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
FnDoomed
Let's say somebody wanted to foreclose on me in non-judicial NH.  They do that here by advertising in a newspaper for a few weeks, and then auctioning off your house.  Let's further say that I filed BK to stop it, and while in BK I got evidence tending to hint that the ones doing the foreclosing had no right to do so. 

Wrongful foreclosure is a tort that requires at a completed foreclosure, and there is no such thing as an "attempted tort" ...

So what's the proper tort for attempted wrongful foreclosure ?

Quote 0 0
?
Appears it would be more of a violation of the BK stay.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
I'm sorry I should have been more clear on the need for a real torthead

No violation of the stay - they attepmted the "wrongful foreclosure" before I filed.  I could plead FDCPA violations but anything more than a year ago will get shot down.  I want to reach back two years so I need to plead a civil violation that goes back two years or even more.  Most private actions in NH law need to be brought within 3 years.  A nice tort would work.

I can't plead attempted wrongful foreclosure because there is no such thing. As another example, I can plead the tort "Invasion of Privacy - False LIght" for the newspaper ad...

 
Quote 0 0
Mort
Quote:
Wrongful foreclosure is a tort that requires at a completed foreclosure, and there is no such thing as an "attempted tort" ...

So what's the proper tort for attempted wrongful foreclosure ?
 

It seems to me that you have answered your own question:  there is no such thing as an "attempted tort".

Suppose that you and I got into a barroom argument.  You made me angry, so I was inclined to attack you and do you severe bodily injury.  If I had actually followed through, you might have a valid cause of action against me for assault and battery.  But my friends restrained me and I neither threatened or assaulted you, nor battered you.  What is the tort for that??

It seems pretty clear that there is none.

Suppose that I make a false representation to you, seeking to induce you into a transaction.  Had you relied on this false representation to your detriment and suffered damages, you might have a valid cause of action against me for fraud.  But you discovered the misrepresentation and simply refrained from doing business with me.

There is no common law tort for attempted fraud.  Even if there was, what would be the measure of damages?

I am driving down the highway and a car veers into my lane without signalling.  The operator of this vehicle is clearly negligent in operation of his vehicle.  But I see the danger in time, braking and avoiding any accident.  The near accident causes me to become very upset and I pull over to the side of the road to calm down.  I noted the vehicle's license number.  Can I sue for negligence?

Realize that there wasn't actually any accident.  I am just upset and shaken.

Even if I could prove negligence, which is much harder under this set of facts (it is really my word against the driver of the other vehicle and there is no corroborating physical damage to either vehicle to help prove the nature of the negligent operation of the other vehicle), the measure of damages is pretty speculative.

How is this really that different from the anxiety I feel when I almost made a reservation on an airline flight and that flight later crashed?  If the crash was due to airline or pilot negligence, do I have a cause of action because I was thinking about taking that flight.

I bought a lottery ticket.  I picked four of the six numbers exactly and missed the other two by precisely one digit.  I was so distressed at losing the lottery so closely, that I had a heart attack and nearly died.  If the lottery hadn't chosen these numbers, I wouldn't have suffered the heart attack would I?  What is the tort for the lottery commission choosing numbers which cause me grave anxiety?

We go through life suffering a variety of disappointments and near disasters.  If being the victim of a near disaster was an actionable tort, our courts would be perpetually mired in questionable litigation. 

You need to move beyond the specious and focus on meritworthy defensive avenue.  A suit on an attempted tort, however denominated, is not amongst these!
Quote 0 0
Laura
FnDoomed, I just talked to my lawyer about the FDCPA violations and the SoL. She said the lawsuit started debt collection without naming the real creditor (and other violations); therefore, since I had denied the debt and demanded validation and the name of the creditor, the SoL was not exceeded even after two years. I don't know if this is the case in every state. I found a decision somewhere, not sure where, that confirmed the attempted debt collection during a lawsuit was an ongoing violation. If you think it would be helpful, I'll try to find it for you. The recent big win for Nye Lavelle discusses these issues too. 

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/08/09/coursen-vs-jpmorgan-chase-co-et-al-another-big-win-opens-the-door-for-extensive-discovery-and-e-discovery/ 

Also, I found a decision from the US Supreme Court holding that violation of the FDCPA constitutes unfair and deceptive business practices under the FTC.  As I understand it, unfair and deceptive business practices warrant treble damages.
Quote 0 0
Luke
Generally, I think that Mort's analysis above is correct.

