How you can make the system work against the banks in foreclosure cases.

Among the people who litigate Foreclosure cases on a regular basis, it is well known that the alleged “trustee” of the implied trust possesses neither knowledge nor control over the foreclosure proceeding. In addition, neither of the “trustee” nor the implied trust is intended to receive the proceeds of the liquidation of the homestead property.

Recently a homeowner and her attorney contacted me regarding the viability of using a specific statute under the laws of the state of Florida. The statute specifically states who can sign and who cannot sign anything on behalf of the trustee or the trust.

One thing is totally clear, the statute excludes any company that is self-proclaimed as an agent, servicer, or even Lawyer for the trust. The entire point of a trust is the appointment of a trustee known to the trustor or settler to be a trustworthy person to take charge of specific property and manage it on behalf of the beneficiaries named by the trustor or settler.

While I have addressed this issue obliquely, the attorney, in this case, filed a specific motion to dismiss the entire action and a motion for summary judgment. It was a short motion that merely stated that lawyers representing the Foreclosure Mail failed to comply with the required acknowledgment and certification by the alleged plaintiff in a Florida judicial foreclosure action.

This produced an anomalous result. Normally the Foreclosure Mail is instructed to litigate to the very end regardless of the weakness of their position. The logic behind this instruction is that most homeowners will give up because of time, money or expense. The idea is to win by attrition.

I cannot give you the details of the case in question, but I can give you the result. The foreclosure miil dismissed the entire foreclosure action along with the list pendens that clouded title.

Now the problem for the Foreclosure Mill is that they don’t represent the named trustee or the named trust. And there are contracted ministration agreements that prevent the named trustee and the name trust from actually getting involved in a foreclosure action — particularly when neither of the named trustee nor the named trust or implied trust will ever see one penny of money collected from the proceeds of the forced sale of the subject property.

This is reminiscent of the early stages of foreclosure litigation starting back in the early 2000s. The Foreclosure Mills simply walked away, leaving the homeowner and the court completely in the dark. In some cases the Foreclosure mail, or a different Foreclosure mill, came back with a new initiation of foreclosure process hoping to wear down the homeowner and the attorney for the homeowner.

But in the vast majority of the foreclosures that were dismissed or vacated, the homeowner was left with clouded title or the threat of a cloud on title. But in the meanwhile, they were not required to make any mortgage payments. Some of those homeowners lost their property anyway because they failed to make payments on property taxes.

The essential takeaway from this story is that this strategy employed by this attorney in Fort Myers Florida ended up shining an extremely bright light on a fake Foreclosure. Most homeowners and their attorneys make the key mistake of admitting or accepting the named “trustee” and the named trust as being real parties in interest who had authorized the Foreclosure Mill to proceed with legal action to force the sale of the homestead property.

The mistake is compounded by the assumption that when the homeowner loses the case, the proceeds from the sale of the subject property are paid to either the trustee or the trust. This results in the absence of any investigation or research into what happens after the judgment is entered. As Charles Koppa has repeatedly suggested, the activity after judgment or after-sale reveals the true nature of both the transaction and the alleged foreclosure proceeding — a process conducted for profit instead of restitution for an unpaid debt.

Of course it is possible that the investment banks want to direct us or distract us into this type of conversation which appears more philosophical than based in real world events or established law and procedure. But I can tell you as a point of fact that the real problem that the banks do not ever want to see debated or discussed is how much money they still owe homeowners, instead of the mythological underlying obligation for a transaction that is still only partially completed.

CLICK TO DONATE

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

• But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
• Yes you DO need a lawyer.
• If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Posted in Uncategorized |