The Smell Test

I went to a foreclosure mill in Seattle yesterday.  Met with an attorney.  He was a pleasant enough chap, and we spent about ten or fifteen minutes discussing a certain case.  I wanted to see documentation.  He provided me some.

He purported to show me the original note, one of only a handful of times that this has occurred.  He said, "I thought this was about showing the note.  Here it is.  Now is it about something different?  Your people just want a free house."

I explained my rationale to him, which is that if this mortgage were paid off one or more times by any combination of securitized investors, private mortgage insurance or credit-default swaps, we want to know this and believe this is relevant.  It is not equitable for someone to get paid off multiple times and then want the house back as well.

He explained his rationale about how the UCC doesn't care who signed or where they signed, I kind of lost track or interest at some point, because something else was brewing in my mind.

The note that they claim to be original in this case has four endorsements on it, two on the front, two on the back.  Not a single one is signed by a human.  They're all stamped.  We're researching the first two, but the last two are by notorious for their stamps being used more freely than a beer bong at a frat party:  Laurie Meder and Michele Sjolander.  They didn't stamp these documents.  They have no idea who did.  It has come to light that the stamps themselves at some point have been made into one stamp (or one computer image) that bears BOTH signatures at the same point.

Highly unusual.  

So here's my retort:

• If this is so clear-cut, if this is so clean, why do you need to do so many illegal or borderline illegal things?
• Why do you need Scott Anderson and Linda Green and other people who either don't exist or have multiple incompatible signatures?
• Why couldn't Michele Sjolander and the like sign their names? Why couldn't you use real live employees to SIGN documents?
• Why in some cases have I seen Bank of America claiming to have the original note, when it is clearly on a different size of paper than the original?

It is clear that at least some of these files were done correctly.  Why were most of them not?  Whose fault is that?

If this process were as clear-cut as foreclosure mills make it out to be, there would be no need for all the artifice and illegality.  We are still getting to the bottom of what happened in these cases.  And if it's so easy and clear cut, Mr. Foreclosure Mill, start doing it right.

Stone County Homeowner Happy

We are proud to announce that we returned a home that had previously been foreclosed in Stone County, Missouri.

A woman contacted us on the day before the foreclosure.  We quickly wrote a letter to the trustee, informing him of all the problems.  It was a smaller law firm, and I had not dealt with them before.

They did not stop the foreclosure sale, which I felt was a foolish move.  When I got the paperwork in the matter, I could see that if they would not change position, we would have an excellent case.

We beat them on a couple of procedural issues in the unlawful detainer they brought, and finally came to a resolution:  She was allowed to repurchase for about 72% of what they were claiming was the indebtedness.

This would have been an excellent case to try, but, like so many cases, our people just wanted their house back.  And we were glad to help.

Thoughts on Kansas City

Some of our biggest and most important Missouri foreclosure decisions have come out of Kansas City.  Ever since I started really traveling to do personal injury and other cases a decade ago, I have always really enjoyed trying cases in Jackson County, both for the collegial nature of the other lawyers, and for the judges as well.  Some people love to avoid the downtown Kansas City Courthouse, but I like it and Independence as well.

Our successes in the Thomas and Gray cases, which have been chronicled in Living Lies and other places, lead me to believe that we are well-positioned to continue to win in Kansas City.  In addition, I believe there are a large number of cases in that area where the not-so-trusty "Trustees" have given the properties to the securitized trust as trustee, without naming the trust itself.  I believe this is a clearly invalid transfer.

If you have these or any other cases in Kansas City or any area, please call us at 877-945-3952.

Rapid Success!

Last night, at about 7:30, I met with a client.  She had a problem:  She had a foreclosure sale set for 1 pm.  TODAY.


Wow.  We have stopped foreclosures quickly. But you've gotta be kidding!  We talked for a long time, and she hired us to work on her case, which dealt with that criminal firm Taylor Bean and Whitaker, and Bank of America.


I came home and looked up the documents that she hadn't already located.  Two of the most critical are the Assignment of Deed of Trust and the Appointment of Successor Trustee.


The Appointment of Successor Trustee was signed by none other than the lawyer who intended to be the trustee.  I find this highly objectionable, and we have cases on file in Missouri dealing with this issue.


But, just as importantly, we found Barbara Nord, the woman who claimed to sign the Assignment of Deed of Trust.  I remembered her from another case, where her signature looked quite different.  We also found instances of her claiming to be a document preparer for a company called CaseLogic in South Carolina.  Sometimes she claimed to sign documents in California.  


