What Homeowners Should Know About Foreclosure Defense

10 Friday May 2019

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Case Study, Credit, Federal Court, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adversary proceeding, affidavits, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Banks and Lenders, Consequences of a Foreclosure, Court, Deed of Trust, defaulting on a mortgage, False notary signatures, Forbearance, Foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense strategy, Foreclosure in California, foreclosure in Florida, foreclosure process, homeowners, judicial foreclosures, lender, Loan Modification, MERS, mortgage, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage law, Mortgage loan, Mortgage note, mortgages, non-judicial foreclosures, Promissory note, Robo-signing, Securitization, securitized, UCC, Uniform Commercial Code

Over the past few years, a growing number of homeowners in the foreclosure process have begun to fight back, by stalling foreclosure proceedings or stopping them altogether. The legal strategy employed by these homeowners is known as foreclosure defense.

Since 2007, nearly 4.2 million people in the United States have lost their homes to foreclosure. By early 2014, that number is expected to climb to 6 million. Historically, the legal process of foreclosure, one that requires a homeowner to return his or her house to a lender after defaulting on a mortgage, has tilted in favor of the banks and lenders — who are well-versed in the law and practice of foreclosure.

The simplest way to avoid foreclosure is by modifying the mortgage. In a mortgage modification, the homeowner convinces the lender to renegotiate the terms of the mortgage in order to make the payments more affordable.

A mortgage modification can include:

A reduction or change in the loan’s interest rate.
A reduction in the loan’s principal.
A reduction or elimination of late fees and penalties for non-payment.
A reduction in your monthly payment.
Forbearance, to temporarily stop making payments, or extend the time for making payments.

The goal of the foreclosure defense strategy is to prove that the bank does not have a right to foreclose. The chances of success rest on an attorney’s ability to challenge how the mortgage industry operates. The strategy aims to take advantage of flaws in the system, and presumes illegal or unethical behavior on the part of lenders.

Foreclosure defense is a new concept that continues to grow alongside the rising tide of foreclosure cases. While some courts accept foreclosure defense arguments, others find them specious and hand down decisions more beneficial to banks than to homeowners.

A growing number of victories by homeowners in state and federal courts have altered the foreclosure landscape dramatically, giving optimism to tens of thousands of other homeowners in similar situations. And because many of America’s large banks have acknowledged unorthodox, unaccepted or even illegal practices in the areas of mortgages, loan modifications and foreclosures, they inadvertently have given homeowners additional ammunition with which to fight.

Foreclosure Defense Varies by State

A major strategy of foreclosure defense is to make a bank substantiate clear chains of title for a mortgage and a promissory note. If any link in either chain is questionable, it can nullify a lender’s ability to make a valid claim on a property.

The foreclosure process varies somewhat from state to state, depending on whether your state uses mortgages or deeds of trust for the purchase of real property. A mortgage or deed of trust outlines a transfer of an interest in a property; it is not, in itself, a promise to pay a debt. Instead, it contains language that gives the lender the right to take the property if the borrower breaches the terms of the promissory note.

If you signed a mortgage, it generally means you live in a state that conducts judicial foreclosures, meaning that a lender has to sue in court in order to get a judgment to foreclose. If you signed a deed of trust, you live in a state that conducts non-judicial foreclosures, which means that a lender does not have to go to court to initiate a foreclosure action.

In a judicial state, homeowners have the advantage because they can require that the lender produce proof and perfection of claim, at the initial court hearing. In a non-judicial state, the lender does not have to prove anything because the state’s civil code gives it the right to foreclose after a notice of default has been sent. So in non-judicial states, a homeowner must file a civil action against the lender to compel it to provide proof of claim.

Regardless of whether you signed a mortgage or a deed of trust, you also signed a promissory note — a promise to pay back a specified amount over a set period of time. The note goes directly to the lender and is held on its books as an asset for the amount of the promised repayment. The mortgage or deed of trust is a public record and, by law, must be recorded in a county or town office. Each time a promissory note is assigned, i.e. sold to another party, the note itself must be endorsed with the name of the note’s new owner. Each time a deed of trust or mortgage is assigned to another entity, that transaction must be recorded in the town or county records office.

Foreclosure Defense and Chain of Title

Here is where foreclosure defense can begin to chip away at a bank’s claim on your property. In order for a mortgage, deed of trust or promissory note to be valid, it must have what is known as “perfection” of the chain of title. In other words, there must be a clear, unambiguous record of ownership from the time you signed your papers at closing, to the present moment. Any lapse in the chain of title causes a “defect” in the instrument, making it invalid.

In reality, lapses occur frequently. As mortgages and deeds began to routinely be bought and sold, the sheer magnitude of those transfers made it difficult, costly and time-consuming for institutions to record every transaction in a county records office. But in order to have some method of record-keeping, the banks created the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), a privately held company that tracks the servicing rights and ownership of the nation’s mortgages. The MERS holds more than 66 million American mortgages in its database.

When a foreclosure is imminent, MERS appoints a party to foreclose, based on its records of who owns the mortgage or deed of trust. But some courts have rejected the notion that MERS has the legal authority to assign title to a particular party in the first place. A court can decide MERS has no “standing,” meaning that the court does not recognize its right to initiate foreclosure since MERS does not have any financial interest in either the property or the promissory note.

And since MERS has essentially bypassed the county record-keeping system, the perfection of chain of title cannot be independently verified. This is where a foreclosure defense can gain traction, by questioning the perfection of the chain of title and challenging MERS’ legal authority to assign title.

Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Some courts may also challenge MERS’ ability to transfer the promissory note, since it likely has been sold to a different entity, or in most cases, securitized (pooled with other loans) and sold to an unknown number of entities. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Carpenter v. Longan, it was ruled that where a promissory note goes, a deed of trust must follow. In other words, the deed and the note cannot be separated.

If your note has been securitized, it now belongs to someone other than the holder of your mortgage. This is known as bifurcation — the deed of trust points to one party, while the promissory note points to another. Thus, a foreclosure defense claims that since the relationship between the deed and the note has become defective, it renders the deed of trust unenforceable.

Your promissory note must also have a clear chain of title, according to the nation’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the body of regulations that governs these types of financial instruments. But over and over again, borrowers have been able to demonstrate that subsequent assignments of promissory notes have gone unendorsed.

In fact, it has been standard practice for banks to leave the assignment blank when loans are sold and/or securitized and, customarily, the courts have allowed blank assignment to be an acceptable form of proof of ownership. However, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in U.S. Bank v. Ibenez ruled that blank assignment is not sufficient to claim perfection, it provided another way in which a foreclosure can be challenged.

In their most egregious attempts to remedy these glaring omissions, some banks have actually tried to reverse-engineer chains of title, using fraudulent means such as:

Robo-signing of documents.
False notary signatures.
Submission of questionable, inaccurate or patently counterfeit affidavits.

Exposure of these dishonest methods halted many foreclosures in their tracks and helped increase governmental scrutiny of banks’ foreclosure procedures.

Other Foreclosure Defense Strategies

Another option for a homeowner who wishes to expose a lender’s insufficient perfection of title is to file for bankruptcy. In a Chapter 7 filing, you can declare your home an “unsecured asset” and wait for the lender to object. This puts the burden of proof on the lender to show a valid chain of assignment. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can file an Adversary Proceeding, wherein you sue your lender to compel it to produce valid proof of claim. The Bankruptcy Code requires that your lender provide evidence of “perfected title.”

Another foreclosure defense argument explores the notion of whether the bank is a real party of interest. If it’s not, it doesn’t have the right to foreclose. For example, if your loan has been securitized, your original lender has already been paid. At that point, the debt was written off and the debt should be considered settled. In order to prove that your original lender has profited from the securitization of your mortgage, it is advised that you obtain a securitization audit. The audit is completed by a third-party researcher who tracks down your loan, and then provides you with a court-admissible document showing that your loan has been securitized.

A foreclosure defense can also argue that once a loan has been securitized, or converted to stock, it is no longer a loan and cannot be converted back into a loan. That means that your promissory note no longer exists, as such. And if that is true, then your mortgage or deed of trust is no longer securing anything. Instead of the bank insisting that you have breached the contract specified in the promissory note, foreclosure defense argues that the bank has actually destroyed that agreement itself. And if the agreement doesn’t exist, how can it be enforced? A corollary to this argument states that your loan is no longer enforceable because it is now owned by many shareholders and a promissory note is only enforceable in its whole entirety. How can thousands of people foreclose on your house?

While the foreclosure defense strategy is legal in nature, and can be handled differently by different courts, it should not be ignored when preparing a case.

The tactic of attacking a lender’s shoddy or illegal practices has proven to be the most successful strategy of foreclosure defense, since most courts are loathe to accept unlawful or unethical behavior, even from banks. If a homeowner can present clear instances of lost or missed paperwork, demonstrate that notes were misplaced or improperly endorsed, or prove that documents were forged, robo-signed, or reversed-engineered, the more likely a court will rule in his or her favor.

If you are considering a foreclosure defense, you have two options, you can either represent yourself in the Court as a Pro Se Litigant, (USING OUR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE PACKAGE), if you cannot afford to pay Attorneys Fees, as foreclosure proceeding can take years while you are living in your home WITHOUT PAYING ANY MORTGAGE. Or You may retain a Legal Counsel to Defend you. If you chose the second option, it is imperative that you retain the services of professional legal counsel. Regardless of how educated you are about the process, this is an area of law that requires a well-thought-out, competent presentation in a State or Federal court. Nonetheless, the Attorneys fees for foreclosure defense can accumulate over the years to thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars, that is why most homeowners, opt to represent themselves in the proceedings which can take anywhere between 1-7 years, while homeowners are living in their homes Mortgage-Free. The good news is that most foreclosure defense Attorneys equally use the same materials found in our foreclosure defense package to defend homeowner’s properties, and with these same materials, you can equally represent yourself as a Pro Se (Self Representing), litigant.

A successful foreclosure defense may prohibit or delay the foreclosure process or it simply may induce a lending institution to negotiate a loan modification that allows you to stay in your home — which, of course, was the goal in the first place. You can equally be awarded damages by the courts for mortgage law violations by the lenders, in addition to loan modification.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/ “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to lose your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will show you step-by-step litigation solutions helping you challenge these fraudsters and ultimately saving your home from foreclosure either through loan modification or “Pro Se” litigation visit: https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/

If you have received a Notice of Default “NOD”, take a deep breath, as this the time to start the FIGHT! and Protect your EQUITY!

If you do Nothing, you will see the WRONG parties WITHOUT standing STEAL your home right under your nose, and by the time you realize it, it might be too late! If your property has been foreclosed, use the available options on our package to reverse already foreclosed home and reclaim your most prized possession! You can do it by yourself! START Today — STOP Foreclosure Tomorrow!

If you are a homeowner already in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and needs to proceed with Adversary Proceeding to challenge the validity of Security Interest or Lien on your home, Our Adversary Proceeding package may be just what you need.

How Homeowners Can Find Who Owns Their Mortgage Loans

17 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Judicial States, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, RESPA, Securitization, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Fannie Mae, Finance, Freddie Mac, HAMP, homeowners, Loan servicing, MERS, mortgage, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Mortgage loan, Mortgage modification, Mortgage servicer, Promissory note, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, RESPA, Securitization

A mortgage loan is typically assigned several times during its term, and may be held by one entity but serviced by another. Different disclosure requirements apply depending upon whether information is sought about the ownership of the mortgage loan or its servicing. Knowing exactly who owns and services the mortgage is a critical first step to negotiating a binding workout or loan modification. The information is needed to send a notice of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act, to identify the proper party to name and serve in a lien avoidance proceeding, and to identify other potential parties in litigation. This information may also provide a defense to foreclosure or stay relief in bankruptcy if these proceedings are not initiated by a proper party.

1. Send a TILA § 1641(f)(2) Request to the Servicer

The Truth in Lending Act requires the loan servicer to tell the borrower who the actual holder of the mortgage really is.3 Upon written request from the borrower, the servicer must state the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation or the master servicer of the obligation.

One problem with this provision’s enforcement had been the lack of a clear remedy for the servicer’s non-compliance. However, the Helping Families Save Their HomesAct of 20095 amends TILA to explicitly provide that violations may be remedied byTILA’s private right of action found in § 1640(a), which includes recovery of actualdamages, statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.6 The amendment adds the ownerdisclosure provision found in § 1641(f)(2) to the list of TILA requirements that give rise to a cause of action against the creditor if there is a failure to comply.

See NCLC Foreclosures (2d ed. 2007 and Supp.), § 4.3.4.

15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2). The provision should require disclosure to the borrower’s advocate with a properly signed release form. See NCLC Foreclosures, Appx. A, Form 3, infra.

If the servicer provides information about the master servicer, a follow-up requestshould be made to the master servicer to provide the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation. Pub. L. No. 111-22, § 404 (May 20, 2009). See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).

1640(a) refers to “any creditor who fails to comply,” by specifically adding as an actionable requirement a disclosure provision which Congress knew is directed toservicers and therefore involves compliance by creditors through their servicers,

Congress chose to make creditors liable to borrowers for noncompliance by servicers.The TILA provision does not specify how long the servicer has to respond to the request. Perhaps because no parties were directly liable under § 1640(a) for violations of the disclosure requirement before the 2009 amendment, no case law had developed on what is a reasonable response time. In the future, courts may be guided by recent regulations issued by the Federal Reserve Board requiring servicers to provide payoff statements within a reasonable time after request by the borrower. In most circumstances, a reasonable response time is within five business days of receipt.

Applying this benchmark to § 1641(f)(2) requests would seem appropriate since surely no more time is involved in responding to a request for ownership information than preparing a payoff statement. Alternatively, a 30-day response period should be the outer limit for timeliness since that is the time period Congress used in § 1641(g).

2. Review Transfer of Ownership Notices

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 also added a new provision in TILA which requires that whenever ownership of a mortgage loan securing a consumer’s principal dwelling is transferred, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee must notify the borrower in writing, within 30 days after the loan is sold or assigned, of the following information:

• the new creditor’s identity, address, and telephone number;

• the date of transfer;

• location where the transfer is recorded;

• how the borrower may reach an agent or party with authority to act on

behalf of the new creditor; and

• any other relevant information regarding the new owner.9

The new law applies to any transfers made after the Act’s effective date, which was

May 20, 2009. The Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) recently

announced a program to implement the new law.

Reg Z § 226.36(c)(1(iii); NCLC Truth in Lending, § 9.9.3 (6th ed. 2007 and

2008 Supp.).

Official Staff Commentary § 226.36(c)(1)(iii)-1.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1)(A)–(E).

Under “MERS InvestorID,” notices will be automatically generated whenever a“Transfer of Beneficial Rights” occurs on the MERS system. A sample Transfer Noticeand “Training Bulletin” are available for download at http://www.mersinc.org/news. MERS is taking the position, based on the wording of the statute (which refers to “place where ownership of the debt is recorded”), that it can comply by disclosing only the location where the original security instrument is recorded because the note is not a “recordable Attorneys should request that clients provide copies of any ownership notices they have received based on this new law. Assuming that there has been compliance with the statute, the attorney may be able to piece together a chain of title as to ownership of the mortgage loan (for transfers after May 20, 2009) and verify whether any representations made in court pleadings or foreclosure documents are accurate. Failure to comply with the disclosure requirement gives rise to a private right of action against the creditor/new owner that failed to notify the borrower.

