Joe Lents hasn't made a payment on his $1.5 million mortgage since 2002.

[Friendsplacect]

I dont have a link to this article but...

Milwaukee Journal/ sentinel 3/16/08

Technicality saves some homes from foreclosure
Lenders can't always prove they own debt
By BOB IVRY
Bloomberg News
Posted: March 15, 2008
Joe Lents hasn't made a payment on his $1.5 million mortgage since 2002.
That's when Washington Mutual Inc. first tried to foreclose on his home in Boca Raton, Fla. The Seattle-based lender failed to prove that it owned Lents' mortgage note and dropped attempts to take his house. Subsequent efforts to foreclose have stalled because no one has produced the paperwork.

"If you're going to take my house away from me, you better own the note," said Lents, 63.

Judges in at least five states have stopped foreclosure proceedings because the banks that pool mortgages into securities and the companies that collect monthly payments haven't been able to prove they own the mortgages.

More than $2.1 trillion, or 19%, of outstanding mortgages have been bundled into securities by private banks, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a Bethesda, Md.-based industry newsletter. Those loans may be sold several times before they land in a security. Mortgage servicers, who collect monthly payments and distribute them to securities investors, can buy and sell the home loans many times.

Each time the mortgages change hands, the sellers are required to sign over the mortgage notes to the buyers. In the rush to originate more loans during the U.S. mortgage boom, from 2003 to '06, that assignment of ownership wasn't always properly completed, said Alan White, assistant professor at Valparaiso University School of Law in Valparaiso, Ind.

"Loans were mass-produced and short cuts were taken," White said. "A lot of the paperwork is done in the name of the original lender, and a lot of the original lenders aren't around anymore."

Borrower advocates, including Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, have seized upon the issue of missing mortgage notes as a way to stem foreclosures.

"These trusts are purchasing these notes, and before they even get the paperwork, they foreclose on people. They become foreclosure machines," said Chris Geidner, an attorney in Dann's office

Who owns the loans?
When the mortgage servicers and securitizing banks that act as trustees of the securities fail to present proof that they own a mortgage, they sometimes file what's called a lost-note affidavit, said April Charney, a lawyer at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida.

Nobody knows how widespread the use of lost-note affidavits are, Charney said. She's had foreclosure proceedings for 300 clients dismissed or postponed in the past year, with about 80% of them involving lost-note affidavits, she said.

"They raise the issue of whether the trusts own the loans at all," Charney said. "Lost-note affidavits are pattern and practice in the industry. They are not exceptions. They are the rule."

Requiring banks to produce the paperwork at a foreclosure hearing is a nuisance, said Jeffrey Naimon, a partner in the Washington office of Buckley Kolar LLP.

"It's a gigantic waste of time," Naimon said. "The mortgage may have transferred five, six, eight times. It's possible that you don't have all the pieces of paper, but it was enough to convince the next guy in the chain. There's no true controversy over whether the owner owns the loan."

Increasing impatience
Judges are becoming increasingly impatient with plaintiffs who produce no more proof of ownership than a lost-note affidavit or a copy of the note, said Michael Doan, a Carlsbad, Calif., attorney.

In Ohio, where RealtyTrac reported an 88% jump in foreclosures last year, the attorney general is arguing 40 foreclosure cases that challenge ownership of mortgage notes, according to his office.

U.S. District Judge David D. Dowd Jr. in Ohio's northern district chastised Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and Argent Mortgage Securities Inc. in October for what he called their "cavalier approach" toward proving ownership of the mortgage note in a foreclosure case.

Similar cases were dismissed during the past year by judges in California, Massachusetts, Kansas and New York.

The home-loan industry has had a central electronic database since 1997 to track mortgages as they are bought and sold.

It's run by Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS. About half of outstanding mortgages are registered with the company.

But for the other half of U.S. mortgages, there is no tracking mechanism.

MERS' rules don't allow members to submit lost-note affidavits in place of mortgage notes, Arnold said.

"A lot of companies say the note is lost when it's highly unlikely the note is lost. Saying a note is lost when it's not really lost is wrong."

[mrg]

Saying a note is lost when it's not really lost is wrong.

What is really wrong is depositing the "note" to "fund" the "loan."

[David Merrill]

The Stephen Boyko Order makes me wonder if this verbiage is new:
http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf

...asset based feed-through certificates.

Sleezeballs that they are, they seem to be including that in the paragraph-long name of Item 2 so that the attorney in the black robe at the foreclosure hearing will see that the homeowner was notified that there is no note.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Friendsplacect]

"To satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, the plaintiff must show he has personally suffered some actual injury
as a result of the illegal conduct of the defendant. Coyne,183F.3d at 494;Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472

Should that also apply to Junk Debt Buyers that are assigned debt?

[courttroubles]

David,

I failed to do your process. Thinking the mortgage company with my 1st would end up doing a modification with me. Since the middle of Feb they've been playing games with reciving documentation.

The loss mitigation dept finally put me in touch with the modification dept for two stupid ?? last week, in which I found out their showing me del back to Feb 07 when that didn't happen to July. So if this is true mortgage foreclosure atty witheld pymts as well.

My next sale is scheduled for 4/1/08. I know I don't have to go back to bankruptcy court but not sure how to handle either way in banko ct or state court to file a summons to call everyone involved on the table. I've found cases that cover this well in banko ct but not as many as in state court for MO.

But the banko trustee didn't do anything about the false POC even though he was notified of it. My atty dropped ball and didn't do adversary or complaint to help us.

So with only 15 days left and representation not to be found I'm at a loss of what to do? Is there enough time to still do a R4C or can you tell me how to summon everyone in a summons for the corporate people involved?

I do have FRN's if that helps any to assist us.

Thanks,

Kathy

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by courttroubles

David,

I failed to do your process. Thinking the mortgage company with my 1st would end up doing a modification with me. Since the middle of Feb they've been playing games with reciving documentation.

The loss mitigation dept finally put me in touch with the modification dept for two stupid ?? last week, in which I found out their showing me del back to Feb 07 when that didn't happen to July. So if this is true mortgage foreclosure atty witheld pymts as well.

My next sale is scheduled for 4/1/08. I know I don't have to go back to bankruptcy court but not sure how to handle either way in banko ct or state court to file a summons to call everyone involved on the table. I've found cases that cover this well in banko ct but not as many as in state court for MO.

But the banko trustee didn't do anything about the false POC even though he was notified of it. My atty dropped ball and didn't do adversary or complaint to help us.

So with only 15 days left and representation not to be found I'm at a loss of what to do? Is there enough time to still do a R4C or can you tell me how to summon everyone in a summons for the corporate people involved?

I do have FRN's if that helps any to assist us.

Thanks,

Kathy

I have no process - at least in the possessive. The law is not mine. I cannot sell law.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...c?d=1184450811

Notice this counterclaim is in admiralty. And notice the foreclosure order attached is also in admiralty. I find it a little disturbing how attorners like Shoonra will fight tooth and nail, sidewinding like snakes into arguments about gold fringes and such, just to keep the character of their jurisdiction secret from people, good people like you and me.

There it is right there for free. If you are willing to compensate me for my help walking you through it, and you want to join a whole lot of other courts of competent jurisdiction - and I mean a calibre of people that will blow your mind, PM me.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Friendsplacect

Should that also apply to Junk Debt Buyers that are assigned debt?

That quote would appear to me to be a reference to tort claims, wheras debt is contract.

[weishaupt1776]

David, that pic is insane !

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

David, that pic is insane !

Indeed; quite the admission. The fellow is a suitor with default published in the common law. In doing that expression of sovereignty he clawed through about three mortgage companies to reveal the true principal/party in interest (attached).

Here is the main problem though. Deutsche Bank cannot prove they own anything but these asset based feed-through certificates like in that attached Foreclosure Notice above.

http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf

I am producing some context so the reader may understand the purpose of appearing restricted in the admiralty, LoR, just to get back out again by R4Cing the magistrate's presentments there. In fact the new suitor is instructed to ask on judge assignment at filing, "Is this an Article III judge?" And the clerk (until lately) will affirm so - a lie. That recuses the court and clerk of court (lying about the remedy available there) right off the bat.

So this particular suitor indicted Robert Erler and liened all his property, including his airplane and private hangar.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

The suitor served a "common law" subpoena on the 16th, in preparation for a foreclosure hearing on the 22nd. When he got to the hearing with his witness, he found that his home had been foreclosed upon on the 17th - the day after the subpoena was served. The clerk of court was denying any appeal process?

The suitor/homeowner expressed for the first time, that Robert Erler had no oath published and this got his appeal into the district court. Something it also got him was another foreclosure hearing before Erler which I knew nothing about until weeks later.

I would have implored that since Erler's court had been proven vacant, he should not appear. But he did. And he interviewed with the witness by phone - who of course did not supply the note as subpoenaed. The witness denied ever getting the Letter of Credit (attached) in payment of the home. He cited the Registered Mail return reciept and the witness then admitted to having received payment. He was still awaiting that transcript from the clerk of court...



Regards,

David Merrill.