judgment

entered in this case voidable, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Meenu T. Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA005370.

Matthew D. Vales of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, LLC, Orlando, for

appellant.

Katherine J. Pauls Walke of Van Ness Law Firm, P.A., Deerfield

Beach, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73855840/FL-Defendant-Motion-to-Quash-Service-and-Set-Aside-Default


http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com
Our entire justice system is based on the quaint notion that lawyers and their employees, like process servers, are telling the truth. Here’s a big secret…….THEY’RE NOT ALL TELLING THE TRUTH.

The depositions from David Sterns’ employees describe disturbing, systemic failures and abuses of the system and reports rolling in from all over the state of flawed Service of Process and no notice of hearings and proceedings are very disturbing. Process servers are not delivering proper service on Defendants and some of the foreclosure mills in some cases are not sending notices of hearings and other pleadings to defendants. Any defense practitioner can cite any number of cases where they are not receiving hearing notices and pleadings….and if it’s happening when a Defendant is represented by counsel, what do you think is happening to unrepresented people? Let me sketch this out on a chart….

No Service of Process = No Due Process

No Service of Process = The Homeowner Still Owns The Home

Homeowner Ownership Claims = Massive Title Insurance Claims

Massive Title Insurance = Insolvency of the Title Insurance Market

Just wait until the smaller local press picks up on these issues and starts advising the minority members of the community about their Constitutional Right to Due Process. (The minority communities are going to be hardest hit by abuses by the process servers and the trash out companies.) It’s going to be hard to explain how Rosita Diaz got served on January 1, 2009 in Miami Dade when she just happened to be in Puerto Rico at the time. Process in some cases is just thrown on doorsteps or tossed at strangers….but we know that in too many cases, the process servers have abused the process. Forget about Robo Signers, Sewer Servers are where the real title claims are going to come from and you cannot just ignore those issues.

Attached below is an example of claims of no service based on a local attorney who I know well. I am certain that this attorney has absolute confidence and belief in his client’s claims and we are going to see many more such claims going forward. Remember, there are no statues of limitations on No Service of Process claims and that any Final Judgments or Titles to property based on fraudulent service of process is void. I expect that we’re going to hear wild stories and see quite a bit of documentation that will show just how out of control and flawed the process servers have become in the middle of this foreclosure chaos…..

NoService

 

BUT THERE’S A PROBLEM THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO WORK AROUND–THE FACT THAT TOO MANY PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY FRAUD IN THE SERVICE OF PROCESS, PROCESS….READ ON.

I’ve been posting about this for some time, and now the mainstream press has picked up on it….Read Story Here. Our entire foreclosure process, and now a significant portion of the title to real property in this country now rests on the shoulders of largely unregulated, unpoliced and until now, unnoticed subset of the foreclosure mill/foreclosure cockroach community. The Private Process Servers. Who are process servers? In Florida, a Plaintiff must personally hand an original summons issued by the court, along with the lawsuit to every defendant in a foreclosure case. The Sheriff appoints private parties to serve these lawsuits on these people, but any knucklehead can become a process server. The requirements are to become a process server are defined in Florida Statutes, but here’s the bombshell.

THERE IS SO MUCH BAD SERVICE OF PROCESS FLOATING ACROSS THIS STATE THAT IT’S GOING TO MAKE THE ROBOSIGNER CONTROVERSY SEEM SMALL

What is bad service? Not actually serving the defendant in the case, but lying to the court and saying the person was served. You see, a process server must file with the court an Affidavit of Service, an original document where he swears to the court, “On February 1, 2o10 at 4:10 pm, I personally served Matthew Weidner with a copy of the lawsuit and summons at his home at 1229 Central, St. Petersburg 33705. Weidner was 5 feet 2 inches tall, black and weighed about 200 pounds.” The problem is Matthew Weidner is white, 6 foot 1, weighs 165 and on February 1, 2010 at 4:10 pm he was on a flight bound for California….that service could never have happened so the process server lied. The big, big, big problem with service such as this example is…..

JUDGMENTS BASED ON FRAUDULENT SERVICE ARE VOID

Let that sink in and think about it. VOID. Not Voidable, but VOID AB INITIO or invalid from the outset. How many tens of thousands of titles to real property across this country are affected by this problem? Impossible to say at this point in time, but anecdotally, I see far too many cases of flawed service than we should ever permit. Elderly people, illiterate people, minorities that couldn’t avoid service or leave their homes even if they wanted to. And yet, the numbers of Affidavits of Diligent Search and Inquiry and Constructive Service in foreclosure cases is HUGE. No one was supervising the process servers. The lowly process server who got paid the same $25 if he was serving (or not serving) a foreclosure complaint on a $50,000 mortgage or a $5,000,000 mortgage. And now the fate of our entire title insurance industry and in fact our entire economy rests on the truth and veracity of the Affidavits of Service of Process that have been filed by these unregulated, unsupervised process servers.

