Attorneys Admit No Authority to Represent US Bank in Foreclosure

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

EDITOR’S COMMENT: When I raised this issue some years back, most lawyers thought I was stretching for a technicality. But in fact the lack of authority to represent a forecloser in litigation lies at the core of the “plausible deniability” defense that the Banks raise when confronted with a lawsuit over a wrongful foreclosure.

The challenge should be in the form of a Motion for Proof of Authority to Represent. Whether they come up with the proof or not, you are in a better position. If they admit no authority the case is over, at least for the moment. If they show the proof, then the Bank can’t say they didn’t know what was going on.

The exchange below shows clearly that the foreclosure would have proceeded with a rubber stamp from the Judge had the borrower not raised defenses and challenged US Bank on its right to foreclose. Attorneys for the Banks are getting a little more careful now about what they say in court since there is a movement afoot to hold them responsible for fraudulent foreclosures. So in this exchange with the Court, the lawyer for the Bank admitted that he had no contact with US Bank nor did he represent the Bank.

BOMBSHELL- Your Honor, We Don’t Represent The Plaintiff….EXACTLY!
January 10th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/01/bombshell-your-honor-we-dont-represent-the-plaintiff-exactly/

The following is a transcript from a hearing when I was sitting in a courtroom where a most extraordinary exchange occurred.

The Plaintiff in the case is, “US Bank”. “US Bank” is suing a homeowner, trying to throw them into the street. There is an attorney standing in the courtroom arguing on behalf of “US BANK”….the judge is upset because she’s been trying to figure out who to hold responsible when the Plaintiffs who are foreclosing are ignoring rules of the Florida Supreme Court, abusing homeowners and just generally making a real mess of things and the responses out of the Plaintiff sound like an Abbott and Costello Routine called, “Who’s On First”….

Who owns the note? We don’t own the note, “they” own the note. Who’s “they”? “They” who? The who that owns the note.

And then that’s when this exchange occurs:

“U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.”

Whoa, say what?

“U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.”

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ENTIRE STINKING SYSTEM CALLED THE AMERICAN LEGAL, FINANCIAL AND FORECLOSURE MESS.

A bank, US BANK, is foreclosing, but they are not represented by an attorney. US Bank is the Wizard Behind The Curtain, somewhere there’s someone else calling the shots. Someone else deciding not to accept a modification. Someone else not accepting a short sale. Someone else pulling the strings. To which my friend Rand, quite correctly responds:

MR. PEACOCK: Your Honor, I’m a little bit
troubled because plaintiff’s counsel just said
that the plaintiff — she is not their client or
vice versa. That makes a real representation
issue. If they are not represented by her firm,
she cannot advocate on their behalf, and they
can’t continue this lawsuit.

This is precisely what is wrong with this country. Exactly what what is wrong with what is choking our court system. Exactly why our court system has such problems with what is happening.

Full transcript below:

March 11 CL
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/March-11-CL.pdf

Tags: authority to represent, bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, plausible deniability, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |