Where Do I Start in Foreclosure Defense?

May 28, 2014

I recently received a specific request from an attorney in Massachusetts for litigation support there. He was interested, fascinated, but didn’t know where to start. After responding to him I decided to publish my response here for the assistance of others. He was asking for case law, but I redirected him to start with preparing his strategy and narrative.

There are plenty of cases across the country, including Massachusetts. In order to tailor it to your case, we would need to be retained for litigation support. Please speak with my staff about these options. It usually starts with a title and securitization report and then a consultation for an hour and then we offer varying levels of support depending upon what is required. Each state is different not just on the legal analysis but even more on what gets traction in a particular location.

As for the research, you need to know about securitization to know which questions to ask and what points to use as your focus. And discovery is a big part of this, but first you must make sure that in the pleadings you don’t admit the validity of the loan (i.e., the actual cash transaction because it probably came from a third party), the note, the mortgage, the default or the right to enforce. Keep reading my blog and go back in time as far as time permits and read the articles which usually have references to cases and other articles about this tragic misapplication of law and common sense.

You must build your case with a narrative that fits your case. The basic premise here is that the party on the note designated as payee, the party designated as mortgagee (or beneficiary under the deed of trust), the party that was the alleged assignee from the originator, the party who allegedly sold the loan all have one thing in common — no actual transaction that occurred in reality. They neither loaned money to the borrower nor did they buy the loan afterwards. The money that appeared on the closing table came from a third party not in privity with the borrower or the alleged lender at closing.

The foreclosure is simply another step in the theft, conversion or diversion of money, title and legal process to people and entities that perpetrated a huge fraud starting at two points of origination, to wit:

(1) — the sale of bonds to a pension fund or other investor where the money was never turned over to the issuer of the bonds (REMIC trust) and then was applied in ways described as pure fraud by those investors, insurers, counterparties on third party “sales” of the bonds and government agencies and

(2) the sale of mortgage loan products that were highly complex, lacking in required disclosure, violative of the prohibition of table funded loans and other laws against deceptive and predatory lending practices, using funding from an unrelated third party source leaving the investors with no note and no mortgage, and no bond — allowing the investment banks to claim ownership over all of it and leading to the creation of tens of millions of fraudulent, documents fabricated, forged and executed without authority for the sole purpose of getting the system to approve the forced sale of both personal residences and commercial properties where they could say the deal failed and avoid liability to the multiple buyers in multiple disguised sales of the same mortgage — directly or indirectly.

Both originations have this in common: the actual monetary transaction was NOT what is described in the paperwork that was used to lure the investor or homeowner into the transaction. The transaction trail and the monetary trail are the same. But the paper trail matches neither the transaction trail nor the money trail. Your goal is to show that to be the case when it is the case, which appears to be 96% of all loan “transactions” commenced between the years 2001-2009.

By showing that there can be no application of equitable mortgage solutions because no state allows equitable mortgages (it would disrupt the marketplace and undermine title), you proceed to show that the mortgage was never owned by the parties shown by the foreclosing side, and secures a note that does not describe the parties or the terms of repayment to an unrelated third party investor.

This negates enforcement of the mortgage altogether because it attacks the perfection of the mortgage lien as discussed in several cases, and leaves the note open for general litigation enforcement — but as an alleged holder, which is an admission that the party allegedly holding the note has admitted they didn’t buy it, they knew of borrower defenses (including lack of consideration) or both. Either way they cannot win unless they show the money trail (from origination to present day) which in my experience they have NEVER done in thousands of cases I have tracked.

For more information on litigation support, expert witness services and other assistance please call 520-405-1688, or 954-495-9867.

Posted in Uncategorized |