We’ve discussed UETA and eSign and the significance of explicit consent…in most cases pre-2008…there isn’t any. Here is a Indiana case that is riveting: Good v. Wells Fargo. Read it HERE.
In this case, Bryan Good stated that in this 2008 transaction there were apparently 2 notes. Wells Fargo asserts that Good signed an eNote with a new (policy change) paragraph 11 – and that is still not enough.
Yes – go get your promissory notes and look for paragraph 11. You probably won’t see it if your note pre-dates 2008. Continue reading →
In search of Continuing Legal Education credits I wandered into a different world last Thursday and Friday at the American Conference Institute’s Residential Mortgage & Regulatory Conference, Dallas, TX. The people at the conference, mostly lawyers for institutions seeking to eject people from their homes, were clearly human beings; Mostly youngish (under 55). Except for a token two-person panel representing home owners and a group of judges, most of the speakers seemed to agree that there was little need for meaningful judicial involvement in throwing home owners out of their homes. Indeed, many appeared indignant that families would not simply march Continue reading →
When all is said and done the courts come back to the main premise, “Did you pay?”. That is so injudicious on so many levels. The deeper we get into securitization and contract law we soon realize (after dissection) there is one very basic question being ignored – “Is the Promissory Note even enforceable?”
Sheila Bair’s (former FDIC Chairperson) new book, Bull By the Horns, addresses issues that must be taken into careful consideration when considering the validity of foreclosures – and she does it with impressive candor. Sheila separates the MBS into 2 categories: Continue reading →
Ya think, maybe? MERS alleges to have registered 71 million mortgages. There were likely another 15-20 million “non-MERS” mortgages…
Lynn Szymoniak in Salon:
BY DAVID DAYEN Prepare to be outraged. Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman’s lawsuit uncover horrifying scheme (Update)
If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question: Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to Continue reading →
Pro Se Plaintiff Deborah Beaton filed a Complaint against JPMorgan Chase wherein Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) joined in a Motion to Dismiss with Chase. In her Second Amended Complaint (SAC), Beaton alleges three causes of action:
(1) Violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against NWTS,
(2) Incomplete Indorsement/Chain of Title, and
(3) violations of the Washington Deed of Trust Act (“DTA”).
USDC Honorable Richard A. Jones gave Beaton her causes of action (1) and (2) against the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss… and the beat goes on! Continue reading →
And unless Americans are willing to face the facts and hold people (including corporations) ethically and financially accountable, we will lose the land and freedom we have fought so hard to protect. Democracy is in distress.
The question every American is asking is “when will this depressed economy start to recover?” The typical political answer is, “there is no silver bullet.” Then why do these politicians keep using the shotgun approach against homeowners?! Continue reading →
In 2010, Meg Rehrauer, a J.D. Candidate at Northeastern University School of Law, wrote a memorable paper:
REGAINING THE WONDERFUL LIFE OF HOMEOWNERSHIP POST-FORECLOSURE DEFENDING HOMEOWNERS FROM EVICTION AFTER FORECLOSURE BY ATTACKING THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF THE FORECLOSING ENTITY
It’s Christmas 2 years later and we’re still reeling in foreclosures and frauds committed by the banks because America is stuck in the portion of George Bailey’s dream as if he hadn’t been born. Continue reading →
Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure?
In a rare “sua sponte” (on their own) direct appellate review, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear an appeal considering the controversial “produce the note” defense in foreclosure cases and whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Based on arguments asserted by the lender, the court may also consider the circumstances by which a mortgage granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) can be effectively foreclosed in Massachusetts. Continue reading →