3. Send a “Qualified Written Request” under RESPA

Any written request for identification of the mortgage owner sent to the servicer will not only trigger rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f) discussed earlier, but will also be a “qualified written request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Under RESPA, a borrower may submit a “qualified written request” to request information concerning the servicing of the loan or to dispute account errors. Because the servicer acts as an agent for the mortgage owner in its relationship with the borrower, a request for information about the owner should satisfy the requirement that the request be related to loan servicing. The request may be sent by the borrower’s agent, and this has been construed to include a trustee in a bankruptcy case filed by the borrower. Details about how to send the request are covered in § 8.2.2 of NCLC Foreclosures. The servicer has 20 business days after receipt to acknowledge the request, and must comply within 60 business days of receipt. Damages, costs and attorneys fees are available for violations, as well as statutory damages up to $1,000 in the case of a pattern and practice of noncompliance.

4. Review the RESPA Transfer of Servicing Notices

Finding the loan servicer is generally easier because the borrower is likely getting regular correspondence from that entity. Still, the law requires that formal servicing transfer notices are to be provided to borrowers, and reviewing these can provide helpful information. RESPA provides that the originating lender must disclose at the time of loan application whether servicing of the loan may be assigned during the term of the mortgage. In addition, the borrower must be notified when loan servicing is transferred document.” If MERS members do not agree with this interpretation, they can opt out of MERS InvestorID and presumably send their own notice.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).

12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). See also NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.2.

12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(A); In re Laskowski, 384 B.R. 518 (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 2008

(chapter 13 trustee, as agent of consumer debtor, and the debtor each have standing to send a qualified written request).

12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2).

12 U.S.C. § 2605(f).

12 U.S.C. § 2650(a). See NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.3.

after the loan is made. Failure of the servicer to comply with the servicing transfer requirements subjects the servicer to liability for actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.18 Unlike the TILA requirement discussed earlier, RESPA is limited to the transfer of servicing; it does not require notice of any transfers of ownership of the note and mortgage.

5. Go to Fannie and Freddie’s Web Portals

To facilitate several voluntary loan modification programs implemented by the U.S.Treasury, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allow borrowers to contact them to determine if they own a loan. Borrowers and advocates can either call a toll-free number or enter the property’s street address, unit, city, state, and ZIP code on a website. The website information, however, sometimes refers to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as “owners” when in fact their participation may have been as the party that had initially purchased the loans on the secondary market and later arranged for their securitization and transfer to a trust entity which ultimately holds the loan.

6. Check the Local Registry of Deeds

Checking the local registry where deeds and assignments are recorded is another way to identify the actual owner. But do not rely solely on the registry of deeds to identify the obligation’s current holder of the obligation, as many assignments are not recorded. In fact, if MERS is named as the mortgagee, typically as “nominee” for the lender and its assigns, then mortgage assignments will not be recorded in the registry of deeds. A call to MERS is not helpful as MERS currently will only disclose the name of the servicer and not the owner. In addition, some assignments may be solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer, in which case the servicer may appear as the owner of the mortgage loan.

12 U.S.C. § 2650(b). See NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.3.

12 U.S.C. § 2650(f). See NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.6.

See, e.g., Daw v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 5 Fed.Appx. 504 (7th Cir. 2001).

See 27 NCLC REPORTS, Bankruptcy and Foreclosures Ed., Mar/Apr 2009.

For Fannie Mae call 1-800-7FANNIE (8 a.m. to 8 p.m. EST); Freddie Mac call 1-800-

FREDDIE (8 a.m. to 8 p.m. EST).

Fannie Mae Loan Lookup, at http://www.fanniemae.com/homeaffordable; Freddie Mac Self-

Service Lookup, at http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate.

See NCLC Foreclosures, § 4.3.4A.

The telephone number for the automated system is 888-679-6377. When calling MERS to obtain information on a loan, you must supply MERS with the MIN number or a Social Security number. The MIN number should appear on the face of the mortgage.

You may also search by property address or by other mortgage identification numbers by using MERS’s online search tool at http://www.mers-servicerid.org. 68700-001

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Homeowners Must Know After they Have Been Sued in a Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding

18 Monday Jun 2018

Posted by BNG in Bankruptcy, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adversary proceeding, automatic stay, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy adversary proceeding, bankruptcy court, Foreclosure, foreclosure defense, homeowners, Law, Lawsuit, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Mortgage loan, Plaintiff, Pro se legal representation in the United States, United States

This post will be helpful to the Debtor when defending against a creditor’s/trustee’s objection to your discharge or the filing of a Complaint for Nondischargeability based upon fraud/conversion; however, this post may also assist the Debtor in bringing an adversary proceeding should one be necessary.

Introduction

An adversary proceeding is a lawsuit brought within your bankruptcy. This lawsuit normally centers around whether a particular debt or all of your debts are dischargeable (or forgiven) through the act of your filing bankruptcy. These lawsuits usually focus around some alleged improper act on your part, including fraud, misrepresentation, or your failure to abide by the Bankruptcy Code and accompanying Rules.

You are now at the point of the adversary process where you have received, by mail or by personal service, the complaint filed by your creditor which asks the Court to decide whether or not that particular obligation should be part of your bankruptcy discharge or an objection to your overall discharge should be granted.

This section of the adversary proceeding packet is to inform you of what your obligations are in order to prepare for a trial. Note that there are references to the bankruptcy rules: Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice = LR; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure = Fed.R.Bankr.P. You may also find both types of Rules at the county law library or you may access the Local Rules at the court’s website http://www.uscourts.gov. You should take a look at these rules if you have any questions about the information given in this section.

Step 1: Answer

After you receive a complaint, you must file an answer with the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court within 30 days after issuance of the summons. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7012) You must provide a copy of that answer to the creditor’s attorney.

Step 2: Pre-Trial Conference

Note that the cover sheet you receive from the Court will set forth a pre-trial conference date in the lower right-hand corner of the Summons. You must attend that hearing. At that time, the Court will set parameters for trial. The Court may also discuss with the parties whether or not any settlement is possible. Prior to this pre-trial conference with the Court, and within thirty (30) days after you have answered the complaint, you are required to meet with the attorney for the creditor to discuss how discovery will be conducted in the case. After you have had this discussion and no later than fourteen (14) days after the meeting with the attorney, the parties are required to submit a discovery plan. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7016 and LR 7016) This plan is a form which the creditor’s counsel will have and will be filled out by both parties. The form will then be submitted to the Court and the Court will then approve, disapprove or modify the discovery plan and enter any other orders that may be appropriate.

Step 3: Discovery

After you have gone through the preparation of the discovery plan and have had it approved by the Court, you will then conduct your discovery. Local Rule 7026 will provide you with information as to what the parties may or may not do during the discovery process. You may also want to look at Local Rules 7026 through and including 7036 and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 through and including 7036 which gives further information regarding some of the discovery tools or requirements.

Step 4: Motions

You may find that throughout the time frame prior to trial that motions are being filed. Motions may be filed by either party. If you are served with a motion in your adversary proceeding, please be advised that you are required to file your opposition or response with the Court and serve your response to the creditor’s attorney not more than fifteen (15) days after you have received the motion and, in no event, not later than five (5) business days prior to the date set for the hearing on the motion. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9013 and Local Rule 9014) Make sure that you provide counsel with a copy of your response.

When you get to Court, you are basically going to supplement what is in your opposition or your motion so the Court can make a well-informed analysis of the situation and then deliver an appropriate decision. Please note that when you are in front of the Court, your time is limited. Generally, a motion is limited to approximately five minutes for both sides. It is the feeling of all judges in our district that if all motions and oppositions are well-drafted and timely filed, there is no reason to spend lengthy periods with oral argument. Therefore, you will be expected to come in to court, make a brief presentation and then sit down.

Step 5: Trial

After you have completed all discovery and all motions, you will then be at the point where the parties are ready to proceed with trial. Your trial date will be assigned to you at the pre-trial conference and the Court will generally schedule the trial within 60 and 120 days depending upon the nature of the matter being tried.

Approximately two weeks prior to the trial, you are required to file with the Court a trial statement, a list of witnesses, and a list of exhibits. You must also exchange these documents with the attorney for the creditor. If you and the attorney for the creditor can agree on what the basic issues in trial are going to be, the trial statement may be filed jointly. In other words, one statement will represent the facts and information for both sides to the Court.

The day before the trial, the parties will mark all the exhibits and any supplemental information that needs to be added to the trial statements. Although you are not required to agree with the attorney for the creditor as to what exhibits may be introduced into evidence, it is strongly encouraged that the parties try to agree to all exhibits to be placed before the Court in an effort to have an economical and efficient adjudication of the case.

Certain documents have been included in this packet so that you will have the ability to understand what needs to be filed with the Court prior to trial. However, it is strongly recommended that you access the court’s website at http://www.uscourts.gov and download a copy of the Local Rules. These will prove very useful to you through the course of the adversary proceeding. You may also wish to check with the county law library for a copy of the Local Rules.

All bankruptcy judges are willing to set up a time to discuss whether or not the case may be settled. Many times, having an impartial third party listening to the problems will allow negotiations to flow freely and hopefully obviate the need for the trial. If a settlement conference is set up, it will not be the judge in front of whom this matter will be heard, so you need not fear that you will be prejudiced in any way if this matter is not settled.

COURTROOM ETIQUETTE BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE PARTIES

1. Don’t take the argument personally (no personal slurs against the other party.)

2. Advocacy does not mean we cannot be civil and communicate with the other side.

3. Adversary proceedings are intended to be negotiated if possible.

4. If you cannot resolve the matter and proceed to trial, remember the following:

a. Dress Appropriately- Nice attire such as a suit or slacks is acceptable. Please no hats, shorts, thongs, tank tops, etc.

b. Your statements should be addressed to the court and not to the other side- The only time you should speak to opposing counsel is during breaks or with the Court’s permission after requesting a break.

a. Do not interrupt the other side or the judge when they are speaking.

b. Remember to follow the rules as explained in the attached documents regarding the filing of your trial statement, list of exhibits, witnesses, etc.

DEALING WITH THE LAW

1. Understand your responsibilities and respond accordingly. You are held to the same standard as an attorney when presenting your case and arguing the legal issues. You may need to educate yourself on the law at issue by visiting the law library and reading the Bankruptcy Code and cases dealing with those sections of the code involving your case.

2. Sanctions – Remember that if you act disrespectful to the Court or opposing attorney, or if you lie in your court pleadings or under oath at trial, the Court has the power to sanction you by either assessing a fee or ruling for the opposing party.

3. If you have any questions regarding your responsibilities, call the other side’s attorney they will answer procedural questions, but cannot assist you with your legal argument.

4. Know the Local Rules – you can obtain a copy by accessing the court’s website at http://www.uscourts.gov You may also be able to obtain the rules from the county law library or from opposing counsel.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

How Homeowners Can Use Ibanez Case to Fight a Wrongful Foreclosure

26 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Bankruptcy, Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage mediation, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Securitization, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bank forecloses, bankruptcy court, Foreclosure, homeowners, Ibanez Case, Loan, Massachusetts, MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Pro se legal representation in the United States, US Bank, wrongful foreclosure

Many homeowners who found themselves in wrongful foreclosure situation may have a valid defense, against the perpetrators of these crimes.

How much does it cost to get justice, when a bank forecloses on your house illegally? Thousands of ex-homeowners don’t pursue their rights to a financial settlement because they assume they couldn’t pay the legal fees.

In fact, it costs less than you fear. Consumer lawyers take a few cases at no charge. More likely, you’ll pay fees — upfront or on a monthly plan — tied to the lawyer’s estimate of the time it will take and your ability to pay. If they win your case, they’ll collect from the financial institution, too.

Before readers attack the “greedy lawyers” for defending “deadbeat” clients who couldn’t repay their mortgage loans, let me quote from a groundbreaking decision of 2011 by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The court reversed two foreclosures because the banks — Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp, acting as trustees for investors — couldn’t prove that they actually owned the mortgages. Judge Robert J. Cordy excoriated them for their “utter carelessness.” The fact that the borrowers owed the money was “not the point,” he wrote. The right to deprive people of their property is a powerful one and banks have to prove they have the legal standing to do so.

American law cannot allow property seizures based on backdated, incomplete, or fraudulent documentation, no matter what the circumstances are. Otherwise, no one’s home is safe. Courts enforce private property rights through the cases brought before them. In other words, lawyers.

The Massachusetts case began not with consumers, but with the banks themselves. They asked the courts to affirm that the foreclosures were valid so they could get title insurance. That pulled the borrowers — Antonio Ibanez and Mark and Tammy LaRace — into the fray. When the horrified courts looked at how the foreclosures had gone down, they said, “no way,” and gave the former owners their property back.

Ibanez, a special ed teacher, bought the home for investment in 2005 and defaulted in 2007 on a $103,500 loan, according to the court papers. Even since, the house has been boarded up. Ibanez filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, so he now has title to the home and no obligation on the debt. The mortgage investors will take the loss.

The LaRaces borrowed $103,200 to buy their home in 2005 and also defaulted in 2007. They had an offer on their home, but the servicer foreclosed anyway. (During the trial, the foreclosing law firm admitted that servicers are graded on how quickly they can liquidate a mortgage.)

The LaRaces have moved back into their long-unattended home, but first they had to clean up mold, fix plumbing, and make other repairs. They would gladly resume payments on the mortgage, their lawyer Glenn Russell says. But the trustee bank doesn’t own the loan. The investors don’t own it because the mortgage was never transferred properly. The original lender, Option One, no longer exists. So whom do they pay?

This important case opens the door to thousands of foreclosure do-overs in Massachusetts at the time, and continuing and equally influenced courts in other states, as well. But there hasn’t been a rush by lawyers to get involved, probably because the field is complex and not especially remunerative. No class actions have been certified, as at that time or shortly thereafter, so the cases proceeded one by one. The financial trail can be hard to track (the Massachusetts documents were unwound by mortgage-fraud specialist Marie McDonnell). The lawyer — often, a sole practitioner — is up against the awesome resources of major financial institutions.

Neither Ibanez nor the LaRaces were charged for their lawyer’s services. Collier had file a claim for wrongful foreclosure and was paid from any settlement. Russell did the same. At the time, Russell also thinks the LaRaces are owed something for the cost of repairing their home.

Very few cases start as pro bono, however. Lawyers who defend consumers have bills to pay, just as the banks’ corporate attorneys do. You may opt to fight it Pro Se using the package from our website, or if you want to fight an unfair foreclosure, you might be offered one of several arrangements:

An upfront fee. “Many of my clients were formerly very successful individuals,” Russell says. On average, the value of the homes of the people who contact him is “somewhat north of $500,000.” He suggests a fee based on their means.

Monthly payments. If you’re not making monthly mortgage payments, some portion of that money could be applied to legal expenses. Collier says he puts the payments into escrow and retains them if he gets the house back (he says he always does, in predatory lending cases).