I wrote the trustee about these issues and others, including the bizarre and incorrect assignment I believe was done from MERS.  We exchanged a couple of letters, and then I got a very cryptic email just before noon (an hour before the sale):


There is no foreclosure sale currently scheduled by our office.


Hmm.  That was considerably different from this morning.  Guess our correspondence made a difference.


Foreclosure cancelled in NINETEEN HOURS.  That's gotta be a record.

Washington Madness

In surveying the madness from coast to coast with foreclosures, one of the places that was hit the hardest was Washington state.  In looking at cases for clients, we have discovered that it was truly the Wild West, with ReconTrust (the wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America) being named Trustee on many deeds.

Imagine that.  Your bank asking itself to be a trustee, with fiduciary duties to both sides.  You don't think they would do that for you, do you?

We are looking into these cases, and are very interested.  ReconTrust often recorded documents AFTER the foreclosure was already done.  We have found amazing forgeries as well.  If you are in foreclosure in Washington state, or have a prior foreclosure, especially between 2006-2011, we want to talk to you!

Call us: 877-945-3952.

The Fraud Is There

“To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. That's what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul - would you understand why that's much harder?”
― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

I got into a heated discussion with one of the attorneys for a foreclosure mill. I thought I had gone out of the way in the discussion in front of a judge to indicate that I liked the lawyers at that firm personally, that we had always worked together well, etc.  I was very surprised at the color he turned, and how angry he became.

He quickly told me how he always paid his mortgage, and how dare I question his firm, who put food on his table.  Again, I was really surprised he took it that way.  But ... if you ask ...

You can explain the fraud away ... if you choose.

You can come up with every reason, from the economy on down, of why you should let the fraud exist ... if you choose.

You can just not care about the fraud ... if you choose.

But the fraud is there.  You can tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself.  But that doesn't change that the documents you hold in your hands are probably frauds.  That fat cats that long ago moved positions so as not to be hurt designed a system so fraught with fraud that it may never fully extricate itself from the system. You probably didn't see much of that windfall, but it's enough to pay the mortgage, that's for sure.

Just know that a lie told a thousand times is still a lie.  Even if you start to believe it.

St. Louis Success

One of the first clients who came through our doors when we started Foreclosure Law was an older lady who lived in University City. She had been named as the personal representative for her sister's estate. She had been battling with the bank and foreclosure firm Millsap and Singer, who had started a foreclosure on her sister's property.

She was a very resourceful woman, and had already filed her own suit to try to stop the foreclosure. She was successful in stopping the foreclosure, but the bank was insistent on starting the whole process again.

That's where we came in. I looked through the paperwork and saw that although the Deed of Trust was not a "MERS" deed, the small East Coast bank who was the originator had claimed to have sent the note and Deed of Trust to MERS. In addition, they sent it wrong. They did not send it as beneficiary for them, as almost all MERS documents are written. They just sent it straight out, as if MERS now owned the note and deed.

I think that continually papering the files is an extremely important part of any case, and this one was no different. I wrote and explained on several occasions the problems that I knew they had. In August of 2011, they had MERS do an assignment of deed of trust to HSBC, and it looked like we were headed to trial. But I continued to show them the folly of their position, and trying to explain the anomalous place the note had supposedly been for the past several years.

On February 27, 2012, HSBC sent us a letter indicating that they were releasing their interest in the property. Since this case deals with an estate, there is no claim that they can sue under the note, as this time has long since lapsed. Our client now owns this house free and clear!

One interesting final note: When we looked at the Deed of Release, I couldn't believe my eyes. They had the wrong company release the property! They had MERS send the release, despite the fact that MERS had assigned the property months before. It took a dozen phone calls and TALKING VERRRRRY SLOOOOOOOWLY to get them to finally understand that HSBC, not MERS, needed to release. They did so, and my client is very happy.

Obviously, not all cases turn out like this, and the key to these cases is treating them differently and individually. But it sure is great to give the keys back to the owner.