Quote:
FnDoomed, I just talked to my lawyer about the FDCPA violations and the SoL. She said the lawsuit started debt collection without naming the real creditor (and other violations); therefore, since I had denied the debt and demanded validation and the name of the creditor, the SoL was not exceeded even after two years. I don't know if this is the case in every state. I found a decision somewhere, not sure where, that confirmed the attempted debt collection during a lawsuit was an ongoing violation. If you think it would be helpful, I'll try to find it for you. The recent big win for Nye Lavelle discusses these issues too.


But Laura also makes an interesting point as to whether some violation is ongoing.  That is, it is one thing where an actionable wrong has a specific date for which the cause of action clearly arose.  It is quite another where not only was there some breach of duty or tort, but that breach or tort continued, even to the present date.

Separately, it seems to me that you are on somewhat firmer ground in considering an invasion of privacy - false light claim.  Even so, you need to carefully weigh what Mort has posted within the prism of possible damages.

Suppose that you were able to readily prove that an invasion of privacy has occurred (and you will have the burden of proof on this).  What actual damages can you prove arising from such a tort??

In several posts at this site, Mr. Roper emphasized that distressed borrowers need to carefully weigh bringing actions as a plaintiff.  The plaintiff bears not only a burden of proof as to its claims, but also must necessarily prove damages.

You could go to very great lengths to try to prove an invasion of privacy tort only to discover that the end state is that you might be awarded nominal damages of $1 or even such small damages (e.g. $100) that your expended energy is not worth the effort.

If your goal is the preservation and protection of the property, you need to be asking yourself whether you are merely distracting yourself from the key issue associated with making out a strong defensive case on the central issues.
Quote 0 0
Laura
Would the tort of conversion apply, especially after a false mortgage assignment was filed?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion (law)

Conversion is a common law tort. A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another.[1] It is a tort of strict liability.[2] Its criminal counterpart is theft.
Examples are seen in cases where trees are cut down and the lumber hauled from the land by someone not having clear ownership; or removing furniture belonging to another from a cohabited dwelling, placing it in storage and not telling the owner of the whereabouts. In medieval times, a conversion would occur when bolts of cloth were bailed for safe keeping, and the bailee or a third party took them and made clothes for their own use or for sale. (See below)
Many questions concerning joint ownership in enterprises such as a partnership belong in equity, and do not rise to the level of a conversion. Traditionally, a conversion occurs when somchattel is lost, then found by another who appropriates it to his own use without legal authority to do so. It has also applied in cases where chattels were bailed for safekeeping, then misused or misappropriated by the bailee or a third party.
Conversion, as a purely civil wrong, is distinguishable from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act inconsistent with another's rights, and theft will also be conversion. But not all conversions are thefts because conversion requires no element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. If one claims an unjust enrichment, the person who has another's property may always raise a change of position defense, to say they have unwittingly used up the assets that were transferred. For conversion, there always must be an element of voluntarily dealing with another's property, inconsistently with their rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

 

Quote 0 0
FnDoomed

Hey Laura if you got that supreme court case about FDCPA violations clearly being unfair and deceptive then I'd like a link to that one.   I'll be looking too because I know I've seen something like that.

Conversion doesn't work either because it didn't happen.  I can't plead negligent anything except negligent infliction of emotional distress because most negligence claims require a duty that was neglected.  I might be able to plead some continuing fraud but I have to get past 9(b).

And about defending my property... No problem there, that's why I have time to think about the other stuff - I've done everything I can to win my foreclosure arguments.

 

Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Here's one - with a few fun facts.

Jerman v. CARLISLE, McNELLIE, RINI, KRAMER, 130 S. Ct. 1605 - Supreme Court 2010 We decline to adopt the expansive reading of § 1692k(c) that Carlisle proposes. We have long recognized the "common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally." Barlow v. United States, 7 Pet. 404, 411, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) (opinion for the Court by Story, J.); see also Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) ("The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system").[

 

Moreover, a lawyer's interest in avoiding FDCPA liability may not always be adverse to her client. Some courts have held clients vicariously liable for their lawyers' violations of the FDCPA. See, e.g., Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507, 1516 (C.A.9 1994); see also First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. v. Soucie, 924 P.2d 1200, 1202 (Colo.App.1996).

 

Successful plaintiffs are entitled to "actual damage[s]," plus costs and "a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court." Ibid. A court may also award "additional damages," subject to a statutory cap of $1,000 for individual actions,

 

With some exceptions not relevant here, violations of the FDCPA are deemed to be unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...