Bankruptcy payment plans. The clients of North Carolina bankruptcy attorney Max Gardner are usually in a Chapter 13 monthly repayment plan. Each state sets the maximum attorney’s fee, payable as part of the plan.

Mostly, the attorneys get paid by suing the financial institutions, who settle claims or suffer court judgements due to their own illegal activity. People who beat up on consumer lawyers scream that they bring frivolous cases just for the fees. But consumer lawyers only get paid if their case is good, so they’re pretty rigorous about whom they choose to represent. “I was called crazy for practicing in this area of law, as in ‘I would be broke’ by not getting enough fees,” Russell says. “Three years later, I am still here and still living my motto of helping people first.”

Most homeowners are successful fighting there case Pro Se using the package we offer for fighting Foreclosure, as your interest is at stake, and you have the most to lose, not Attorneys. They gets paid whether you win or lose. However, homeowners equally have options when fighting wrongful foreclosure.

If you think you have a case, your toughest challenge isn’t fees, it’s finding a lawyer with the expertise to press your claim successfully, Gardner says. If you don’t have a personal reference for a qualified lawyer, the best place to look is the website of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Next best: the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. In either case, ask if the lawyer has won other securitization, mortgage servicing, and foreclosure cases. “They have to know what documents to ask for,” Gardner says. That’s what wins.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

How California Homeowners Can Technically Disqualify their Foreclosure Mill Attorney

09 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, MERS, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

California, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Pro se legal representation in the United States

In this age of fraudulent foreclosures by foreclosure mills, homeowners should be in a position to effectively challenge and disqualify the foreclosure mill Attorneys, if for anything, that can effectively delay your foreclosure and ultimately save your home.

In most foreclosure cases, the existence of conflict of interest is obvious. If you look at your pleadings carefully, you will notice that in most cases, the pleadings will reflect that the Attorney who is representing your purported lender is “also” representing MERS. In other words the law firm is acting as counsel for the lender who initiated this foreclosure proceeding, in conjunction with MERS who is also a defendant in the case. Incredibly the lender’s counsel (who is like a plaintiff – for commencing and prosecuting the foreclosure proceeding), even though it has already acted as counsel for the defendant, MERS, in similar cases! OR representing both the lender and MERS in non judicial foreclosure cases where the homeowner is suing everyone involved in his mortgage loan transaction. By virtue of commencing foreclosure via a MERS purported assignment, the lender has trapped itself. It is only when a homeowner uses such opportunity to bring that to the court’s attention with a “motion to disqualify counsel” will the homeowner take advantage of the situation.

It is fundamental that the same law firm cannot represent a plaintiff and a defendant in the same case.

The purported lender may dispute its representation of MERS, but there is no other explanation for why the purported lender’s own employees prepared the purported assignment and executed it on behalf of MERS. In order words, if the Attorney representation of both parties was not a conflict, then why did the lender’s own employee prepare the purported assignment and sign it for MERS? Even if you case does not involve the an Attorney representing both the lender and MERS, If the homeowner research carefully within your region, you will notice that the same counsel had in the past became the counsel of record for MERS in many other cases active before courts. As such, the Attorney’s status as counsel for the defendant MERS is not reasonably in dispute.

Homeowners should make the arguments that calls into question
the fair administration of justice. To illustrate, the homeowner fear that MERS may institute legal proceedings against him in the future. After all, what is to stop MERS from taking the position, at some point in the future, that it is the owner and holder of the Note and deed of trust.
Where would that leave the homeowner Or the then-owner of the subject property? Or the title insurance company that writes title insurance based on the title that is derived from a foreclosure on the subject property (if a foreclosure is allowed)?

Homeowners should argue that under a myriad of cases, the conflict of interest by which lender’s counsel is operating, couple with the affect that conflict is having on the administration of justice requires its disqualification as counsel. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. KA.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla 1991); Koulisis v Rivers, 730 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Campell v. American Pioneer Savings Bank, 565 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

To the extent that lender’s counsel disagree with the facts set forth herein, homeowner should argue that the court cannot simply accept the law firm’s version of events as true. Rather, in that event, an evidential hearing is required. To illustrate further, on February 12, 2010, the Second District reversed a summary judgment of foreclosure where the plaintiff bank did not show a proper assignment of mortgage. See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. v. Jacques, Cas No 2D08-3553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This ruling comes on the heels of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent rule change requiring that all mortgage foreclosure lawsuits be executed under oath.

Other jurisdiction have started noticing the fraud brought upon the Honorable courts, entertained motions to disqualify counsels and have also disqualified counsels based on facts as stated herein. After all, only in recent years have banks and their employees begun drafting assignments in mass quantities in an attempt to “push through” non-judicial and judicial foreclosures. Other jurisdictions, however, have begun catching on to these unseemly tactics. One New York court, for example, after discussing problems with an assignment of mortgage similar to those set forth above, ruled:
“Even if [plaintiff] is able to cure the assignment defect, plaintiff’s counsel then has to address the conflict of interest that exist with his representation of both the assignor of the instant mortgage, MERS as nominee for HSBC Mortgage, and the assignee of the instant mortgage, HSBC….”

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Vazquez, 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op. 51814 (2009); see also Bank of N.Y. v. Mulligan, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op. 31501 (2008) (The Court is concerned that [the person who signed the assignment] may be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats«´); Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Castellanos, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50033 (2008) (If he is a Vice President of both the assignor and the assignee, this would create a conflict of interest and render the July 21, 2006 assignment void.´); HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Cherry, 2007 N.Y. Slip. Op.52378 (2007) (The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of HSBC, or at least malfeasance. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from [the person who signed the assignment] describing his employment history for the past three years.)

The situation here is similar to that presented to the First District in Live and Let Live, Inc. v. Carlsberg Mobile Home Props., Ltd., 388 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In that case, plaintiff’s attorney was the escrow agent for the real estate transaction upon which the lawsuit was based. What he knew or was told at closing was relevant at trial. Id. Deeming him a central figure in the lawsuit, the First District required his disqualification. Id. In so ruling, the court cited ethical considerations promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in In Re Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 235 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1970), including DR 5-102, which provides:

(A) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his firm, if any, shall not continue representation in the trial. (B) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness other than on behalf of his client, he may continue the representation until it is apparent that his testimony is or may be prejudicial to his client.

A potent weapon in any lawyer’s arsenal is a motion to disqualify opposing counsel. If used successfully, it stops the opposing party in its tracks and forces an adversary to start over with a new lawyer. And for those on the receiving end of such a motion, it is crucial to know whether it should be granted or rejected. Courts have developed a four-factor test to assess the merits of a disqualification motion, but before we discuss that test, consider the following example.

Assume “Attorney A” is long-time litigation counsel for Widgetco Inc. Widgetco is being sued, and the opposing party deposes one of Widgetco’s employees who is not named as a party in the suit but who has percipient knowledge of the underlying facts of the case. Attorney A defends the deposition of that employee and, at the start of the session, states on the record that he is appearing as counsel for the employee. A year later the employee steals company trade secrets and opens a competing business.

Widgetco then hires Attorney A to sue the former employee for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition. Counsel for the former employee promptly files a motion to disqualify Attorney A on the ground that he has a conflict of interest because he was counsel for the employee during the deposition in the prior case. Is Attorney A out of luck and off the case? Not necessarily.

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED
To win the disqualification motion, the former employee must first show that he or she was personally represented by Attorney A. In addition, the employee must show a “substantial relationship” between Attorney A’s current and previous representation of the former employee (Brand v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 124 Cal. App. 4th 594, 602 (2004)). An attorney representing a corporation does not automatically have an attorney-client relationship with the organization’s individual constituents (officers, directors, shareholders, employees) (Vapnek, Tuft, Peck & Wiener, California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility, ¶ 3.90 (The Rutter Group, 2007)). Rather, courts distinguish between a corporate counsel’s representation of corporate officers, directors, and employees “in their representative capacities and the representation of those persons in their individual capacities.” (Koo v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 719, 732-33 (2003).) As one court has stated, “[G]enerally, there is no individual attorney-client privilege between a corporation’s attorney and individuals within the corporation unless there is a clear showing that the individual consulted the corporate counsel in the officer’s individual capacity.” (Tuttle v. Combined Ins. Co., 222 F.R.D. 424, 429 (E.D. Cal. 2004).)

The preeminent case explaining this distinction is Meehan v. Hopps (144 Cal. App. 2d 284 (1956)), in which long-time corporate counsel represented the corporation in a suit against Stewart Hopps, a former officer and chairman of the board. Hopps moved to disqualify the corporation’s counsel, arguing that he had spent many hours conferring with counsel, and had delivered to counsel memoranda and personal files relating to various legal matters in which the corporation was involved (144 Cal. App. 2d at 287, 290). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to disqualify, holding that “[t]he attorney for a corporation represents it, its stockholders and its officers in their representative capacity” and in no way “represents the officers personally.” (144 Cal. App. 4th at 290; see also Talvy v. American Red Cross, 205 A.D. 2d 143, 150, 618 NYS 2d 25, 29 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984) (“Unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in the circumstances of a particular matter, a lawyer for the corporation represents the corporation, not the employees”).) The court concluded not only that the attorney could act adversely to Hopps, but also that he could use against Hopps any information that Hopps “was required by reason of his position with the corporation to give to that attorney.” (144 Cal. App. 4th at 290.) Thus, as commentators have noted, “[t]he fact that counsel may have learned confidential information about [former officers now adverse to the company] does not disqualify counsel from continuing to represent the corporation.” (Friedman, California Practice Guide: Corporations at ¶ 6:3.2 (The Rutter Group, 2007).) The primary issue, then, on a motion to disqualify a lawyer who previously represented a client’s employee is whether the former employee can establish that he or she had a personal attorney-client relationship with the company’s litigation counsel (Koo, 109 Cal. App. 4th at 729). The rule against representation adverse to a former client does not apply when the relationship of attorney and client has never, in fact, been created between the attorney and the complaining party. (See 1 Witkin, California Procedure at § 151, p. 206 (4th ed. 1996).)

A formal contract is not necessary to establish that an attorney-client relationship exists (Waggoner v. Snow, Becker, Kroll, Klaris & Kravis, 991 F.2d 1501, 1505 (9th Cir. 1993) (applying California law)). On the other hand, the former employee’s mere subjective belief that he or she was personally represented by corporate counsel is not sufficient (Fox v. Pollack, 181 Cal. App. 3d 954, 959 (1986)). Rather, it is the former employee’s burden to prove that the totality of the circumstances reasonably implies an agreement by the company’s lawyer not to accept other representations adverse to the former employee’s personal interests (Responsible Citizens v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1717, 1733 (1994)).

THE FOUR-FACTOR TEST
A federal court applying California law has cited four factors to use in assessing whether the totality of the circumstances reasonably implies an agreement of personal representation. The four factors are: (1) the nature and extent of the contacts between the attorney and the purported client; (2) whether the purported client divulged confidential information to the attorney; (3) whether the attorney provided the purported client with legal advice; and (4) whether the purported client sought or paid for the attorney’s services (Fink v. Montes, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 1999)).

Attorney contacts. The first factor of the Fink test involves the nature and extent of the contacts between the attorney and the former employee. California case law does not address whether a corporate lawyer whose sole contact with a corporate employee is to prepare him or her for deposition and/or to defend the employee at deposition is by reason of that contact alone disqualified from representing the corporation in a lawsuit against the employee. However, cases from other jurisdictions generally provide that the corporate attorney is not deemed to represent the employee personally in such circumstances.

For example, in Polin v. Kellwood Co. (866 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)) a former officer of a company met with the company’s lawyers to prepare for his deposition in a lawsuit involving the company. In a later lawsuit against that same former officer, the district court held that the corporate lawyers were not automatically disqualified from representing the company because “[t]he mere fact that a corporate lawyer meets with an employee – or as here, an ex-employee – to prepare for a deposition, cannot make the employee the client of the lawyer.” (866 F. Supp. at 142.)

Also instructive is Spinello Cos. v. Metra Industries, Inc. (2006 Westlaw 1722626 (D. N.J. 2006)), in which the defendant (a former officer) sought to disqualify Spinello’s counsel because he had defended the officer at, and prepared him for, a deposition in a previous lawsuit involving Spinello. The court concluded that no personal attorney-client relationship existed between the company’s counsel and the former officer (2006 Westlaw 1722626 at *6).

Courts have reached a different conclusion when the attorney specifically identifies himself or herself on the record as “counsel for the individual employee” (or the attorney remains silent when the employee identifies the attorney as personal counsel). For example, in Advance Mfg. Technologies, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. (2002 Westlaw 1446953 (D. Ariz. 2002)), a former employee of Motorola met with Motorola’s counsel to prepare for deposition. At the deposition, when asked by opposing counsel whether he was represented by an attorney, the former employee said he was represented by Motorola’s lawyer. Motorola’s lawyers “remained silent and did not deny or otherwise qualify [the former employee’s] affirmative response.” (2002 Westlaw 1446953 at *1.) The court determined that silence in the face of the potential client’s expressed belief of representation made the belief an objectively reasonable one and, indeed, manifested the attorney’s “implied consent to an attorney-client relationship.” (2002 Westlaw 1446953 at *5.)

Similarly, in E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Brown (305 F. Supp. 371 (D. Tex. 1969)), the district court held that corporate counsel who represented a corporate officer at an SEC investigative proceeding, and at a bankruptcy hearing at which the officer testified, had a personal attorney-client relationship with that officer. Critical to the district court’s finding in E.F. Hutton was the fact that in both proceedings the corporate lawyer made formal appearances as counsel for the individual officer (305 F. Supp. at 386-87). The court noted that though an attorney’s appearance in a judicial or semi-judicial proceeding “creates a presumption that an attorney-client relationship exists between the attorney and the person with whom he appears,” that presumption becomes “almost irrebuttable” when the attorney enters a “formal appearance” for that person (305 F. Supp. at 387, 391-92).

E.F. Hutton and Advance Manufacturing Technologies should be contrasted with Waggoner (991 F.2d at 1506), in which the Ninth Circuit found that no attorney-client relationship existed, in part, because the lawyer was identified as “corporate counsel” both at trial and during a deposition of his client’s former officer.

In addition, in today’s legal world it is not uncommon for depositions to be videotaped and for the videographer to ask for “appearances of counsel,” which are part of the video record (and sometimes part of the sten-ographic record as well). To avoid any confusion, then, corporate counsel defending an employee should always state that he or she is representing the witness in the witness’s capacity as an employee of the company, and not individually. Counsel must also be careful in objecting to document requests served with deposition notices for a client’s employee: Those objections should clearly indicate that they are made on behalf of the deponent as an employee, not as an individual.

Confidential information. The second Fink factor analyzes whether the former employee divulged confidential information to the attorney (44 F. Supp. 2d at 1060). The confidential information to which the Fink court refers concerns the individual employee; it is not confidential information relating to the business of the corporation.

A court will look at whether the confidential information was disclosed to the attorney in a situation in which the employee had an expectation of privacy. In the Spinello case noted above, the court held that the corporate employee had no expectation of privacy in conversations with a corporate lawyer about issues relating to the corporation. It acknowledged that the former employee had conversations with the company lawyer in preparation for his deposition, but observed that the confidential information exchanged was in regard to the company’s business plan. The court then noted that all exchanges were for the benefit of the company, concluding that the employee “had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding these conversations to the exclusion of … Spinello Companies when they were made and cannot claim they are confidential now.” (See 2006 Westlaw 1722626 at *5.)

Accordingly, a company attorney may consider having a company officer present during preparation sessions for the deposition of a company employee; with the officer present, the employee can have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Legal advice. The third Fink factor addresses whether the corporate lawyer provided the former employee with legal advice. Again, the court will be looking to see if personal legal advice has been given, apart from legal advice regarding company business. (See Tuttle, 222 F.R.D. at 429 (no attorney-client privilege because employee did not seek legal advice from corporate attorneys “in a personal capacity”); U.S. v. Keplinger, 776 F.2d 678, 700 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1183 (1986) (“Defendants do not dispute the attorney’s testimony that defendants never explicitly sought individual legal advice or asked about individual representation”).)

Obviously, explaining to a witness the rules of a deposition and general practices in responding to questions should not be considered personal legal advice (upon which a later disqualifying motion could be based). Such advice simply protects the company’s interests and is consistent with a finding that the law firm represented the person only as an employee of the company and not as an individual.

If the individual officer or employee is potentially a party to the case, it is much more likely that corporate counsel can be shown to have provided personal legal advice. In such a situation, in which the employee’s personal interests are at stake, a court could easily conclude that the lawyer’s representation of the employee was personal in nature.

Who paid? The fourth and final Fink factor is whether the former employee sought out or paid for the services of the corporation’s attorney. In the usual situation involving the deposition of a corporate employee, the company – not the employee-seeks out representation by the corporate attorney. This is often reflected in the retention agreement. Thus, one court found no attorney – client relationship between company counsel and a former CEO because the engagement letter limited the engagement to the company’s intellectual property matters (Synergy Tech & Design Inc. v. Terry, 2007 Westlaw 1288464 (N.D. Cal 2007)). Typically, the attorney will be compensated by the company and not by the individual. In the Synergy case, the court found no attorney-client relationship, based in part on the fact that the corporation was “billed for or paid for all of the filing fees and expenses” (2007 Westlaw 1288464 at *8). Lawyers representing a corporation should therefore take extra care when defending the deposition of a client’s employee.

Whenever an attorney enters an appearance – whether during a deposition or at the courthouse – care should be taken to make clear the identity of the client, especially if corporate entities and individual corporate employees are involved in the case. One never knows if a corporate client’s employee will turn into an adversary who might seek to have the company’s lawyer removed from a future case.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at http://www.fightforeclosure.net “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

What Homeowners Must Know About Pleading their Wrongful Foreclosure Cases in the Courts

12 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, Deeds of Trust, Foreclosure, Fraud, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Motions, Pleading

This post is to assist homeowners in wrongful foreclosure understand principles and theories that must be well plead before their case can survive a motion to dismiss which are usually brought by the foreclosure mills in order to cover their fraud and quickly foreclose using demurrer (Motion to Dismiss), without answering the complaint.

Rules for Pleading Fraud: The elements of a fraud cause of action are (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of the falsity or scienter, (3) intent to defraud—that is, induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damages. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) These elements may not be pleaded in a general or conclusory fashion. (Id. at p. 645.) Fraud must be pled specifically—that is, a plaintiff must plead facts that show with particularity the elements of the cause of action.

Homeowners should be careful here as foreclosure mill counsels may sometimes allege that in their demurrer, that facts establishing detrimental reliance were not alleged.

Homeowners should plead each cause of action such that only the essential elements for the claim are set forth without reincorporation of lengthy `general allegations’.

Homeowners should avoid pleading allegation is a general allegation of reliance and damage, but should rather identify the particular acts homeowners took because of the alleged forgeries that resulted to injury to homeowners. If you did not plead that way even if you forgot to identify the action you took, the court will conclude that similarly, you did not identify any acts that did not take because of your reliance on the alleged forgeries, and therefore will conclude that your conclusory allegation of reliance is insufficient under the rules of law that require fraud to be pled specifically. See (Lazar v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.)

In other words, the `facts’ that homeowners must pleaded are those upon which liability depends i.e., `the facts constituting the causes of action’ homeowners will alleged in their complaint.

When homeowners finds themselves in a situation where they have already made such arguments, they need to do a damage control by arguing in their subsequent pleadings that they could amend to allege specifically the action they took or did not take because of their reliance on the alleged forgeries.

Wrongful Foreclosure by a Nonholder of the Deed of Trust The theory that a foreclosure was wrongful because it was initiated by a nonholder of the deed of trust has also been phrased as (1) the foreclosing party lacking standing to foreclose or (2) the chain of title relied upon by the foreclosing party containing breaks or defects. (See Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 764; Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., supra, 196 Cal.App.4th 1366 [Deutsche Bank not entitled to summary judgment on wrongful foreclosure claim because it failed to show a chain of owner ship that would establish it was the true beneficiary under the deed of trust ]; Guerroro v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 403 Fed.Appx. 154, 156 [rejecting a wrongful foreclosure claim because, among other things, plaintiffs “have not pleaded any facts to rebut the unbroken chain of title”].)

In Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D.Cal. 2012) 885 F.Supp.2d 964, the district court stated: “Several courts have recognized the existence of a valid cause of action for wrongful foreclosure where a party alleged not to be the true beneficiary instructs the trustee to file a Notice of Default and initiate nonjudicial foreclosure.” (Id. at p. 973.)

Homeowners should be careful here when pleading their cases because numerous courts though had agreed with this statement of law, but sometimes believe that properly alleging a cause of action under this theory requires more than simply stating that the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary under the deed of trust.

When that happens the courts usually concluded that [plaintiff failed to plead specific facts demonstrating the transfer of the note and deed of trust were invalid].)

Therefore, a plaintiff Homeowner asserting this theory must allege facts that show the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary. (See Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1506

One basis for claiming that a foreclosing party did not hold the deed of trust is that the assignment relied upon by that party was ineffective. Courts have held that when a borrower asserts an assignment was ineffective, a question often arises about the borrower’s standing to challenge the assignment of the loan (note and deed of trust) — an assignment to which the borrower is not a party. (E.g., Conlin v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (6th Cir. 2013) 714 F.3d 355, 361 [third party may only challenge an assignment if that challenge would render the assignment absolutely invalid or ineffective, or void]; Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska (1st Cir. 2013) 708 F.3d 282, 291 [under Massachusetts law, mortgagor has standing to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid, ineffective or void]; Gilbert v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (E.D. Cal., May 28, 2013, No. 1:13 – CV – 265 AWI SKO) 2013 WL 2318890.)

California‟s version of the principle concerning a third party‟s ability to challenge an assignment has been stated in a secondary authority as follows:

“Where an assignment is merely voidable at the election of the assignor,
third parties, and particularly the obligor, cannot … successfully challenge
the validity or effectiveness of the transfer.” (7 Cal.Jur.3d (2012) Assignments, § 43.)

This statement implies that a borrower can challenge an assignment of his or her note and deed of trust if the defect asserted would void the assignment. (See Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank Nation al Trust Co. (5th Cir. 2013) ___ F.3d ___ [2013 WL 3480207 at p.*3] [following majority rule that an obligor may raise any ground that renders the assignment void, rather than merely voidable].)

Therefore Homeowners should craft the allegations to present a theory under which the challenged assignments are void, not merely voidable, because numerous courts have rejected the view that a borrower’s challenge to an assignment must fail once it is determined that the borrower was not a party to, or third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement. The courts held that cases adopting that position “paint with too broad a brush.” See (Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290.) The deciding court held that instead, courts should proceed to the question whether the assignment was void.

On the Tender Rule, for wrongful foreclosure, many foreclosure mills had plead that cancellation of instruments and quiet title are defective because homeowners failed to allege that the made a valid and viable tender of payment of the indebtedness. (See Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 112, 117 [“valid and viable tender of payment of the indebtedness owing is essential to an action to cancel a voidable sale under a deed of trust”].)

Tender is not required where the foreclosure sale is void, rather than voidable,

such as when a plaintiff proves that the entity lacked the authority to foreclose on the property. (Lester v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, supra, ___ F.Supp.2d____, [2013 WL 633333, p. *8]; 4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2003) Deeds of Trust, § 10:212, p. 686.)

See generally, Annotation, Recognition of Action for Damages for Wrongful Foreclosure—Types of Action (2013) 82 A.L.R.6th 43 (claims that a foreclosure is “wrongful” can be tort – based, statute – based, and contract – based) Claims of misrepresentation or fraud related to robo-signing of foreclosure documents is addressed in Buchwalter, Cause of Action in Tort for Wrongful Foreclosure of Residential Mortgage, 52 Causes of Action Second, supra, at pages 147 to 149.

In ruling on Foreclosure Mills request for judicial notice of there worthless fraudulent foreclosure documents, the trial courts has stated that it could only take judicial notice that certain documents in the request, including the assignment of deed of trust, had been recorded, but it could not take judicial notice of factual matters stated in those documents. This ruling is correct and unchallenged on appeal.

So the courts may take judicial notice of the existence and recordation of a document with the county such as assignment, but the court “do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein.” (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1375.) In most cases, the assignment of deed of trust does not establish that foreclosure mill was, in fact, the holder of the beneficial interest in the said deed of trust that the assignment states was transferred to it. The courts has further held that similarly, it does not establish that foreclosing bank in fact became the owner or holder of that beneficial interest. So because the document does not establish these facts for purposes of this demurrer, (Motion to Dismiss – Objection), it does not cure breaks in the chains of ownership that homeowners may allege. When plead correctly, these tips usually help homeowners in the litigation to survive the motion to dismiss brought by the Foreclosure Mills who cannot explain their documents and therefore allow homeowners wrongful foreclosure claims to advance from the pleading stage to discovery without being dismissed outright.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will help you challenge these fraudsters and save your home from foreclosure visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

Kentucky Federal Case Against MERS to Move Forward

12 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by BNG in Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Fraud, Judicial States, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorney general, Conway, Freddie Mac, Jack Conway, Kentucky, MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Wells Fargo

Attorney General Conway’s Federal Case Against MERS to Move Forward

Attorney General Jack Conway today announced that a Franklin Circuit Court judge has ruled that the Office of the Attorney General properly alleged violations of Kentucky’s Consumer Protection Act against MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).

“I appreciate the court’s careful consideration on this matter, and I am pleased with the result,” General Conway said. “This ruling paves the way to allow my office to hold MERS accountable for its deceptive conduct, and we look forward to continuing our fight for Kentucky consumers.”

MERS was created in 1995 to enable the mortgage industry to avoid paying state recording fees, to facilitate the rapid sale and securitization of mortgages, and to shorten the time it takes to pursue foreclosure actions. Its corporate shareholders include, among others, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. Currently, more than 6,500 MERS members pay for access to the private system. More than 70 million mortgages have been registered on the system.

In January, as a result of General Conway’s investigation of mortgage foreclosure issues in Kentucky, the Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit in Franklin Circuit Court alleging that MERS had violated Kentucky’s Consumer Protection Act by committing unfair or deceptive trade practices. The lawsuit alleged that since MERS’ creation in 1995, members have avoided paying more than $2 billion in recording fees nationwide. Hundreds of thousands of Kentucky loans are registered in the MERS system.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleged that MERS violated Kentucky’s statute requiring mandatory recording of mortgage assignments, and that MERS had generally committed fraud and unjustly enriched itself at the expense of consumers and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. MERS had moved to dismiss all of the claims on various grounds.

On Dec. 3, the court determined that Attorney General Conway had properly alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act, as MERS engages in trade or commerce, and that the Attorney General had sufficiently alleged unfair, misleading, or deceptive practices. The court also found that the Attorney General had sufficiently alleged its claims that MERS had committed fraud and had unjustly enriched itself at the expense of the public. The only claim dismissed by the court was the Commonwealth’s allegation that MERS violated the statute requiring recording of mortgage assignments. The court did not determine whether or not MERS had violated the recording statute; the court simply found that the recording statute itself lacks an enforcement mechanism. In all, eight of the nine causes of action brought against MERS by General Conway survived MERS’ motion to dismiss.

Other states have filed similar lawsuits against MERS, including Massachusetts, Delaware and New York. The Kentucky Office of the Attorney General is the first state Attorney General’s office to move past the motion to dismiss stage against MERS.

The Franklin Circuit Court found that the Attorney General had sufficiently stated legal causes of action. It has not yet taken any evidence or ruled on whether MERS committed the alleged violations.

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT

In addition to the MERS lawsuit, General Conway joined 48 other state Attorneys General in negotiating the historic $25 billion national mortgage foreclosure settlement. The Attorneys General uncovered that the nation’s five largest banks had been committing fraud during some foreclosures by filing “robo-signed” documents with the courts.

Kentucky’s share of the settlement totals more than $63.7 million. Thirty-eight million dollars is being allocated by the settlement administrator to consumers who qualify for refinancing, loan write downs, debt restructuring and/or cash payments of up to $2,000. To date, the banks report providing relief to 1,833 Kentucky homeowners. The average borrower received an average of $34,771 in assistance.

Kentucky also received $19.2 million in hard dollars from the banks. The money went to agencies that create affordable housing, provide relief or legal assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure, redevelop foreclosed properties and reduce blight created by vacant properties.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT

The Franklin Circuit Court found that the Attorney General had sufficiently stated legal causes of action. It has not yet taken any evidence or ruled on whether MERS committed the alleged violations. – See more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/12/11/franklin-circuit-judge-allows-attorney-general-conways-case-against-mers-to-move-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-109158

– See more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/12/11/franklin-circuit-judge-allows-attorney-general-conways-case-against-mers-to-move-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-109158

Why Homeowners Need to Shift the Burden of Proof To Foreclosure Mills

05 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Appeal, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bank of America, Borrower, Foreclosure, MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Ohio, U.S. Bancorp, US Bank

CASE STUDY:

This case brings to mind why homeowner MUST shift the burden of proof to foreclosure mills in order to save their homes or the courts will ‘assume’ that the burden rests on the homeowner. (Which it does not). Borrower has no burden of proof as the burden of proof is squarely shouldered by the illegal entity bringing a judicial or non judicial foreclosure proceeding against the homeowner, in order for them to show that either they owns the Note or had the rights of enforcement on the Note. Even if they “own the Note,” they might not have the “right to enforce it”, even if they are “holder of the note, and does not own it“, they might not have “standing to bring the action“, per UCC. (That is the law of negotiable instruments – and your “Note” is a negotiable instrument just like a “Check”.

SO FOLKS! DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND MAKE THEM PROVE IT! DO NOT LOSE YOUR DREAM HOME BASED ON MERE IGNORANCE!

U.S. BANK NATL. ASSN. v. SPICERNo. 9-11-01

2011 Ohio 3128 U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee On Behalf of the Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-3 Home Equity Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gregory M. Spicer, Defendant-Appellant, and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Marion County.
Date of Decision: June 27, 2011.

OPINION

SHAW, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Gregory M. Spicer (“Spicer”) appeals the December 9, 2010 judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas overruling his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.”

