Category: quiet title

Possession of the Note Is Not Proof of Ownership

July 9, 2026

By Lance Denha esq. and Donna Steenkamp For more than twenty years, we have been saying possession of the note is not proof of ownership. This is something that many courts are only beginning to recognize. The foreclosure industry has successfully convinced courts to ask the wrong question. Instead of asking: “Who actually owns the debt?” many foreclosure cases begin and end with this question: “Who has the original promissory note?” Those are not the same thing. In fact, in today’s mortgage marketplace, they are often completely different questions with completely different answers. That distinction has cost thousands of American

Quiet Title: How To Challenge Pretend Lender Claims

June 16, 2026

One of the most misunderstood legal remedies in real estate litigation is the quiet title action. This legal remedy is fundamentally about forcing parties claiming rights against property to prove those claims rather than relying on assumptions, labels, or recorded paperwork alone. A quiet title action is a lawsuit. Its purpose is simple: To determine who actually has a valid claim to an interest in real property and eliminate claims that cannot be legally supported. In foreclosure litigation, quiet title actions can become important when questions arise concerning ownership, standing, assignments, securitized trusts, servicer authority, or the identity of the

Loan-Level Data in Foreclosure Defense: The Evidence Banks Don’t Want You to See

April 16, 2026

Let’s get straight to the point. Foreclosure cases are often presented as if the paperwork tells the whole story. A servicer waves around records, a lawyer recites a trust name, and everybody is expected to act as if the right to enforce has already been proven. But that is not how real litigation is supposed to work. Courts are supposed to decide cases based on admissible evidence. And when it comes to foreclosure, one of the most important types of evidence is loan-level data. Why? Because loan-level data often tells the story that the foreclosure paperwork avoids. What Is Loan-Level

Another win with Quiet Title Action

July 25, 2024

Our head of Research, Donna Steenkamp, was instrumental in doing the kind of research and documentation of evidence that reversed a bad lower court ruling

How Could This Not Be a Loan?

December 3, 2021

if the investment bank paid the homeowner as an incentive payment rather than as a loan, then there is no debt any more than salary or wages can later be called a loan. The fact that the consumer/homeowner thought or even wished it were otherwise makes no diffeerence. If I pay you money and you think it is a loan but I paid you for services you rendered, the substance of the transction is “fee for services” — not a loan — and there is no legal or ethical or moral obligation to pay it back. I think the one

From the Horse's Mouth: WAMU Originated "Loans" Are not Assets of Chase or Even Any trust If the Sale was to a "Depositor"

July 7, 2020

Many thanks to Bill Paatalo for bringing this to my attention. This article brings to the forefront a central issue that Wall Street cannot escape unless we let them: in the context of securitization, the paper transfers to the “depositor” is not a sale even if it is treated as a sale by the “Seller.” That means that the homeowner transactions that were falsely labeled as loans were never securitized. In other words, the whole thing is a lie. A LivingLie, which is why I named named this blog as such. == I would suggest that practitioners take note of

How to Use the Real Deal On Securitization to Homeowner's Advantage

June 15, 2020

Like citizenship in this country litigation is not easy. We keep banging our heads against the same wall expecting a different result. We need a strategy that directly addresses the inescapable realities of every homeowner transaction and every securitization cycle. My substantive analysis of the transaction is that the homeowner was drafted into a securitization scheme which in my opinion clearly triggers quasi contract and quantum meruit — the only possibility for inquiring into the adequacy of consideration. Lawyers and litigants have shied away from this because of its complexity and because they don’t know how to approach it. * In simple

BEWARE: MORATORIUM ON FORECLOSURES MAY NOT STOP SALES OF THE PROPERTY

May 22, 2020

In a nutshell, moratoriums will do very little for homeowners or the courts. First unless a specific moratorium order states that it bars sales and evictions it is only the foreclosure action that is temporarily suspended. At some point in the near future, homelessness will spike because of a new tidal wave of foreclosures. Second a moratorium does nothing to forgive payments. So when the moratorium expires, all the payments are due unless you ask for and receive some sort of forbearance agreement from servicers (who probably don’t have any authority despite all appearances to the contrary). Third, don’t rely

Rescission and Burden of Proof

September 25, 2019

There are winners and losers in every courtroom. When dealing with TILA Rescission under 15 USC §1635 you must go the extra mile in not merely showing the court why you should win, but also revealing that the opposition is not actually losing anything. The same logic applies to every foreclosure where securitization is either obvious or lurking in the background. The bottom line is that no payment of value has ever been paid or retained as a financial interest in the debt by the named claimant nor anyone in privity with the named claimant. Once you can show the

How to Distinguish Between Ownership of the Debt, Ownership of the Note and Ownership of the Mortgage (or Deed of Trust)

August 16, 2019

Amongst the lay people who are researching issues regarding who actually can enforce a mortgage, there is confusion arising from specific terms of art used by lawyers in distinguishing between a debt, a note and a mortgage. This article is intended to clarify the subject for lawyers and pro litigants. The devil is in the details. Bottom Line: In most cases foreclosures are allowed because of the presumption that the actual original note has been physically delivered to the current claimant from one who owned the debt because they both had paid money for it. In most cases merely denying

Finally a Judge Asks the right Questions about TILA Rescission and Invites Briefs

August 5, 2019

The time may now be coming where the court systems and Federal and State legislatures must come to terms with two inescapable legal facts: (1) That borrowers who sent TILA rescission notices — and particularly those who sent them within 3 years of consummation of the mortgage — still own the land that was deemed “lost” in foreclosure. (2) That such borrowers possess valid claims to recover title. possession and money damages. It was bound to happen and now it has. In one case, a judge is asking the following questions and inviting briefs on the following subjects: What is the effect of the failure to return

Tonight! How to Use TILA Rescission in Court! The Neil Garfield Show 6PM EDT

August 1, 2019

FORENSIC AUDITORS TAKE NOTE Thursdays LIVE! The Neil Garfield Show or prior episodes Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays ******************************* There are many potential claims arising out of attempted foreclosure after TILA rescission is effective. * But one of them is not a violation of your rescission rights. By pleading that you are putting into play the burden of proving the effectiveness of rescission which has already occurred by operation of law. * By pleading or arguing such a notion you are inviting interpretation form a court that is only too happy to reject your claim. In most cases

How to Put Leverage Back Into the Hands of Homeowners

July 22, 2019

You had the ultimate leverage when they needed your signature to start the loan agreement. Now you have the ultimate leverage if you can properly plead and become a credible threat based upon wrongful foreclosure. If a trust is named or implied as mortgagee or beneficiary you are not just threatening the one case of foreclosure filed against you, but all foreclosures initiated in the name of that trust. Once faced with that threat the rule, contrary to general misconceptions, is that the homeowner will always receive offers of settlement that grant favorable terms. How beneficial? It depends upon the

Just to be clear, MERS is absolutely nothing.

July 16, 2019

For some reason I have been getting more questions about MERS lately. My analogy has always been that MERS is like a holograph of an empty paper bag. So here are some basic factors for the checklist and analysis: MERS never signed any contract with any borrower. MERS never has any contractual or other legal relationship with investors (certificate holders) or Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) like Fannie, Freddie or Sallie. MERS never signed any agreement or contract with most named “lenders.” MERS never signed any agreement or contract with respect to any specific loan transaction or acquisition. MERS was never

Beware of Magic Bullets

March 19, 2019

Departing from my usual format, there are a few things I want to say to people who are looking for relief from foreclosure and are hearing what they want to hear. ONLY A COURT ORDER CAN STOP A FORECLOSURE. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS YOU CAN’T GET A COURT ORDER UNLESS YOU FOLLOW THE RULES AND THE LAW. NOBODY HAS EVER OBTAINED SUCH AN ORDER WITHOUT A PROLONGED COURT BATTLE. If someone tells you “just do this” they are partially or entirely wrong or worse. Like everything life is complicated and that includes litigation. Any thought you are entertaining that you

Federal Court 2015 Deutsch Bank Case Reveals Bank Willingness to Lie Directly to the Court

January 31, 2019

A mere glance at the procedure invoked by the attorney supposedly representing Deutsch Bank reveals the arrogance with which the lawyers present false cases based upon false documents and false execution of documents. “Words matter, especially in real estate transactions. See Univ. Sav. Ass’n v. Springwoods Shopping Ctr., 644 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.1982) (“the terms set out in a deed of trust must be strictly followed”); see also Mathis v. DCR Mortg. III Sub I, L.L.C., 389 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex.App. — El Paso, 2012) (“The rules of interpretation that apply to contracts also apply to notes and deeds of

Why Everyone (except SCOTUS) is Wrong About TILA Rescission

June 26, 2018

All contrary arguments are erroneous since they would insert a contingency where the statute contains no room for any contingency. The language of the statute bars any such contingency when it says that the TILA Rescission is effective upon delivery, by operation of law. If anyone wants the statute to say or mean anything different they must get their remedy from the legislature, not the courts, who have no authority whatsoever to interpret the statute otherwise. The status of any case involving foreclosure is that it does not exist. Hence the court is left ONLY with the power to perform

Adverse Possession vs Cancellation of Instrument and Quiet Title

April 11, 2018

In the final analysis, the only way to smoke out the banks on their fraudulent claims as “creditors” or “agents of creditors” is to create a situation where the creditor must be disclosed. In those cases where judges have ruled in discovery or ruled on the right to prepay, subject to identification of the creditor, the cases have all settled under seal of confidentiality. There are thousands of such cases buried under side agreements requiring “Confidentiality.” Let us help you plan your complaint, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a

Deutsch Bank National Trust Company Was Crushed in Texas in 2015. Why isn't anyone listening?

January 22, 2018

When a judge looks carefully at the record, the bank loses. The use of Deutsch’s name in the style of the case still shows that Judges are considering the Plaintiff to be the named “Trustee” instead of the named (or named, which is frequently the case) Trust. In fact the Trustee has nothing to do with foreclosures. In this case the Judge wrote the following: “Judgment (for the homeowner for declaratory relief) was based on findings and conclusions that Deutsche Bank had failed to prove chain of title back to the original lender, now defunct. The sole proof on which

Short Explanation of TILA RESCISSION vs Common Law Rescission

December 13, 2017

Quiet title is a lawsuit not a motion. It must be worded correctly to fulfill the elements required for the court to consider the demand for quiet title. Otherwise it will be dismissed. For quiet title to apply the mortgage must be void not just unenforceable. TILA Rescission is a statutory remedy that is different from common law rescission. Sending of TILA rescission notice by U.S. Mail means that delivery is presumed. If delivery occurred or is presumed the TILA Rescission is effective. Just the opposite in common law rescission based upon fraud. At common law, sending a notice of