PROBLEMS WITH THE FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT

I had the great misfortune this Friday to attend a meeting with the Attorney General’s office on the proposed settlement with the US Government, 49 states and the five major money changers. Here are the problems as I see it, as updated by this meeting:

1. The document still isn’t in writing. At this point, I almost wait for these attorneys general to make the same mistake that many customers made and continuing to make: Taking the word of these “banks” instead of making them put everything in writing. I was told by a real-life assistant attorney general that it’s a “done deal.” I’m sorry; in this context, over $25 billion, it should be in writing.
2. The cash payments won’t even begin to be paid until TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN. That’s after the Mayans come!
3. The “modification” part of the agreement, which the Assistant Attorney General said would lower payments by as much as a hundred dollars a month, only applies to loans which are OWNED by the big five banks. Not serviced; owned. This is a huge distinction, and one that means most loans WON’T be modified (are you surprised?).
4. Of course, Fannie and Freddie are uncovered by this, and so are the worst of the worst (Saxon, Ocwen, etc.).

Keep fighting the good fight, and trying to meet them in court. We don’t need no stinkin’ badges anyway …

Nice Vibes From Trial

I tried a case on Friday in St. Louis County. It was an interesting case, as although it had been on file since 2009, I got into the case on ... Tuesday. Yep, this Tuesday.

The reason I was willing to jump in was I had seen the issues that were going to be raised, and I have been trying this case in my head for the entire last year.

A securitized trust foreclosed in 2009. The lawyer for my clients claimed that they were not the holder in due course. They produced a note without an endorsement made out to Fremont Investment & Loan in discovery, and then, lo and behold, a different version of the same note with a blank endorsement from Fremont on the back.

I made two main arguments, which morphed to three by the end of the trial:

1. They were not a holder in due course, because the PSA requires four endorsements ON THE FACE of the note, and if they took this note, it was so irregular and incomplete as to not render them as a holder in due course.

2. They could not hold this note EVER because the PSA stated the type of note it could take, and when it could take it. In this case, by January 28, 2004.

By the end of trial, they had decided not to question their own representative, who was from Ocwen. That firm was not mentioned in the Prospectus or PSA. I questioned her a little, but the judge really grasped the main argument, so I kept my inquiry very minimal. I pointed out that she had no document that showed that this loan was owned by the trust.

The interesting this is, I'm pretty sure the record will show that they never once said that this trust owned or held the note. That was my third argument at the end. If it does end up at the appellate court, that's the out they can take without ruling on the validity of the trusts owning property that is clearly ultra vires.

But I think this case is going to turn out very nicely for the homeowners. It sure was a blast to work on.

They're Not Banks - Introducing the Money Changers

As we think about how to attack the never-ending fraud brought by the financial sector, I realized something that had been brewing in my brain for some time. We sometimes overlook the power of words and their utility in a battle.

The thought came to me when I *had* to get something with one of my kids and we were forced to go to Wal-Mart. As I walked into that fluorescent behemoth blur, here was my thought.

Wal-Mart sells groceries, but it's not a grocery store. It sells hardware, but it's not a hardware store. It sells clothes, but it's not a clothes store. What is it?

It's a Wal-Mart. It is sui generis. Wal-Mart has traits from other businesses, but it has morphed into its own creation. We grew up knowing and identifying the places we went by what they sold and we still tend to want to think of things in this way. But they're not that way anymore.

This sounds simple, but think of its applications in our context.

We have allowed Bank of America and Citi and Chase and all the other grotesque Molochs to call themselves banks. THEY'RE NOT.

They are no more banks than Wal-Mart is a grocery store. It may sell groceries, but what we have come to know and love from a grocery store has been surgically removed from Wal-Mart.

Same thing here. Bank of America is not a bank; it is a global financial monster who may happen to provide some banking services.

"Bank" is still a word in the American lexicon that connotes safety and security. It's money in the bank, we say. Take it to the bank, we say, meaning that something is sure.

And there are still banks, ones who know their customers, hold their own notes and act in "bank-like" ways. Those are entities we generally don't have much problem with. They may not always act like we want them to, but they are not involved in the whole-sale fraud that our adversaries are.

They didn't act as banks in these transactions. They bundled the money and sold it, and now they act as bill collectors. That doesn't make them a bank any more than selling a cup of coffee would make McDonald's a coffee house.

They're not banks. We should quit giving them the benefit of this positive connotation. I am fully convinced that part of our problem in explaining this to the American public is that they are used to not questioning bankers and doctors. They need to know that these aren't bankers.

We need a new term. Financial machine? Financial monster? Money changers? We need something to use to distinguish them from traditional banking, and something that emphasizes their role in this situation.

I'm going to suggest "Money Changers." I'm not calling them banks anymore. They don't deserve it.