{¶2} On November 22, 2006, Spicer executed a promissory note with Intervale Mortgage Corporation (“Intervale”) for a mortgage loan in the amount of $212,000.00 to purchase a residence located at 1517 Eagle Links Drive in Marion, Ohio. The loan documents identified Decision One LLC (“Decision One”) as Intervale’s servicing agent and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as Intervale’s nominee for matters related to Spicer’s loan. The mortgage was recorded in the Marion County Recorder’s office on December 1, 2006.

{¶3} In February of 2007, Spicer received a letter from Select Portfolio Servicing (“SPS”) notifying him that the servicing of his mortgage loan had been transferred from Decision One to SPS and that, as of March 1, 2007, SPS would be the entity receiving his mortgage payments.

{¶4} On September 22, 2008, Bill Koch, an assistant secretary for MERS, issued a “corporate assignment of mortgage,” which evidenced that MERS, as nominee for Intervale, assigned Spicer’s mortgage to Appellee, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-3 Home Equity Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3 (“U.S. Bank”). This assignment of Spicer’s mortgage was subsequently recorded in the Marion County Recorder’s office.

{¶5} On September 25, 2008, U.S. Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure against Spicer alleging the note to be in default because Spicer failed to make the monthly payments on the note since April 28, 2008, and the default had not been cured. The complaint alleged that a balance of $208,865.11, plus interest remained outstanding on the promissory note. U.S. Bank requested judgment against Spicer for this amount, plus late charges, advances made for the payment of taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, or cost incurred for the protection of the mortgaged premises. U.S. Bank also requested the trial court to order a foreclosure and sale of the property. The record demonstrates that Spicer was properly served with the complaint on October 21, 2008.

{¶6} Spicer failed to appear or otherwise enter into the action and on January 5, 2009, U.S. Bank filed a motion for default judgment which was subsequently granted by the trial court. On January 12, 2009, the trial court entered a decree in foreclosure and ordered the property to be sold. The property was scheduled for a Sheriff’s sale on April 17, 2009.

{¶7} On April 13, 2009, Spicer sent an ex parte letter to the trial court requesting a stay in the sale proceedings. Spicer’s letter was placed in the record with a “received” stamp, but was not “file-stamped” by the clerk of courts. Moreover, there is no evidence that Spicer served this letter on counsel for U.S. Bank or that U.S. Bank was otherwise made aware of the existence of this letter.

{¶8} On April 23, 2009, U.S. Bank filed a “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale” with the trial court. In this motion, U.S. Bank informed the court that “Plaintiff and the borrower have entered into a loss mitigation agreement.” On April 24, 2009, the trial court granted U.S. Bank’s motion to withdraw the property from the scheduled Sheriff’s sale.

{¶9} On June 23, 2009, U.S. Bank filed an “Alias Praecipe for Order for Sale” requesting an order of sale and for the Sheriff to appraise, advertise, and sell the property.

{¶10} On August 10, 2009, a notice of sale was filed. The sale was scheduled to take place on September 18, 2009. U.S. Bank subsequently filed another “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale” stating that the parties “have entered into a forbearance agreement.” The trial court subsequently granted U.S. Bank’s motion to vacate the order of sale.

{¶11} On March 31, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a second “Alias Praecipe for Order for Sale” requesting an order of sale on the property and notice of sale was subsequently filed, scheduling the sale of the property. On June 22, 2010, U.S. Bank then filed a third “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale.” The reason cited for this motion was that the parties “are in the process of negotiating a loss mitigation agreement.”

{¶12} On July 12, 2010, the trial court granted U.S. Bank’s motion to withdraw the property from the Sheriff’s sale; however, the court also noted in its order that “No further withdrawals of sale will be allowed.”

{¶13} On July 15, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a “Pluries Praecipe for Order for Sale without Reappraisal” requesting that another order of sale be issued on the property. Sale of the property was scheduled for November 19, 2010.

{¶14} On October 21, 2010, nineteen months after the trial court issued its decree in foreclosure on the property, Spicer filed a “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.” Notably, this is the first formal appearance entered by Spicer in this action. In this motion, Spicer argued that he was never given the original loan documents evidencing his loan with Intervale, and that his original loan had been “shuffled around and assigned to various parties.” Spicer further alleged that there is no proof U.S. Bank was properly assigned the promissory note and mortgage. Spicer also claimed that he is a victim of “robo-signing”¹ by SPS, the servicing agent for his mortgage loan. In support of his motion, Spicer attached several internet articles and blogs, which generally discussed the alleged misconduct of some mortgage companies.

{¶15} In this motion, Spicer also requested that the trial court stay the Sheriff’s sale until it can be proven “who has actual position [sic] and ownership of the original mortgage and standing to foreclose on the mortgage.” However, he failed to specifically claim in this motion that he is entitled to relief pursuant to any of the enumerated grounds listed in Civ.R. 60(B) with respect to his instant case, or otherwise attempt to satisfy any the requirements a movant must prove in order to be entitled to Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment.

{¶16} On October 25, 2010, Spicer filed a supplement to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale” and attached several more unauthenticated articles and documents about MERS and Intervale, which were not of direct relevance to his case.

{¶17} On October 28, 2010, Spicer filed another supplement to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale,” attaching an amicus brief written by the Ohio Attorney General, which was filed in relation to a Cuyahoga County case, a separate and distinct case from Spicer’s case. Spicer argued that this other case was of particular relevance to his case because it involved U.S. Bank and its counsel of record in the case sub judice. Spicer urged the trial court to impute to his case any misconduct alleged against U.S. Bank in the Cuyahoga County case. Spicer also filed more internet articles generally examining the causes of the mortgage crisis, specifically the role of “robo-signing” by lenders in foreclosure actions.

{¶18} On November 4, 2010, Spicer filed a third supplement to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale,” now arguing that U.S. Bank had no standing to bring the underlying foreclosure action because the original mortgage lender, Intervale, did not have authority to execute mortgages in Ohio. Spicer further argued that U.S. Bank did not sign the original promissory note and does not have the original “wet ink” promissory note in its possession. Spicer also identified, for the first time, the two individuals who signed affidavits in support of the foreclosure proceedings from MERS and SPS,² and accused them of being “robo-signers” who “lack personal knowledge of the facts herein.” (Supp. Mot. Nov. 4, 2010 at 2).

{¶19} Notably, in each of his supplements to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale,” Spicer again failed to identify any grounds on which he is entitled to relief pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B).

{¶20} On November 8, 2010, U.S. Bank filed its memorandum in opposition to Spicer’s “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.” U.S. Bank argued that Spicer failed to satisfy the burden required to be shown by a movant that he or she is entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). Specifically, U.S. Bank asserted that Spicer failed to identify what grounds, if any, exist for vacating the judgment, provide any operative facts or admissible evidence in support of such grounds, failed to identify a meritorious defense to the foreclosure proceedings—i.e. why the loan is not in default for Spicer’s non-payment, and that his Civ.R. 60(B) motion was not timely.

{¶21} U.S. Bank further asserted that it is the real party in interest to bring the foreclosure proceedings and argued that Spicer had waived this issue by failing to raise it until nineteen months after the decree in foreclosure was entered by the trial court.

{¶22} On November 15, 2010, Spicer filed a “Reply Brief” to U.S. Bank’s memorandum in opposition to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale.” In his response, Spicer urged the trial court to follow a procedural rule adopted by the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas requiring plaintiffs to follow certain directives in filing complaints for foreclosure in that court. Spicer also, for the first time, alleged that he is entitled to relief on one of the grounds listed in Civ.R. 60(B), specifically Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which is the “catch-all” provision under the rule, permitting the court to vacate a judgment “for any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.” Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Spicer argued that U.S. Bank “is perpetrating a fraud upon this court” and asserted several unsubstantiated allegations to support his position. Spicer also maintained that his motion is timely because Civ.R. 60(B)(5) does not state a specific timeframe to bring the motion, but rather requires the motion to be filed within a “reasonable time.”

{¶23} U.S. Bank filed a response to Spicer’s “Reply Brief” on November 19, 2010, and attached several documents refuting Spicer’s various allegations, including that it was not the real party in interest under Civ.R. 17(A) to file the foreclosure action.

{¶24} On November 22, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a fourth “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale” requesting the trial court to temporarily refrain from executing the sale in order for U.S. Bank to comply with recent directives issued by the U.S. Treasury Department.

{¶25} On December 9, 2010, the trial court issued its decision overruling Spicer’s “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale.” Specifically, the trial court determined that Spicer failed to timely raise the defense that U.S. Bank was not the real party in interest under Civ. R. 17(A). The trial court also concluded that Spicer failed to satisfy his burden demonstrating he is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Furthermore, the trial court found the following with respect to Spicer’s allegations of misconduct by SPS:

As no misconduct has been alleged against [SPS], Defendant Gregory Spicer has not shown sufficient grounds [for] the granting of relief from judgment in this action. This is particularly true since said Defendant did nothing to object to the original judgment being rendered in this action, and did nothing to attempt to obtain relief from judgment until 21 [sic] months after the Judgment was rendered in this action. Said Defendant has made absolutely no showing that he had not failed to make his mortgage payments as agreed under the promissory note.

(JE, Dec. 9, 2010 at 4).

{¶26} Spicer subsequently filed this appeal, asserting the following assignments of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT FORECLOSURE IN THIS ACTION WAS FILED ON JANUARY 12, 2009, AND THAT DEFENDANT GREGORY SPICER DID NOT FILE HIS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2010. THIS 21-MONTH DELAY IS WELL BEYOND THE ONE YEAR TIME LIMIT. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT NOTHING IN THE RECORD OF THIS ACTION SHOWING THAT THE SERVICER OF THE MORTGAGE QUESTIONED, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., OR THAT BILL KOCH HAS ENGAGED IN ANY OF THE MISCONDUCT.

{¶27} For ease of discussion, we elect to address Spicer’s assignments of error together.

{¶28} In his first assignment of error, Spicer claims that the trial court erred when it found that he did not file his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment until twenty-one months after the trial court rendered judgment on the foreclosure action.³ Spicer appears to argue that his April 13, 2009 ex parte letter to the trial court served as a functional equivalent for a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and, therefore, his motion should be considered timely because it was sent to the court only three months after it rendered its foreclosure judgment.

{¶29} First, we observe that in his April 13, 2009 letter, Spicer simply requests the trial court to stay the Sheriff’s sale. In reviewing this letter, we note that Spicer fails to mention Civ.R. 60(B), let alone make any statement that can be construed as a request for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). In addition, Spicer neglects to cite any legal authority which supports his position that his ex parte letter, which does not contain the contents required by Civ.R. 60(B) in substance or in form, should be construed by the trial court as a timely filed motion for relief from judgment.

{¶30} Moreover, pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(7) we are not required to address arguments that have not been sufficiently presented for review or supported by proper authority. Therefore, it is well within our purview to disregard this assignment of error. See App.R. 12(A)(2). Nevertheless, in reviewing this issue we find no authority supporting Spicer’s contention that the trial court erred when it determined that he failed to file his Civ.R. 60(B) motion until twenty-one months after the foreclosure judgment was entered.

{¶31} Spicer also argues under this assignment of error that the trial court erred in determining that he is not entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Initially, we note that in order to prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, a party must show 1) a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; 2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the five enumerated grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and 3) the motion is made within the required timeframe. In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d 239, 242, 690 N.E.2d 535, 1998-Ohio-466; Douglas v. Boykin (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 140, 145, 699 N.E.2d 123.

{¶32} The elements entitling a movant to Civ.R. 60(B) relief “are independent and in the conjunctive; thus, the test is not fulfilled if any one of the requirements is not met.” Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d. 172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914, 1994-Ohio-107. “The decision to grant or deny a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. An abuse of discretion means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.

{¶33} On appeal, Spicer argues that he is entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which is the “catch-all” provision of the rule permitting a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.” This provision of the rule is not subject to the one-year limitation in filing as motions filed under Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2), and (3).⁴ Rather, motions filed on the grounds of Civ.R. 60(B)(5) are required to be filed in a reasonable time.

{¶34} In support of his position, Spicer argues that U.S. Bank is not the real party in interest to bring these foreclosure proceedings and that U.S. Bank and its servicing agent SPS had committed a “fraud upon the court.” The trial court addressed both of these issues in its judgment entry overruling his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.”

{¶35} First, with respect to Spicer’s argument that U.S. Bank is not the real party in interest to bring these foreclosure proceedings, we note that the trial court concluded that Spicer waived this argument because he failed to timely assert it. Civil Rule 17(A) provides, in pertinent part:

Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. * * * No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest.

{¶36} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that “[t]he purpose behind the real party in interest rule is to enable the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter.” Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24, 485 N.E.2d 701.

{¶37} As previously noted by this Court, a majority of appellate courts infer that the defense that a party is not the real party in interest can be raised after an initial responsive pleading, and if it is not raised in a timeframe relative to that initial pleading stage in the proceedings, then the defense is waived. First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford, 146 Ohio App.3d 673, 677, 2001-Ohio-2271, ¶13, 767 N.E.2d 1206 citing Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R.L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-014, Hang-Fu v. Halle Homes, Inc. (Aug. 10, 2000), 8th Dist. No. 76589, Robbins v. Warren (May 6, 1996), 12th Dist. No. CA95-11-200; see also Mid-State Trust IX v. Davis, 2nd Dist. No. 07-CA-31, ¶58 (affirming this principle on similar facts and concluding that the issue of standing for the real party in interest defense is waived if not timely asserted).

{¶38} Here, the record demonstrates that Spicer failed to enter a formal appearance in this action until more than nineteen months after the trial court entered its decree in foreclosure on the property. Spicer provides neither the trial court nor this Court with any explanation why he was unable to make any appearance in the underlying foreclosure proceedings, let alone timely raise this issue during the initial pleading phase. Rather, Spicer simply makes blanket assertions that U.S. Bank is not the real party in interest without submitting any evidence to substantiate his claim. Moreover, Spicer cites no legal authority to support his position. Accordingly, we do not find the trial court’s determination that Spicer failed to timely assert a real-party-in-interest defense to be an abuse of discretion.

{¶39} Spicer’s second basis that he is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is his assertion that U.S. Bank and SPS have committed a “fraud on the court.” In making this argument Spicer relies solely on Coulson v. Coulson, (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 12, 448 N.E.2d 809. In Coulson, an attorney represented to the court that he was counsel for the Plaintiff in a divorce action at the same time he was colluding with the Defendant in the action, by drafting a separation agreement on the behalf of the Plaintiff at the direction and upon the terms dictated by the Defendant. Id. at 13. The domestic relations court relied on the attorney’s representation and approved the separation agreement and incorporated it into its judgment, unaware of the attorney’s prior arrangement with the Defendant. Id. The Supreme Court of Ohio determined that the attorney’s actions in this instance constituted a “fraud upon the court.” Id. at 16-17.

{¶40} As explained by the Supreme Court, fraud upon the court embraces the “`species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by the officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.'” Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d at 15 quoting MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE (2 Ed.1971) 515, paragraph 60.33.

{¶41} As the basis for his claim that U.S. Bank and SPS committed a fraud upon the trial court, Spicer alleges that Bill Koch, the individual who effectuated the assignment of Spicer’s mortgage between Intervale and U.S. Bank, is a “robo-signer.” However, Spicer provided the trial court with no evidence to substantiate this claim other than unauthenticated internet articles discussing the alleged misconduct of mortgage lenders in the industry. There is nothing in these articles or Spicer’s unsupported allegations that can be construed as a “fraud upon the court.” Spicer simply failed to provide any relevant evidence to demonstrate misconduct on the part of U.S. Bank or its servicing agent, SPS in this matter.