Have a look at just two initial reports that were produced which provide some insight into this problem. How in God’s name have courts permitted this many summons to be lost? How in God’s name have we allowed so many foreclosure lawsuits to proceed based on constructive service? There are no legitimate answers to these questions. But then read the very lax requirements that are in place for process servers in this state.

GOD HELP US ALL.

Copy of LostSummonsReport

constructiveService

Now, just have a look at the signatures on these Affidavits of Service.

processserversignatures

processserversignatures1

processserversignatures2

processserversignatures3

Here is just a sampling of what we’re talking about….stay tuned we’re pulling info day and night. To all of you who are out there working in the process service industry and who read this, please pay attention. We know what you have done and are continuing to do. I also know that some of you were not aware what you were doing was wrong and that you got sucked into this. As discussed, come in now, come forward now and be part of the solution. You cannot hide from this. All the documents are filed in courts and the abuses and fraud will be there for all to see….FOREVER. Remember, if you come in now, you may get immunity from prosecution for all the crimes you’ve committed…..and seriously, why would you want to proctect those above you who pocketed all the money and put you at risk? Just call me or call law enforcement directly. Let’s work together to start making this right.

For press looking for the next story, this is it and this is bigger and much worse than anything else out there. If they won’t come forward, go out and find them….It is so easy and the wrongdoing so plain to see.

Margaret
10/24/10 at 11:18 AM

Quote 0 0
Bill

Bruce wrote:
Cut me some slack man. You are the one making it sound impossible to win. Trying to find a lawyer that will help is not easy. I live in Wisconsin. I have been looking for someone who gets it and not charge me an arm and a leg up front. If you have someone in mind let me know.  I had a lawyer the 1st time the bank sent us foreclosure letters. He wrote one letter. Luckily (or not) my brother in law came into some money and helped us catch up thus canceling the up coming court case. The lawyer, even though he was nice didn't really accomplish anything.
 So does anyone know of a lawyer who gets it in the Madison Wisconsin area? 

Thank you very much Ann for your positive feedback. I will look this over right away.

Bruce, I hope you didn't take the feedback you received as a personal attack on you or your situation.  We are not suggesting that it is impossible to win, that is far from the truth.  Pro Se litigants are getting more and more successful as they become exposed to more information and become more sophisticated.   It's not impossible to win, THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU ALREADY LOST.  Overcoming a judgment when the appeal process limitations has run out leaves you VERY limited options.  The time to fight the foreclosure has ended and YOU LOST.  There MAY POSSIBLY be some recourse but without an attorney familiar with the laws and procedures of your jurisdiction your chances are as close to zero as you are going to get. 

Sorry for the bad news, if you really want to keep your home you may want to start thinking about bankruptcy related options or as you posted before, some modification agreement if it is still on the table.

I'd be trying to find an attorney of some kind for some help.  You should look for some consumer advocacy attorneys.  Many times they have more reasonable fees and are more interested in helping than a pay check.

I wish you the best of luck.
Quote 0 0

Here are 2 attorneys who graduated from Max Gardner boot camp

Wisconson

Edward Harness
Harness Law Office
316 N Milwaukee St #316
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 647-2222
Send Email
Last Attended a Bankruptcy Boot Camp on July 27, 2007

Back to top

Mike Maxwell
Maxwell Attorneys LLC
8112 W. Bluemound Road, Ste. 61
Wauwatosa, WI 53213
(414) 727-0123
Send Email
Last Attended a Foreclosure Boot Camp on September 17, 2010
Last Attended a Bankruptcy Boot Camp on March 16, 2007

 

Find an atty who has graduated Max Gardner’s bootcamp…
http://www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com/find-graduates

 

*******************************************************

I have a friend who fought Pro Se, lost the case in December 2010. His house was sold on auction, taken back by the bank. He discovered that he was never served,on  the date and time noted by the Server on the Summons my friend was at another friend's house. So he hired an attorney, filed Motion to Quash Service and Vacate the Judgment and the Sale. The Motion was granted, the sale was cancelled. The Bank has to restart at square one, serves him the summon again. This time he is represented by his attorney.

 

Bruce, go to the Court House and review the foreclosure cases (they are public record). Note the name of attorneys on the cases which seem to you the attorneys are fighting hard. Go see them. Be patient. Keep searching and you will find a good one. You can also go to http://www.avvo.com, read attorneys replies and call them.

Best wishes

 

 

 

Quote 0 0
I found this attorney in Winsconsin in Avvo.com

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/facing-mortgage-foreclosure-in-wisconsin?ref=result_10_title
Quote 0 0
List of 46 foreclosure defense lawyers in Winsconsin

http://www.avvo.com/search/lawyer_search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Foreclosure&loc=winsconsin&commit=Find+lawyers
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...