Unlawful Detainer - LivingLies

Homeowner's Dilemma and Pro Se Nightmare: Wanting the system to change is not the way to win a case

January 6, 2021

Homeowners win because there is no legal claim against them. But they will lose every time if they fail to establish the inability or unwillingness of the foreclosure mill to come up with concrete evidence that there is, in fact, a loan receivable entry on the accounting ledgers of the claimant and that it got there by virtue of a real-world transaction in which value was paid for the underlying obligation. Unfortunately, as we all know, all perjury and fraud upon the court is illegal but always allowed unless it is challenged in a timely and proper way. We need

What to do if the foreclosure mill refuses to give you an answer about ownership of the "loan"

October 24, 2020

Summer Chic write me an interesting email and I wrote back. She poses a question that summarizes the entire situation: She wrote: Example: PennyMac claimed that they PURCHASED my loan on May 2, 2019 from someone whom they cannot identify. The financial statements from a non-identified company show that somebody “established a NEW loan” on May 9, 2019. Not a single word about the sale Here is what I wrote back: * As unusual PennyMac (or Ocwen or whoever) claims that it purchased a specific loan (usually in bulk). So we all know that a claim is good for pleading

How to ask the right questions in discovery

August 12, 2020

Discovery is part law, part art, and part intuition. The lawyer must generate questions that can be used, by themselves, to bring certain issues in front of the judge either because the opponent answered the questions or because they didn’t answer. If your point is that your opponent doesn’t own the claim even though they either said or implied that they do own it, then you need to do some investigation first so you can ask the right questions in the right way. If your point is that there are two agreements, one for loan and the other for securitization,

Could IRS Enforcement of REMICs Bring Wall Street Into Line? Yes but they won't do it. Investors and homeowners continue to suffer as victims of fraud.

May 14, 2020

The most obvious places to look for correction in the illegal conspiracies masquerading as securitization of residential debt were the IRS , the SEC, the FDIC and the FTC and probably later the CFPB. Qui tam (whistleblower) actions were regularly dismissed because the agency that lost money due to false claims rejected the notion that it was a false claim or that anything bad had occurred. Sheila Bair lost her job as head of the FDIC for protesting policy set by Presidents Bush and Obama that failed to hold the line. So here is a 2014 article that talks about

The Problem With those Powers of Attorney

April 22, 2020

Just because a power of attorney appears to be facially valid doesn’t mean that it IS facially valid, nor that it is substantively valid. Sign Petition to Change the rules to Protect Homeowners from Fraudclosure. Powers of Attorney are part of the strategy engineered by investment banks on Wall Street. Here is the problem with the POA or LPOA strategy. In summary it is merely part of a larger strategy that seeks to create the illusion of real claims by real parties when in fact no such claim exists and no claimant exists. the claimant never gets the proceeds of

Wait! Somebody must have paid something right?

February 7, 2020

How do you know what was paid by whom and when and what terms applied? The whole point here is that money was paid by investors who did not receive ownership to the debt, note or mortgage. Nor did they assign any equitable right to the debt, note or mortgage. Since the value was paid by a party who never received ownership, no “successor” would have any reason to pay value for ownership nor did they do so. * And before you decide to shift gears, the investment bank took in money from investors as a commercial deposit — i.e.

Dancing with ghosts. The banks have no shame in contradicting themselves

November 12, 2019

The bottom line is that foreclosures are all about collecting on unpaid debt. The only party who can initiate foreclosure proceedings that will force the sale of title to the home and then forcibly dispossess the homeowner is a party who owns the debt, is injured by nonpayment and who receives the proceeds of foreclosure as restitution for an unpaid debt. In a pending case the attorneys for the “bank” argue that ownership of the debt is irrelevant. ===================================== GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in

California Decision for Borrower Post Sale in Eviction Proceeding

July 19, 2019

BIG HAT TIP TO STEPHEN LOPEZ, ESQUIRE FOR THIS SAN DIEGO WIN!! This is the latest of a string of decisions from trial judges who took the time to carefully analyze the law and then facts. In this case the issue was whether the Plaintiff in a lawsuit for Unlawful Detainer could be awarded Summary Judgment simply because the sale had been recorded. This decision, following the law in all jurisdictions, says that recording the sale is interesting but not dispositive. If the actual sale was void because ti was conducted in favor of a party who was not a

McDonough v Smith: High Court Open Door on Fabrication of Evidence

June 25, 2019

This decision is extremely important for 2 reasons. 1st, it reaffirms a right under federal law to bring an action for damages for fabrication of evidence. 2nd, and equally important, it establishes that the time to bring such a claim does not start until the conclusion of litigation, whether successful or unsuccessful. see Article on McDonough v Smith McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485 (U.S. Jun. 20, 2019) See U.S. Supreme Court mcdonough-v-smith-5 see 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

Breaking it Down: What to Say and Do in an Unlawful Detainer or Eviction

December 21, 2017

Homeowners seem to have more options than they think in an unlawful detainer action based upon my analysis. It is the first time in a nonjudicial foreclosure where the foreclosing party is actually making assertions and representations against which the homeowner may defend. The deciding factor is what to do at trial. And the answer, as usual, is well-timed aggressive objections mostly based upon foundation and hearsay, together with a cross examination that really drills down. Winning an unlawful detainer action in a nonjudicial foreclosure reveals the open sores contained within the false claims of securitization or transfer. NEED HELP

Category: Unlawful Detainer

Homeowner's Dilemma and Pro Se Nightmare: Wanting the system to change is not the way to win a case

What to do if the foreclosure mill refuses to give you an answer about ownership of the "loan"

How to ask the right questions in discovery

Could IRS Enforcement of REMICs Bring Wall Street Into Line? Yes but they won't do it. Investors and homeowners continue to suffer as victims of fraud.

The Problem With those Powers of Attorney

Wait! Somebody must have paid something right?

Dancing with ghosts. The banks have no shame in contradicting themselves

California Decision for Borrower Post Sale in Eviction Proceeding

McDonough v Smith: High Court Open Door on Fabrication of Evidence

Breaking it Down: What to Say and Do in an Unlawful Detainer or Eviction

Search Our Blog

Subscribe to our Blog!

Categories

Contact Our National Headquarters Phone: 844-583-5339

Contact Our National Headquarters

Practice Areas