{¶42} In addition, we note that Civ.R. 60(B)(5) applies only when a more specific provision of the rule does not apply. Strack v. Pelton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914, 1994-Ohio-107. Moreover, Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is not intended to be used as a substitute for any of the other more specific provisions of Civ.R. 60(B). Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 64, 448 N.E.2d 1365. Here Spicer’s allegations of misconduct against U.S. Bank and SPS are more akin to the traditional legal concept of fraud, which is specifically addressed by Civ.R. 60(B)(3). However, as previously mentioned, a motion filed pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(3) must be filed within one year from the entry of the judgment the movant seeks to vacate. Spicer’s “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment” was filed several months after the expiration of this timeframe. Accordingly, for all these reasons we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Spicer is not entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B) and overruled his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale.”

{¶43} Based on the foregoing, Spicer’s first and second assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

ROGERS, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.

FootNotes

1. Here, Spicer is referring to media reports covering the alleged widespread misconduct by mortgage servicers and banks during foreclosing procedures. Such alleged misconduct includes employees of these entities signing affidavits purporting to have knowledge of the contents of foreclosure files that the employees never actually reviewed and, therefore, have no personal knowledge of relative to the foreclosure proceedings.2. SPS is also the servicer for U.S. Bank on Spicer’s mortgage.3. As a point of clarification, Spicer filed his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale” nineteen months after the trial court entered its judgment of foreclosure. However, Spicer’s initial filing of his motion was captioned as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, but contained none of the required substance of such a motion. It was not until two months later, twenty-one months after the trial court’s foreclosure judgment, that Spicer actually included Civ.R. 60(B) elements in his “Reply Brief.”4. Civil Rule 60(B) specifically provides, “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.”

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

How Homeowners Can Spot Fraudulent Mortgage Documents

02 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Fraud, Judicial States, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Florida, MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, National City Bank, Texas, Trust deed (real estate), United States, Wall Street

This post is designed to assist struggling homeowners who find themselves in an unfortunate situation of wrongful foreclosure by illegal entities who are foreclosing without legitimate documents. Most securitized loans are being wrongfully foreclosed by entities who does not have any interest in the properties they are foreclosing.

If MERS is listed on your Deed of Trust there’s a better chance than not that there is fraud involved in your mortgage documents. MERS was used by the Wall Street Banks to avoid paying county recorder fees and real estate transfer tax fees. You will need to visit your County Recorder’s office to obtain copies of all of your real property records from the first filing on your current loan up to today.

1. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the Originator directly to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust.

2. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned months and sometimes years after the date of the origination of the underlying mortgage note.

3. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the initial aggregator directly to the Securitized Trust with no assignments to the Depositor or the Sponsor for the Trust.

4. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed, dated or assigned in a manner inconsistent with the mandatory governing rules of Section 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

5. The assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by a legal entity that was no longer in existence on the date the document was executed.

6. The assignment of the mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by an entity whose name is different than the entity named in the original document (i.e., National City Bank Corporation in lieu of ABC Corporation as a division of National City Bank).

7. The assignment was executed by a party pursuant to a Power of Attorney but no Power of Attorney is attached to the instrument or filed with the instrument or otherwise recorded with local land registry.

8. The mortgage note is allegedly transferred in a single document along with the Mortgage or Deed of Trust (i.e., “Assignment of the Note and Mortgage”). You cannot “assign” a mortgage note. You can only “negotiate” a mortgage note under Article 3 of the UCC.

9. The assignment is executed by a party who claims to be an “attorney in fact” for the assignor.

10. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Dakota County, Minnesota.

11. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

12. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Duval County, Florida.

13. The assignment is executed by an officer or secretary of MERS.

14. The assignment is notarized by a secretary or paralegal employed by the attorney for the mortgage servicer.

15. The assignment is executed or notarized by an employee of MR Default Services, Promiss Solutions LLC, National Default Exchange, LP, LOGS Financial Services, or some similar third-party.

16. The endorsement on the note is actually on an allonge affixed to the note. In most states, an allonge cannot be used if there is a sufficient amount of room at the “foot” or the “bottom” of the original note for the endorsement.

17. The allonge is not “permanently” affixed to the original note. The term permanent excludes the use of staples and tape and as a result you must use a sold fastener such as glue. Allonges are commonly referred to “in the business” as “tear-off fraud papers.”

18. The note proffered in evidence is not the original but a copy of the “certified copy” provided to the debtors at the closing.

19. The note is endorsed in blank with no transfer and delivery receipts. It is fine to endorse a note in blank, in which case it becomes “bearer” paper under the UCC. However, in order to prove a true sale from the Sponsor to the Depositor you must have written delivery and transfer receipts and proof of pay outs and pay in transactions.

20. The note proffered in evidence is not endorsed at the foot of the note or on an affixed allonge.

21. The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust post-dates the filing of the court pleading.

22. The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust is executed after the filing of the court pleadings but claims to be “legally effective” before the filing. For example, the deed of trust is assigned on June 1, 2009, with an effective date of May 1, 2007.

23. The parties who executed the assignment and who notarized the signature are in fact the same parties.

24. The signor states that he or she is an “agent” for the executing entity.

25. The signor states that he or she is an “attorney in fact” for the executing entity.

26. The signor states that he or she is an employee of the executing entity but claims to have custody and control of the records of the entity.

27. The signor of the document makes statements about the status of the mortgage debt based on his or her review of the “records of the plaintiff” or the “records of the moving party.”

28. The proponent of the original note files an Affidavit of Lost Note.

29. The signor claims that the allegations in the court pleading are correct but the assignment of the mortgage and/or delivery and transfer of the note occurs after the law suit or the motion for relief from stay was filed.

30. One or more of the operative documents in the case is signed by one of the attorneys for the mortgage servicer.

31. The default payment history filed in the case is prepared by the attorney for the mortgage servicer or a member of his or her staff.

32. The affidavit filed in support of legal fees is not signed by an attorney with the firm involved in the case.

33. The name of one or more of the signors is stamped on the document.

34. The document is a form with standard “fill-in-the-blanks” for names and amounts.

35. The signature of one or more parties on the document is not legible and looks like something a three year old might have done.

36. The document is dated and signed years before the document is actually filed with the register of real estate documents or deeds or mortgages.

37. The proffered document has the word C O P Y stamped on or embedded in the document.

38. The document is executed by a notary in Denton County, Texas.

39. The document is executed by a notary in Collin County, Texas.

40. The document includes a legend “Hold for” a named law firm after recording.

41. The document was drafted by a law firm representing the mortgage servicer in the pending case.

42. The document includes any type of bar code that was not added by the local register or filing clerk for such instruments.

43. The document includes a reference to an “instrument number.”

44. The document includes a reference to a “form number.”

45. The document does not include any reference to a Master Document Custodian.

46. The document is not authenticated by any officer or authorized agent of a Master Document Custodian.

47. The paragraph numbers on the document are not consistent (the last paragraph on page one is 7 and the first paragraph on page two starts with number 9).

48. The endorsement of the note is not at the “foot” or “bottom” of the last page of the note. For example, a few states allow an endorsement on the back of the last page of the note but the majority requires it at the foot of the note.

49. The document purports to assign the mortgage or the deed of trust to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the Trust was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This type of registration is normally referred to as a “shelf registration.”

50. The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the date the Trust provides for the origination date of instruments in the Trust. The Prospectus, the Prospectus Supplement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will clearly state that the pool of notes includes those originated between date X and date Y.

51. The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust after the cut-off date for the creating of such instruments for the Trust.

52. The origination date on the mortgage note is not within the origination and cut-off dates provided for the by terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

53. The “Affidavit of a Lost Note” is not filed by the Master Document Custodian for the Trust but by the Servicer or some other third-party.

54. The document is signed by a “bank officer” without any designation of the office held by the said officer.

55. The affidavit includes the following language on the bottom of each page: ”This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”

56. The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media supervisor” for the proponent.

57. The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media coordinator” for the proponent.

58. The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “legal coordinator” for the movant.

59. The date of the signature on the document and the date the signature was notarized are not the same.

60. The parties who signed the assignment and who notarized the signature are located in different states or counties.

61. The transferor and the transferee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

62. The assignor and the assignee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

63. The signor of the document states that he or she is acting “solely as nominee” for some other party.

64. The document refers to a power of attorney but no power of attorney is attached.

65. The document bears the following legend: ”This is not a certified copy.”

66. The document is signed by: (these are just a few names, do site search from more robo-signers)

Jose Aguilar

Joseph Alvarado

Felix Amenumey

Natalie Anderson

Pam Anderson

Scott Anderson or by Scott W. Anderson

Pamela Ariano

Leticia Arias

Chris Arndt

Aimee Austin

Gina Avila

Katrina Bailey

Fern Baker

Janice M. Baker

Lorraine Balara

Steve Ballman

Steve Bashmakov

Michael Bender

Jamie Bilot

Marnessa Birckett

Sarah Block

Janette Boatman

Michele Boiko

Sheri Bongaarts

Beth Borse

Christie Bouchard

Diane Bowser

Christopher Bray

Tammy Brooks-Saleh or Tammy Saleh

Sandy Broughton

Jenny Brouwer

Jacqueline Brown

Paul Bruha

Lins Bryce

Rita Bucolo

Judy Buseman

Butler & Hosch, P.A.

Becky Byrne

Rodney Cadwell

Robin Callahan

Carolyn Cari

Jeffrey P. Carlson

Nancy L. Carlson

Richard J. Carlson

Robin Carmody

Marvell Carmouche

Amy Jo Cauthern-Munoz

Kristi M. Caya

Kim Chambers

Carol Chapman

Keith Chapman

Hari Charagundla

Debra Chieffe

Christina Ching

Dave Chiodo

Jim Clark

Tara Clayton

John Cody

Robyn Colburn

Rebecca Colgan

Karen Cook

Frank Coon

Julie Coon

Julie Cordova

Jeremy Cox

Cathy Crawford

Kevin Crecco

Dave Cunningham

Michael Curry

Nanci Danekar

Amie Davis

Vickie Day

Yvette Day

Teresa DeBaker

Jody Delfs

Richard Delgado

Mike Dian

Dulce Diaz

Larry Dingmann

Kathleen Doherty

Jason Dreher

Jennifer Duncan

Kimbretta Duncan

Ronald Durant

Neil E. Dyson

Shirley Eads

Salena Edwards

Judy Faber

Sue Filiczkowski

Donna Fitton

Sean Flanagan

Angela L. Freckman

Verdine A. Freeman

Eric Friedman

Fedelis Fondungallah

Barb Frost

LeAllen Frost

Fanessa Fuller

Laura Furrick

Sarah Gacek

Judi Gambrel

Elizabeth Geretschlaeger

Peggy Glass

Dory or Dorey Goebel

Alma Gonzales

Eileen J. Gonzales

Kathleen Gowan

Kelly Graham

Steven Y. Green

Steven Grout

Cathy Hagstrom

Michelle Halyard

Craig Hanlon

Michael Hanna

Donna Harkness

Michael Hebling

Renee L. Hensley

May Her

Jim Herman

Laura Hescott

Dave Hillen

Joseph P. Hillery

Craig Hinson

Bob Hora

Teddi Horan

Robert L. Horn

Chrys Houston

JK Huey

Paul Hunt

Vickie Ingamells

Cassandra Inouye

Andrea Jenkins

Ashley Johnson

Mary B. Johnson

Janet Jones

Tina Jones

Peggy Jordon

Etsuko Kabeya

Jamil Kahin

Robert E. Kaltenbach

Pam Kammerer

Gloria Karau

Vishal Karingada

Rhonda Kastli

Andrew Keardy

Patricia Kelleher

Scott Keller

Bryan Kerr

John Kerr

Kim Kinney

Sandy Kinnunen

LeeAnne Kramer

Mutru Kumar

Martha Kunkle

Margie Kwaitanowski

Vicki Kyle

Sukhada Lad

Brian J. LaForest

Diane LaFrance

Patricia Lambengco

Kyurstina Lawton

Toccoa Lenair

Bharati Lengade

Lindsey Lesch

Whitney Lewis

Marie Lockwood

Stephanie Lowe

Todd Luckey

Michele Luszcz

Joseph Lutz

Hang Luu

Frank Madden

Lisa Magnuson

William Maguire

Michael G. Mand

Silvia Marchan

Charmaine Marchesi

Brock Martin

Joel Martinson

Denise A. Marvel

Mary Maxwell

Christopher Mayall

Patrick McClain

Mary McGrath

Hattie McLaughlin

Noel McNally

Donna McNaught

Michael Mead

Marcia Medley

Susan Meier

Marisa Menza

Pamela Michael

Linda Miller

Steve Moe

Nancy Mooney

Joanne Moore

Melody Moore

Taylor Moore

Ruth Morgan

Michael H. Moreland

Treva Moreland

Annmarie Morrison

Melissa Mosloski

Kim Mullins

Patricia Murray

Ginny Neidert

Steve A. Nielsen

Susan Nightingale

Colleen O’Donnell

Richard Olasande

Mitchell Oringer

Clothilde Ortega

Amy Payment

Dawn Peck

Bonnie Pelletier

Patte Peloquin

Joseph Pensabene

Kenneth R. Perkins

Jennifer Peters

Charity Peterson

Joyce Petty

Ann Pinto

Ingrid Pittman

Bernadette Polux

Tamara Price

Erika Puentes

Beverly Quaresima

Shivani L. Ram

Antonia Ramirez

Rona Ramos

Myron Ravelo

Peter Read

Keith S. Reno

Anthony N. Renzi

Dawn L. Reynolds

Jeff Rivas

Jose Rivera

Bill Rizzo

Paula Rosato

Margery A. Rotundo

Sarah Rubin or Sara Rubin

Paige Sahr

Tammy Saleh

Kendall Sanders

Cindy Sandoval

Dianna Sandoval

Kimberly Sanford

Josephine Sciarrino

Stephanie Scott

Jenee Simon

Laura Siess

Gregory Smallwood

Rosalie Solano

Erika Spencer

Joseph Spicer

Renae Stanton

Jeffrey Stephan

Maya Stevenson

Richard Stires

Judith Stone

September Stoudemire

Roy Stringfellow

Anne Sutcliffe

Rachel Switzer

Emmanuel Tabot

Mary Taylor

Varsha Thakkar

Bernice Thell

Keith Torok

Deb Twining

Kenneth Ugwuadu

R.P. Umali

Keo Maney Kue Vang

Jason Vecchio

Rebecca Verdeja

Vinod Vishwakarma

Fifi Volgarakis

Janet Vollmer

Kim Waldroff

Linda Walton

Lisa Watson

John Wesley

Katrina Whitfield-Bailey or by Katrina Whitfield or by Katrina Bailey

Joanne Wight

Cathy Williams

Paul Williams

Kristine Wilson

Mary Winbauer

Rebecca Wirtz

Danielle Woods

Janine Yamoah

Jerry Yang

Elizabeth Yeranosian

Mellisa Ziertman

Jan Zimmerman

Stephen Zindler

Katie Zrust

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

Why Homeowners Lose on Appeal – A Review of Wrongful Foreclosure Appeal Case

02 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by BNG in Appeal, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, MERS, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arizona, Bank of America, Florida, MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, New York, Washington, Wells Fargo

A CASE IN REVIEW (1)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-17364 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00517-JAT

OLGA CERVANTES, an unmarried
woman; CARLOS ALMENDAREZ, a
married man; ARTURO MAXIMO, a
married man, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.

OPINION
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a
New York corporation; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC., a subsidiary of MERSCORP,
INC., a Delaware corporation; ý MERSCORP, INC.; FEDERAL HOME
LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a
foreign corporation, AKA Freddie
Mac; FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a foreign
corporation; GMAC MORTGAGE,
LLC, a Delaware corporation;
NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, a
foreign company and a division of
National City Bank, a foreign
company; J.P. MORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., a New York
corporation; CITIMORTGAGE, INC., a
New York corporation;

HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
U.S.A., a Delaware corporation;
AIG UNITED GUARANTY
CORPORATION, a foreign
corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., a California corporation,
DBA Wells Fargo Home Equity;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a foreign
corporation; GE MONEY BANK, a
foreign company; PNC FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation; No. 09-17364
NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION, a D.C. No. subsidiary of PNC Financial Services Group; N 2:09-cv-00517-JAT ATIONAL CITY
BANK, a subsidiary of National OPINION
City Corporation; MERRILL LYNCH
& COMPANY, INC., a subsidiary of
Bank of America Corporation;
FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a subsidiary of
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.;
LASALLE BANK, N.A., a subsidiary
of Bank of America; TIFFANY &
BOSCO P.A., an Arizona
professional association,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
February 16, 2011—San Francisco, California
Filed September 7, 2011

Before: Richard C. Tallman, Johnnie B. Rawlinson,* and
Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Callahan

*Due to the death of the Honorable David R. Thompson, the Honorable
Johnnie B. Rawlinson, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit,
has been drawn to replace him on this panel. Judge Rawlinson has read
the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to the audio recording of oral
argument held on February 16, 2011.

COUNSEL
William A. Nebeker and Valerie R. Edwards, Koeller
Nebeker Carlson & Haluck, LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, and Robert
Hager and Treva Hearne, Hager & Hearne, Reno, Nevada,
for the appellants.
Timothy J. Thomason, Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander,
P.A., Phoenix, Arizona, Thomas M. Hefferon, Goodwin
Procter, LLP, Washington, DC, Howard N. Cayne,
Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC, Stephen E. Hart,
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC, Mark S.
Landman, Landman Corsini Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York,
New York, and Robert M. Brochin, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLP, Miami, Florida, for the appellees.

OPINION

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
This is a putative class action challenging origination and
foreclosure procedures for home loans maintained within the
Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). The plaintiffs
appeal from the dismissal of their First Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim. In their complaint, the
plaintiffs allege conspiracies by their lenders and others to use
MERS to commit fraud. They also allege that their lenders
violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601
et seq., and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 44-1522, and committed the tort of intentional infliction of
emotional distress by targeting the plaintiffs for loans they
could not repay. The plaintiffs were denied leave to file their
proposed Second Amended Complaint, and to add a new
claim for wrongful foreclosure based upon the operation of
the MERS system.

On appeal, the plaintiffs stand by the sufficiency of some
of their claims, but primarily contend that they could cure any
pleading deficiencies with a newly amended complaint, which
would include a claim for wrongful foreclosure. We are
unpersuaded that the plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to
support their claims. Although the plaintiffs allege that
aspects of the MERS system are fraudulent, they cannot
establish that they were misinformed about the MERS system,
relied on any misinformation in entering into their home
loans, or were injured as a result of the misinformation. If
anything, the allegations suggest that the plaintiffs were
informed of the exact aspects of the MERS system that they
now complain about when they agreed to enter into their
home loans. Further, although the plaintiffs contend that they
can state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, Arizona state law
does not currently recognize this cause of action, and their
claim is, in any case, without a basis. The plaintiffs’ claim
depends upon the conclusion that any home loan within the MERS system is unenforceable through a foreclosure sale, but
that conclusion is unsupported by the facts and law on which
they rely. Because the plaintiffs fail to establish a plausible
basis for relief on these and their other claims raised on
appeal, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint
without leave to amend.

I.
The focus of this lawsuit—and many others around the
country—is the MERS system.

1. How MERS works
MERS is a private electronic database, operated by MERSCORP,
Inc., that tracks the transfer of the “beneficial interest”
in home loans, as well as any changes in loan servicers. After
a borrower takes out a home loan, the original lender may sell
all or a portion of its beneficial interest in the loan and change
loan servicers. The owner of the beneficial interest is entitled
to repayment of the loan. For simplicity, we will refer to the
owner of the beneficial interest as the “lender.” The servicer
of the loan collects payments from the borrower, sends payments
to the lender, and handles administrative aspects of the
loan. Many of the companies that participate in the mortgage
industry—by originating loans, buying or investing in the
beneficial interest in loans, or servicing loans—are members
of MERS and pay a fee to use the tracking system. See Jackson
v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487,
490 (Minn. 2009).

When a borrower takes out a home loan, the borrower executes
two documents in favor of the lender: (1) a promissory
note to repay the loan, and (2) a deed of trust, or mortgage,
that transfers legal title in the property as collateral to secure
the loan in the event of default. State laws require the lender
to record the deed in the county in which the property is located. Any subsequent sale or assignment of the deed must
be recorded in the county records, as well.

This recording process became cumbersome to the mortgage
industry, particularly as the trading of loans increased.
See Robert E. Dordan, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
(MERS), Its Recent Legal Battles, and the Chance for a
Peaceful Existence, 12 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 177, 178 (2010).
It has become common for original lenders to bundle the beneficial
interest in individual loans and sell them to investors
as mortgage-backed securities, which may themselves be
traded. See id. at 180; Jackson, 770 N.W.2d at 490. MERS
was designed to avoid the need to record multiple transfers of
the deed by serving as the nominal record holder of the deed
on behalf of the original lender and any subsequent lender.
Jackson, 770 N.W.2d at 490.

At the origination of the loan, MERS is designated in the
deed of trust as a nominee for the lender and the lender’s
“successors and assigns,” and as the deed’s “beneficiary”
which holds legal title to the security interest conveyed. If the
lender sells or assigns the beneficial interest in the loan to
another MERS member, the change is recorded only in the
MERS database, not in county records, because MERS continues
to hold the deed on the new lender’s behalf. If the beneficial
interest in the loan is sold to a non-MERS member, the
transfer of the deed from MERS to the new lender is recorded
in county records and the loan is no longer tracked in the
MERS system.
In the event of a default on the loan, the lender may initiate
foreclosure in its own name, or may appoint a trustee to initiate
foreclosure on the lender’s behalf. However, to have the
legal power to foreclose, the trustee must have authority to act
as the holder, or agent of the holder, of both the deed and the
note together. See Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d
158, 167 (Kan. 2009). The deed and note must be held
together because the holder of the note is only entitled to repayment, and does not have the right under the deed to use
the property as a means of satisfying repayment. Id. Conversely,
the holder of the deed alone does not have a right to
repayment and, thus, does not have an interest in foreclosing
on the property to satisfy repayment. Id. One of the main
premises of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit here is that the MERS system
impermissibly “splits” the note and deed by facilitating
the transfer of the beneficial interest in the loan among lenders
while maintaining MERS as the nominal holder of the
deed.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit is also premised on the fact that
MERS does not have a financial interest in the loans, which,
according to the plaintiffs, renders MERS’s status as a beneficiary
a sham. MERS is not involved in originating the loan,
does not have any right to payments on the loan, and does not
service the loan. MERS relies on its members to have someone
on their own staff become a MERS officer with the
authority to sign documents on behalf of MERS. See Dordan,
12 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. at 182; Jackson, 770 N.W.2d at 491.
As a result, most of the actions taken in MERS’s own name
are carried out by staff at the companies that sell and buy the
beneficial interest in the loans. Id.

2. The named plaintiffs
The three named plaintiffs in this case, Olga Cervantes,
Carlos Almendarez, and Arturo Maximo, obtained home
loans or refinanced existing loans in 2006. All three signed
promissory notes with their lenders—Cervantes with Countrywide
Home Loans, and Almendarez and Maximo with First
Franklin. Each executed a deed of trust in favor of his or her
lender, naming MERS as the “beneficiary” and as the “nominee”
for the lender and lender’s “successors and assigns.”
All three plaintiffs are Hispanic, and Almendarez and Maximo
do not speak or read English. Almendarez and Maximo
negotiated the mortgage loans with their lenders in Spanish, but were provided with, and signed, copies of their loan documents
written in English.
The plaintiffs subsequently defaulted on their loans. Following
Cervantes’s default, trustee Recontrust Company initiated
non-judicial foreclosure proceedings by recording a
notice of a trustee’s sale in the county records. The parties
have not addressed the status of the noticed sale. Following
defaults by Almendarez and Maximo, their lender, First
Franklin, appointed LaSalle Bank as its trustee to initiate nonjudicial
foreclosure proceedings. MERS recorded documents
with the county assigning its beneficial interest in the deeds
of trust to La Salle Bank. Later, Michael Bosco of Tiffany &
Bosco was substituted in as First Franklin’s trustee. Michael
Bosco sold Almendarez’s house at public auction in February
2009. The sale of Maximo’s property was cancelled in April
2009.

3. Procedural history
Cervantes filed suit in March 2009. Almendarez and Maximo
joined the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Complaint a few days later. The First Amended
Complaint names several defendants, including the plaintiffs’
lenders, the trustees for the lenders, MERS, and MERS members
who are named only as co-conspirators based on their
role in using the MERS system. The defendants filed several
motions to dismiss, prompting the plaintiffs to file a motion
for leave to amend, along with a proposed Second Amended
Complaint. The district court held a hearing on the various
motions, at which the plaintiffs orally proposed to amend their
complaint with a wrongful foreclosure claim. The district
court granted the motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint,
and denied the motion for leave to amend on the
ground that amendment would be futile. The plaintiffs appeal.

II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097,
1102 (9th Cir. 2008). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Dismissal is proper when the complaint does
not make out a cognizable legal theory or does not allege sufficient
facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Mendiondo,
521 F.3d at 1104. A complaint that alleges only “labels and
conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of the
cause of action” will not survive dismissal. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

The district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Gompper v. VISX, Inc.,
298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). Although leave to amend
should be given freely, a district court may dismiss without
leave where a plaintiff ’s proposed amendments would fail to
cure the pleading deficiencies and amendment would be
futile. See Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection
Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).1

1The plaintiffs have requested that we take judicial notice of orders of
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissing
complaints without prejudice in pending multidistrict litigation concerning
MERS. The plaintiffs imply that it was inconsistent for the same district
court to deny leave to amend here. We deny the requests because the
orders are not relevant.

III.
The plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their complaint
without leave to amend but, on appeal, only address the district
court’s: (1) dismissal of their claim for conspiracy to
commit fraud through the MERS system; (2) failure to
address their oral request for leave to add a wrongful foreclosure
claim; (3) dismissal of trustee Tiffany & Bosco from the suit; (4) denial of leave to amend their pleadings regarding equitable tolling of their TILA and Arizona Consumer Fraud Act claims; and (5) dismissal of their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We address these claims in
turn, and do not consider the dismissed claims that are not
raised on appeal. Entm’t Research Group v. Genesis Creative
Group, 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“We will not
consider any claims that were not actually argued in [appellant’s]
opening brief.”).

1. Conspiracy to commit fraud through the MERS
system
On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that they sufficiently
alleged a conspiracy among MERS members to commit fraud.
In count seven of the First Amended Complaint, they allege
that MERS members conspired to commit fraud by using
MERS as a sham beneficiary, promoting and facilitating predatory
lending practices through the use of MERS, and making
it impossible for borrowers or regulators to track the changes
in lenders.

[1] Under Arizona law, a claim of civil conspiracy must be
based on an underlying tort, such as fraud in this instance.
Baker ex rel. Hall Brake Supply, Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust
of Phoenix, Inc., 5 P.3d 249, 256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). To
show fraud, a plaintiff must identify “(1) a representation; (2)
its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of
its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the speaker’s intent that
it be acted upon by the recipient in the manner reasonably
contemplated; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the
hearer’s reliance on its truth; (8) the right to rely on it; [and]
(9) his consequent and proximate injury.” Echols v. Beauty
Built Homes, Inc., 647 P.2d 629, 631 (Ariz. 1982).

[2] The plaintiffs’ allegations fail to address several of
these necessary elements for a fraud claim. The plaintiffs have
not identified any representations made to them about the MERS system and its role in their home loans that were false
and material. None of their allegations indicate that the plaintiffs
were misinformed about MERS’s role as a beneficiary,
or the possibility that their loans would be resold and tracked
through the MERS system. Similarly, the plaintiffs have not
alleged that they relied on any misrepresentations about
MERS in deciding to enter into their home loans, or that they
would not have entered into the loans if they had more information
about how MERS worked. Finally, the plaintiffs have
failed to show that the designation of MERS as a beneficiary
caused them any injury by, for example, affecting the terms
of their loans, their ability to repay the loans, or their obligations
as borrowers. Although the plaintiffs allege that they
were “deprived of the right to attempt to modify their toxic
loans, as the true identity of the actual beneficial owner was
intentionally hidden” from them, they do not support this bare
assertion with any explanation as to how the operation of the
MERS system actually stymied their efforts to identify and
contact the relevant party to modify their loans. Thus, the
plaintiffs fail to state a claim for conspiracy to commit fraud
through the MERS system, and dismissal of the claim was
proper.

[3] While the plaintiffs’ allegations alone fail to raise a
plausible fraud claim, we also note that their claim is undercut
by the terms in Cervantes’s standard deed of trust, which
describe MERS’s role in the home loan.2 For example, the
plaintiffs allege they were defrauded because MERS is a
“sham” beneficiary without a financial interest in the loan, yet
the disclosures in the deed indicate that MERS is acting
“solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and
assigns” and holds “only legal title to the interest granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument.” Further, while the
plaintiffs indicate that MERS was used to hide who owned the
loan, the deed states that the loan or a partial interest in it “can
be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower,”
but that “[i]f there is a change in Loan Servicer, Borrower will
be given written notice of the change” as required by consumer
protection laws. Finally, the deed indicates that MERS
has “the right to foreclose and sell the property.” By signing
the deeds of trust, the plaintiffs agreed to the terms and were
on notice of the contents. See Kenly v. Miracle Props., 412 F.
Supp. 1072, 1075 (D. Ariz. 1976) (explaining that a deed of
trust is “an essentially private contractual arrangement”). In
light of the explicit terms of the standard deed signed by Cervantes,
it does not appear that the plaintiffs were misinformed
about MERS’s role in their home loans.

