Poppa Koppa Reporting Success in So. Cal.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Charles Koppa Reporting:

I had 3 hearings today, June 23, 2011: The status conference for my Adverse Claim, the Motion to dismiss the Adverse Claim, and the Motion for Relief of Automatic Stay. My Adverse Claim was dismissed until I have standing to bring the claim (when the Trustee removes himself from my case next week). I needed to amend it anyhow, so I can just re-file. I already filed my own B-10 Proof of Claim for the Loan Servicer (allowable under FRBP 3001). It may have to be re-filed by the Trustee, if he decides against abandoning the claim. Ch 7 BK is just not a good idea if someone wants to bring an Adverse Claim. I may need to re-request conversion (the conversion from the Ch 7 to the 13 never happened). In a Ch 7, once the Trustee files the NDR, the case can be dismissed. At least in Ch 13, the case stays open. Live and learn, I suppose.

***This is the kicker: This is the 2nd motion the bank had to file to lift the stay because they got the name of the party incorrect. The first Motion for Lift of Stay was filed in the name of US Bank NA…not US Bank NA, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE…as even I had thought was proper. But today, the Federal BK Judge denied US Bank NA, as Indenture Trustee’s “Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay” until after I am given the chance to file a reason it should not be lifted on July 22, 2011. After that, there will be a hearing, and if he grants the motion, it won’t be for another few weeks or so after July 22!

It was awesome how the BK judge reprimanded the bank’s attorney, and the judge even said in open court how he does not believe the Trustee’s Deed was legitimate, nor that the UD was brought in the name of the proper party either! He said it should have been Terwin Mortgage Trust…THE TRUST, NOT THE TRUSTEE bringing the action in UD court, therefore the Writ of Possession was issued in the name of the improper party. He did say he cannot undo a state court decision, and that I’ll have to seek remedy for that through the proper channels (aka Appellate court). Regarding the wrong party filing the UD AND the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay by the law firm he represents, the judge said, “What do you have to say about that, Mr. Boyer (US Bank NA’s attorney)???” The attorney replied, “Uh, I, um, I don’t have anything to say, your honor.” (Mind you, this is a federal BK judge reprimanding an attorney for something his law firm did in a state court action! It was kind-of funny…yet eye opening!)

If anything, this may force US Bank NA to produce the PSA my loan has been put into…thus far, it is a private trust that even the pro’s can’t get the PSA for! Even a PSA may not do the job for them.

There is a chance I can get my UD case into the State Court of Appeals and have a TRO from them issued pending the outcome of appeal BEFORE the BK hearing after July 22nd. I am aiming to have it filed next week. (I lost my appeal with the in-house appellate panel on June 6th…they just affirmed the UD court’s decision, despite citing Subject Matter Jurisdiction and CA Judges Benchguide. Wimpy, if you ask me!). A TRO from the State Court of Appeals will protect me from eviction in the event the BK judge lifts the bk stay eventually if I am unable to convince him of denial of it. After that, it is on to the CA  Supreme Court while the appeal is still pending.

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