Guys, I don't mean to be obstinate, but isn't a success defined as having stood the test of a challenge? Here is some case law that I have seen recently which does not support this kind of effort at all. Read and decide for yourselves:
Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a "federal land patent" grants an interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.
"Our review of the briefs and record persuades us that this is vexatious litigation; an appropriate case for the imposition of sanctions. The Hilgefords have no support for their claims of superior title or federal jurisdiction. Their brief was also woefully inadequate. We can think of no other reason for this appeal other than delay, harassment, or sheer obstinancy. Reid, 715 F.2d at 1155. Accordingly, we award the Bank $500 in damages for this frivolous appeal in addition to the costs allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39."
Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear title and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby preventing foreclosure.
"These removals vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in the original sense of that phrase. And federal courts lack the principal weapons available to the state courts to prevent harassing litigation. Because the appellants will not be sentenced in federal court, the court cannot impose the costs of prosecution as part of the sentence or augment any sentence of incarceration under the principle of Grayson. It is attorneys' fees and damages under Rule 38 or nothing.
"An award of damages under Rule 38 in these cases will not stifle the vigorous defense of criminal charges. It will, however, ensure that the appellants and others like them think twice before removing to federal court criminal prosecutions that belong in state court. These petitions for removal had no conceivable foundation. Each defendant therefore is assessed $500 in damages under Fed.R.App.P. 38, in addition to double costs."
Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F.Supp. 253 (N.D.Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis of a "land patent" which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the County Recorder of Deeds Office.
"For the reasons stated above, the defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and this cause dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) each to defendants St. Joseph Mortgage Company and Donald D. Martin for attorney's fees incurred in this case as a sanction for filing this lawsuit."
Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E.2d 387 (Ill.App.2d. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.
"The assertion in the Britts' brief that they hold "fee simple allodial title" is untenable. The Britts have never held sovereign title and now have been divested of their fee simple title by due process of law in the foreclosure action.
The purported "perfected patent" filed by the Britts matches the description of similar documents filed in other States. In Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir.1986), 782 F.2d 670, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described these "new land patents" in the following terms: "People saddled with mortgages may treasure the idea of having clean title to their homes. The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one's debts. Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a 'land patent' purporting to convey unassailable title, and to file that 'patent' in the recording system." 782 F.2d 670, 671-72.
The "new patent" or "perfected patent" theory asserted on appeal, as it relates to the original patents, is also defeated by the estoppel effect of the foreclosure judgment. To the extent that the new theory may be construed as a separate and independent claim, it will be accorded the same treatment by this court that it has been accorded by the district courts of Indiana, Wisconsin and Minnesota and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. It is frivolous and without basis and should not be raised in the circuit courts of this State.
As much as I would love to believe this is a silver bullet, I'm not convinced until it's been tested in full.
The ONLY ways to really stop a foreclosure - unless someone can present proof otherwise:
1 - Pay the "note" in full
2 - Negotiate a forebearance agreement
3 - Sell the property
4 - File Bankruptcy and pray it goes in your favor
5 - File a legit complaint against "the bank" and file a Lis Pendens on the property to tie it up until the court decides
6 - ?
I am in the process of pursuing #5 unless someone can suggest an alternative that has actually stood up to the test of the court system and the powers that be. Like the Dorean process.
I would love to be wrong about this!
Linear Mode