2Cervantes’s deed of trust, attached to MERSCORP’s reply in support
of its motion to dismiss, may be considered at the pleadings stage because the complaint references and relies on the deed, and its authenticity is unquestioned. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

[4] Moreover, amendment would be futile. In their proposed
Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to add
further detail concerning how MERS works in general and
how it has facilitated the trade in mortgage-backed securities.
But none of the new allegations cure the First Amended Complaint’s
deficiencies: the plaintiffs have not shown that they
received material misrepresentations about MERS that they
detrimentally relied upon. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s dismissal, without leave to amend, of the claim for
conspiracy to commit fraud through the MERS system.

2. Wrongful foreclosure
The plaintiffs contend that the district court abused its discretion
by dismissing their complaint without leave to add a
wrongful foreclosure claim. The only mention of a wrongful
foreclosure claim was during the hearing on the plaintiffs’
motion for leave to amend and the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Although the plaintiffs expressed their intention to add
a wrongful foreclosure claim, they failed to include it in their
proposed Second Amended Complaint. Moreover, during the
hearing, the plaintiffs stated only a general theory of the claim: they posited that any foreclosure on a home loan tracked in the MERS system is “wrongful” because MERS is not a true beneficiary. As the plaintiffs describe it on appeal, their claim is that “the MERS system was used to facilitate wrongful foreclosure based on the naming of MERS as the
beneficiary on the deed of trust, which results in the note and
deed of trust being split and unenforceable.”

[5] The plaintiffs’ oral request to add a wrongful foreclosure
claim was procedurally improper and substantively
unsupported. The district court’s local rules require the plaintiffs
to submit a copy of the proposed amended pleadings
along with a motion for leave to amend. See D. Ariz. Civ. L.
R. 15.1. The plaintiffs failed to do so. Further, they failed to
provide the district court with an explanation of the legal and
factual grounds for adding the claim. It is particularly notable
here that Arizona state courts have not yet recognized a
wrongful foreclosure cause of action. Although a federal court
exercising diversity jurisdiction is “at liberty to predict the
future course of [a state’s] law,” plaintiffs choosing “the federal
forum . . . [are] not entitled to trailblazing initiatives
under [state law].” Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry
Co., Inc., 124 F.3d 252, 262- 63 (1st Cir. 1997) (affirming
dismissal of a wrongful foreclosure claim when no such
action existed under state law). Under the circumstances, we
conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district
court to deny leave to amend without addressing the plaintiffs’
proposed claim for wrongful foreclosure. See Gardner
v. Martino (In re Gardner), 563 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2009)
(concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying leave to amend where the party seeking leave
failed to attach a proposed amended complaint in violation of
local rules and failed to articulate a factual and legal basis for
amendment).

[6] In any event, leave to amend would be futile because
the plaintiffs cannot state a plausible basis for relief. Looking
to states that have recognized substantive wrongful foreclosure claims, we note that such claims typically are available
after foreclosure and are premised on allegations that the borrower
was not in default, or on procedural issues that resulted
in damages to the borrower. See, e.g., Ed Peters Jewelry Co.,
124 F.3d at 263 n.8 (noting that the Massachusetts Supreme
Court recognized a claim for wrongful foreclosure where no
default had occurred in Mechanics Nat’l Bank of Worcester v.
Killeen, 384 N.E.2d 1231, 1236 (Mass. 1979)); Fields v. Millsap
& Singer, P.C., 295 S.W.3d 567, 571 (Mo. Ct. App.
2009) (stating that “a plaintiff seeking damages in a wrongful
foreclosure action must plead and prove that when the foreclosure
proceeding was begun, there was no default on its part
that would give rise to a right to foreclose” (internal alteration
and citation omitted)); Gregorakos v. Wells Fargo Nat’l
Ass’n, 647 S.E.2d 289, 292 (Ga. App. 2007) (“In Georgia, a
plaintiff asserting a claim of wrongful foreclosure must establish
a legal duty owed to it by the foreclosing party, a breach
of that duty, a causal connection between the breach of that
duty and the injury it sustained, and damages.” (internal quotation
marks and alteration omitted)); Collins v. Union Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983) (“[T]he
material issue of fact in a wrongful foreclosure claim is
whether the trustor was in default when the power of sale was
exercised.”). Similarly, the case that the plaintiffs cite for the
availability of a wrongful foreclosure claim under Arizona
law, Herring v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 06-2622,
2007 WL 2051394, at *6 (D. Ariz. July 13, 2007), recognized
such a claim where the borrower was not in default at the time
of foreclosure. The plaintiffs have not alleged that Cervantes’s
or Maximo’s homes were sold and, in any event, all are
in default and have not identified damages. Thus, under the
established theories of wrongful foreclosure, the plaintiffs
have failed to state a claim.

Instead, the plaintiffs advance a novel theory of wrongful
foreclosure. They contend that all transfers of the interests in
the home loans within the MERS system are invalid because
the designation of MERS as a beneficiary is a sham and the system splits the deed from the note, and, thus, no party is in
a position to foreclose.

[7] Even if we were to accept the plaintiffs’ premises that
MERS is a sham beneficiary and the note is split from the
deed, we would reject the plaintiffs’ conclusion that, as a necessary
consequence, no party has the power to foreclose. The
legality of MERS’s role as a beneficiary may be at issue
where MERS initiates foreclosure in its own name, or where
the plaintiffs allege a violation of state recording and foreclosure
statutes based on the designation. See, e.g., Mortgage
Elec. Registration Sys. v. Saunders, 2 A.3d 289, 294-97 (Me.
2010) (concluding that MERS cannot foreclose because it
does not have an independent interest in the loan because it
functions solely as a nominee); Landmark Nat’l Bank, 216
P.3d at 165-69 (same); Hooker v. Northwest Tr. Servs., No.
10-3111, 2011 WL 2119103, at *4 (D. Or. May 25, 2011)
(concluding that the defendants’ failure to register all assignments
of the deed of trust violated the Oregon recording laws
so as to prevent non-judicial foreclosure). But see Jackson,
770 N.W.2d at 501 (concluding that defendants’ failure to
register assignments of the beneficial interest in the mortgage
loan did not violate Minnesota recording laws so as to prevent
non-judicial foreclosure). This case does not present either of
these circumstances and, thus, we do not consider them.

[8] Here, MERS did not initiate foreclosure: the trustees
initiated foreclosure in the name of the lenders. Even if
MERS were a sham beneficiary, the lenders would still be
entitled to repayment of the loans and would be the proper
parties to initiate foreclosure after the plaintiffs defaulted on
their loans. The plaintiffs’ allegations do not call into question
whether the trustees were agents of the lenders. Rather, the
foreclosures against Almendarez and Maximo were initiated
by the trustee Tiffany & Bosco on behalf of First Franklin,
who is the original lender and holder of Almendarez’s and
Maximo’s promissory notes. Although it is unclear from the
pleadings who the current lender is on plaintiff Cervantes’s loan, the allegations do not raise any inference that the trustee
Recontrust Company lacks the authority to act on behalf of
the lender.

Further, the notes and deeds are not irreparably split: the
split only renders the mortgage unenforceable if MERS or the
trustee, as nominal holders of the deeds, are not agents of the
lenders. See Landmark Nat’l Bank, 216 P.3d at 167. Moreover,
the plaintiffs have not alleged violations of Arizona
recording and foreclosure statutes related to the purported
splitting of the notes and deeds.

[9] Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not raised a plausible
claim for wrongful foreclosure, and we conclude that dismissal
of the complaint without leave to add such a claim was
not an abuse of discretion.

3. Injunctive relief against Tiffany & Bosco
[10] The plaintiffs contend that the district court improperly
dismissed the trustee Tiffany & Bosco from this suit
under Arizona Revised Statute 33-807(E). Section 33-807(E)
provides that a “trustee is entitled to be immediately dismissed”
from any action other than one “pertaining to a
breach of the trustee’s obligations,” because the trustee is otherwise
bound by an order entered against a beneficiary for
actions that the trustee took on its behalf. The only breach that
the plaintiffs allege against Tiffany & Bosco is that it failed
to recognize that its appointment was invalid. According to
the plaintiffs, the appointment was invalid because MERS is
a sham beneficiary and lacks power to “appoint” a trustee.
However, a trustee such as Tiffany & Bosco has the “absolute
right” under Arizona law “to rely upon any written direction
or information furnished to him by the beneficiary.” Ariz.
Rev. Stat. § 33-820(A). Thus, Tiffany & Bosco did not have
an obligation to consider whether its presumptively legal
appointment as trustee, which was recorded in the county
records, was invalid based on the original designation of MERS as a beneficiary. Accordingly, Tiffany & Bosco was
properly dismissed.

4. Equitable Tolling and Estoppel
The plaintiffs contend that the district court failed to
address the equitable tolling of their claims under TILA and
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and, in any event, abused its
discretion by denying the plaintiffs leave to amend their allegations
in support of equitable tolling and estoppel. A district
court may dismiss a claim “[i]f the running of the statute is
apparent on the face of the complaint.” Jablon v. Dean Witter
& Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980). However, a district
court may do so “only if the assertions of the complaint, read
with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to
prove that the statute was tolled.” Id.

[11] The plaintiffs’ claims under TILA and the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act are subject to one-year statutes of limitations.
15 U.S.C. § 1640(e); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(5). Both
limitations periods began to run when the plaintiffs executed
their loan documents, because they could have discovered the
alleged disclosure violations and discrepancies at that time.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (the one-year limitations period for
a TILA claim begins when the violation occurred); Alaface v.
Nat’l Inv. Co., 892 P.2d 1375, 1379 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994) (a
cause of action for consumer fraud under Arizona law accrues
“ ‘when the defrauded party discovers or with reasonable diligence
could have discovered the fraud’ ”). The running of the
limitations periods on both claims is apparent on the face of
the complaint because the plaintiffs obtained their loans in
2006, but commenced their action in 2009.

[12] The plaintiffs have not demonstrated a basis for equitable
tolling of their claims. “We will apply equitable tolling
in situations where, despite all due diligence, the party invoking
equitable tolling is unable to obtain vital information bearing
on the existence of the claim.” Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks
and alterations omitted). The plaintiffs suggest that their
TILA claim should have been tolled because Almendarez and
Maximo speak only Spanish, but received loan documents
written in English. However, the plaintiffs have not alleged
circumstances beyond their control that prevented them from
seeking a translation of the loan documents that they signed
and received. Thus, the plaintiffs have not stated a basis for
equitable tolling. See Hubbard v. Fidelity Fed. Bank, 91 F.3d
75, 79 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (declining to toll TILA’s
statute of limitations when “nothing prevented [the mortgagor]
from comparing the loan contract, [the lender’s] initial
disclosures, and TILA’s statutory and regulatory requirements”).

[13] In addition, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
basis for equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel “halts the statute
of limitations when there is active conduct by a defendant,
above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which the plaintiff ’s
claim is filed, to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time.” See
Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The First Amended Complaint
alleges only that the defendants “fraudulently misrepresented
and concealed the true facts related to the items subject to disclosure.”
The plaintiffs, however, have failed to specify what
true facts are at issue, or to establish that the alleged misrepresentation
and concealment of facts is “above and beyond the
wrongdoing” that forms the basis for their TILA and Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act claims. Guerrero, 442 F.3d at 706.

[14] The district court therefore properly dismissed the
plaintiffs’ claims under both TILA and the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act as barred by a one-year statute of limitations. The
plaintiffs did not add any new facts to the proposed Second
Amended Complaint, and do not suggest any on appeal, that
would support applying either equitable tolling or equitable
estoppel to their claims. Thus, the district court also did not
abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend.

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The plaintiffs contend that they sufficiently stated a claim
for intentional infliction of emotional distress. When ruling on
a motion to dismiss such a claim under Arizona law, a district
court may determine whether the alleged conduct rises to the
level of “extreme and outrageous.” See Cluff v. Farmers Ins.
Exch., 460 P.2d 666, 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969), overruled on
other grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.,
783 P.2d 781 (Ariz. 1989).

[15] Here, the plaintiffs fail to meet that threshold. They
allege that the lenders’ “actions in targeting Plaintiffs for a
loan, misrepresenting the terms and conditions of the loan,
negotiating the loan, and closing the loan” were “extreme and
outrageous because of the Plaintiffs’ vulnerability” and “because
the subject of the loan was each Plaintiff ’s primary residence.”
This conduct, though arguably offensive if true, is
not so outrageous as to go “beyond all possible bounds of
decency.” Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 716
P.2d 1013, 1015 (Ariz. 1986) (en banc). The plaintiffs essentially
allege that the lenders offered them loans that the lenders
knew they could not repay; this is not inherently “extreme
and outrageous.” Moreover, the plaintiffs do not allege any
additional support for their claim in their proposed Second
Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the district court properly
dismissed, without leave to amend, the plaintiffs’ claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

IV.
The district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The plaintiffs’
claims that focus on the operation of the MERS system ultimately
fail because the plaintiffs have not shown that the
alleged illegalities associated with the MERS system injured
them or violated state law. As part of their fraud claim, the
plaintiffs have not shown that they detrimentally relied upon any misrepresentations about MERS’s role in their loans. Further,
even if we were to accept the plaintiffs’ contention that
MERS is a sham beneficiary and the note is split from the
deed in the MERS system, it does not follow that any attempt
to foreclose after the plaintiffs defaulted on their loans is necessarily
“wrongful.” The plaintiffs’ claims against their original
lenders fail because they have not stated a basis for
equitable tolling or estoppel of the statutes of limitations on
their TILA and Arizona Consumer Fraud Act claims, and
have not identified extreme and outrageous conduct in support
of their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Thus, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

If you have been a victim of wrongful foreclosure and need help in saving your home from fraudulent foreclosure, you need to know the Foreclosure Fundamentals that will ensure that you stick it to these illegal entities rather than having your case thrown out by the courts that favors the deep pockets. To get the real arsenals that will blow the lids off of these crime pots – visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

FightForeclosure.net

~ Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

Tag Archives: Mortgage Electronic Registration System

What Homeowners Should Know About Foreclosure Defense

Foreclosure Defense Varies by State

Foreclosure Defense and Chain of Title

Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Other Foreclosure Defense Strategies

How Homeowners Can Find Who Owns Their Mortgage Loans

What Homeowners Must Know After they Have Been Sued in a Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding

Introduction

Step 1: Answer

Step 2: Pre-Trial Conference

Step 3: Discovery

Step 4: Motions

Step 5: Trial

DEALING WITH THE LAW

How Homeowners Can Use Ibanez Case to Fight a Wrongful Foreclosure

How California Homeowners Can Technically Disqualify their Foreclosure Mill Attorney

What Homeowners Must Know About Pleading their Wrongful Foreclosure Cases in the Courts

Kentucky Federal Case Against MERS to Move Forward

Why Homeowners Need to Shift the Burden of Proof To Foreclosure Mills

OPINION

FootNotes

How Homeowners Can Spot Fraudulent Mortgage Documents

Why Homeowners Lose on Appeal – A Review of Wrongful Foreclosure Appeal Case

Foreclosure Defense Varies by State

Foreclosure Defense and Chain of Title

Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Other Foreclosure Defense Strategies

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Introduction

Step 1: Answer

Step 2: Pre-Trial Conference

Step 3: Discovery

Step 4: Motions

Step 5: Trial

DEALING WITH THE LAW

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

OPINION

FootNotes

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: