Tiffany and Bosco Can be Sued as Debt Collector

Why This Case Matters

“This case has appropriate and serious repercussions to foreclosure mills.” – Neil Garfield, LivingLies.me

For years, substitute trustees and foreclosure mill law firms (often Tiffany & Bosco and others) have sent homeowners:

• Notice of Default

• Notice of Sale

• Debt Collection Letters

This ruling shows that sending these letters with false or misleading information may create liability for debt collectors and foreclosure trustees.

The Key Legal Distinction

• The Note = evidence of a debt, used to collect on money owed.

• The Mortgage/Deed of Trust = an interest in property, a different instrument entirely.

Debt collectors cannot claim their letters were sent to enforce the mortgage, because the law does not allow them to collapse these two distinct instruments.

This distinction opens the door for lawsuits against foreclosure mills for misrepresentation and wrongful foreclosure tactics.

Can Trustees Act as Both Seller and Debt Collector?

The case highlights a troubling conflict:

• Trustees often act as both the seller of the property at foreclosure and a debt collector for the alleged obligation.

• Courts are now saying this dual role may amount to false representation and expose trustees to lawsuits.

This is particularly relevant in cases of dual tracking, where borrowers were misled into opting out of HAMP loan modifications under false pretenses — only to be pushed into foreclosure.

Why the Rush to Foreclosure?

If most loans could be restructured into affordable payments, why do foreclosure mills push for quick “fire sales”?

The answer:

• The paper trail relied upon by banks and trustees is riddled with defects.

• The original REMIC trust was never properly named on the note or mortgage.

• Payees on notes were placeholders, much like MERS.

• Repayment terms on notes differ from the terms agreed with bond investors.

These flaws undermine the validity of the obligation, note, and mortgage altogether.

What Discovery Reveals

Discovery often shows the same pattern:

• The note is not evidence of a debt because the named lender never funded the loan.

• The mortgage or deed of trust becomes a nullity, tied to an unenforceable obligation.

This means foreclosure cases are often based on sham transactions—opening the door to claims for:

• Wrongful foreclosure

• Emotional distress damages (especially under California law)

• Potential repossession of homes wrongfully taken

A Ponzi Scheme Unraveling

Even investors cannot enforce these notes or mortgages, as they’ve admitted in their own pleadings. The entire scheme operates like a Ponzi structure, with fabricated documents and recycled payments masking the lack of real creditors.

As courts begin to scrutinize these practices, homeowners and their attorneys gain new opportunities to fight back.

Lawyers: The Tide Is Turning

Attorneys at the forefront of these defenses will:

• Protect more homeowners

• Hold foreclosure mills accountable

• Benefit from early adoption of these strategies

Those who wait may still see some victories — but nothing like the leverage available now.

Conclusion

This case signals a shift: foreclosure mills and trustees can be held liable for false, misleading, or dual-role debt collection tactics.

⚖️ Bottom Line: Homeowners facing foreclosure should challenge the validity of notices and debt collection letters. These challenges could expose fatal flaws in the bank’s case and open the door to claims for wrongful foreclosure.

Need Help With Your Case?

Call us today at 844.583.5339
Submit your case statement online for a complimentary recommendation.
Visit LivingLies.me for resources and case insights.

Tags: foreclosuer corruption, foreclosure defense
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |