Posts Tagged ‘against
Short Sale No Protection Against Bank
Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $ 150 discount LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to ExpertsFor Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688
|
|
Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $ 150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon! |
Editor’s Comment:
As if on queue this story appears. I have been warning buyers of short sales that they face strong headwinds in maintaining ownership of the house, keeping possession, and the general fact that buying a short sale probably is buying into litigation now or later.
This guy is a true innocent buyer without any real notice of the problems he was buying into. His realtor obviously didn’t tell him because the realtor’s compensation is based upon the sale closing. The title agent didn’t tell him for the same reason. And the bank selected as the ” designated hitter” to receive money and execute papers showing the old mortgage was satisfied and the foreclosure was over probably didn’t even know who to call or why because, like the originator at the original closing on the loan, was just a fee for service “satisfied” instead of a fee for service originator.
So the designated forecloser keeps proceeding — and in this case apparently foreclosed on the house without the new short sale buyer knowing a thing about it, evicted the tenants, which now included the shortsale buyer, and then broke in, removed all the personal belongings leaving this guy with a lawsuit for trespass and the loss of his furniture and personal belongings.
This will continue until we accept and act upon the fact that the foreclosures and the would-be originators of foreclosures have no right to even be at the table — same as when the old old loan was created.
KC Man Sues Bank Over Foreclosure Error
Claim: JPMorgan Chase Changed Locks, Seized New Owner’s Property
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A Kansas City man is taking on banking giant JPMorgan Chase, accusing the company of something that he said would have landed anyone else in handcuffs.
Allan Danforth bought a house in a short sale in fall 2010. JPMorgan Chase held the previous owner’s mortgage. Danforth said two months later, without notice, the bank changed the locks and hauled away $ 25,000 worth of furniture, appliances and family heirlooms.
“I had to bust in through the basement window here,” Danforth said, pointing to the house that he was forced to break into more than 18 months ago.
He said JPMorgan Chase’s contractor, Safeguard Properties, ignored “No Trespassing” signs on the garage, changed the locks on his home and cleaned it out two months after he paid cash for the property.
“It was basically stuff that was 150 years of family history,” Danforth said. “I feel violated and I felt like the house wasn’t even safe to go into for a while.”
Danforth said Safeguard Properties could find his family heirlooms. He said JPMorgan Chase just gave him a runaround.
“They’re the big bank and they don’t care,” he said.
“It’s a wrong built upon wrongs,” said attorney Tony Stein.
He said it’s a wrongful foreclosure.
“We fully intend to go into court and have a Jackson County jury try to decide the eventual outcome of this case in the only language JPMorgan Chase understands,” Stein said. “The language of money.”
In his lawsuit, Stein accuses JPMorgan Chase of theft, trespassing and reckless indifference.
Jackson County court records show that on Sept. 9, the previous homeowners transferred the house to Danforth. The bank signed off 12 days later.
“For the very company to release their deed of trust and thereby release all their rights against this property, and then two months later, send in a company to clean this thing out? You’ll have to ask them why they’d do something like that,” Stein said. “It defies logic.”
Danforth and his attorney said the bank has ignored their letters. When KMBC investigated the case, a spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase had a response.
“We made a paperwork mistake when the property was sold, which resulted in our service partner changing the locks and winterizing the property to ensure its security,” the statement said.
The company did not comment how it plans to settle the dispute.
“I’m not the first one. I will not be the last, unfortunately,” Danforth said.
He said he has installed a security system in case of another “paperwork mistake.”
“If it were you or I doing it, we’d be sitting in jail right now,” Danforth said. “Why isn’t JPMorgan in jail?”
Safeguard Properties deferred comment to the bank.
Danforth’s lawsuit is before the Jackson County Court and claims actual damages in excess of $ 25,000. Under law, Stein said members of Danforth’s family could be entitled to recover as much as $ 1.5 million in punitive damages.
Danforth’s copies of important documents were inside the house and were taken by Safeguard Properties. Experts said in case of a fire or burglary, it’s a good idea to have copies of important documents in a digital form or a safety deposit box.
Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: Allan Danforth, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, Jackson County, JP Morgan Chase, KMBC, Lender Liability, punitive damages, realtor, Safeguard Properties, service originator, short-sale, theft by bank, title agent, Tony Stein 
Livinglies’s Weblog
9th Circuit affirms dismissal of late abuse claim against Oregon archdiocese
An alleged victim of priest sexual abuse in the 1950s has failed to convince a federal appeals court that he did not wait too long to make a claim for money damages against the bankruptcy estate of the archdiocese of Portland in Oregon.
Thomson Reuters News & Insight: Bankruptcy Law – Insight
Defenses Against Claims of Holder in Due Course
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT
SERVICE 520-405-1688From this website:
by John Gault
http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/lat/classes/2300/notes/chap23.htm
Real Defenses
Real or universal defenses are valid against all holders, including HDCs. Universal defenses include the following:
(1) Forgery,
(2) Fraud in the execution,
(3) Material alteration (complete defense against a holder, partial defense against an HDC),
(4) Discharge in bankruptcy,
(5) Minority,
(6) Illegality (when statute makes it void),
(7) Adjudicated Mental Incapacity, and
(8) Extreme Duress.
Each of these is pretty much self-explanatory except number two, fraud in the execution.
Fraud in the execution occurs when a person is deceived into signing a negotiable instrument believing that he is signing something other than a negotiable instrument. This defense cannot be raised, however if a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the nature and terms of the instrument. Thus, the signer’s age, experience, and intelligence are relevant.
Personal Defenses
Personal defenses are used to avoid payment to an ordinary holder of a negotiable instrument. Personal defenses are:
(1) Breach of contract or breach of warranty,
(2) Lack or failure of consideration,
(3) Fraud in the inducement,
(4) Illegality (when statute makes it voidable),
(5) Unadjudicated mental incapacity,
(6) Other defenses.
Imo, there are two very important things we need to fully understand to defend our homes: the UCC and the laws of evidence. The UCC may provide avenues of discovery, as well as reasonable argument that without that discovery, adjudication just can’t be made.
The laws of evidence will help us get meaningful discovery, and not allow the use of bs declarations / affidavits. To date, none or most of us have availed ourselves of these avenues I would call bright.
There is something about ‘assumed risk’ as an affirmative defense which I can’t find right now, so the ones listed above must not be inclusive and most of them don’t seem to apply, anyway, except maybe nos. 2 and 4 and whatever 6 is under personal defenses.
More of the UCC at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm
The UCC cited is under article 3 and is relevant to negotiable instruments. But I can’t help remembering those 2 cases I have somewhere wherein the banksters claimed these notes are not negotiable instruments. Fwiw, I’ll link them when I find them.
The UCC imo provides defenses to foreclosure and to my knowledge, no one, including attorneys, is ‘going there’.
If you find a link to better defenses to notes, I would appreciate it since mine are whoknowswhere.
Part of what I’m trying to say is that there are defenses available against a holder v a hidc (I thought there were none available against a hidc, but apparently that’s not true, altho there are many more available against a ‘mere’ holder. In order for a homeowner to properly allege those defenses, one has to know if they’re available and therefore we have a need to know clearance on if the bankster is a holder or a holder in due course. Unfortunately, the UCC has some complicated tenets and one has to keep them all in mind. And btw, I have NO doubt changes to the UCC have been made in recent years which benefit the banksters. No surprise there, right?
Also, it appears to me and I’ve said before that enforcement of a note is either 1) unavailable to one who has paid nothing for it or 2) unavailable except to the extent (dollar amt) one has already paid for it (promise to pay does not cut it for ENFORCEMENT). This is grand, but it’s also a really bum steer if not true, so if anyone knows otherwise, please weigh in. It does seem to conflict with other UCC
rules, so it’s complicated. I’ll bet there’s reconciliation; I just don’t know it. I’m just saying as emphatically as I can it’s past time to quit ignoring what could be fully dispositive issues.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default 
Livinglies’s Weblog
Too Big To Jail: Thousands Protest Around Nation Against “Settlement” Proposed by Obama and AG’s
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT
Protesters Demonstrating in Front of Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Meeting in Chicago
By: David Dayen, firedoglake.com
Protesters have gathered outside a meeting taking place in Chicago today between officials with the Obama Administration and some state Attorneys General or members of their staff, aimed at reaching agreement on a low-ball settlement with leading banks over foreclosure fraud. The proposed settlement would give homeowners a pittance in exchange for a broad release of liability from prosecution for the banks.
About eighty members of various community and faith groups in Illinois, including national groups like MoveOn.org, National People’s Action and The New Bottom Line, have gathered outside the Chicago O’Hare Hilton Hotel. They are holding a press conference there and protesting the proposed settlement. Later in the day, the protesters plan to visit the local offices of Illinois AG Lisa Madigan, who is on the executive committee which negotiated the settlement, and the Obama for America 2012 campaign headquarters.
The protesters object to the low dollar value of the settlement, estimated at $ 20-$ 25 billion, when there is currently $ 700 billion worth of negative equity – money owed on mortgages less than the value of the home – in America. They also object to the fact that there has been no meaningful investigation into the depths of foreclosure fraud by the Department of Justice or any federal regulator. Further, they oppose a broad release of civil and/or criminal liability for the banks for their conduct at all levels of the housing market. [EDITOR'S NOTE: SOMEHOW THE $ 700 BILLION FIGURE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. I did the math. The figure is ten times that at $ 7 trillion].
The proposed deal will get circulated to the banks today. Many of the holdout AG offices did not send a representative to the Chicago meeting. But they have the information on the settlement, and for a variety of reasons the events of the next 24 hours are seen as consequential. There are even rumors, according to Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), of an announcement on the settlement appearing in tomorrow’s State of the Union Address. “They have not said anything to us on the State of the Union, but there’s a sense that they may do something,” added Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), an opponent of the settlement on a conference call today.
Miller ticked off a number of unknowns surrounding the settlement. “What investigation has there actually been? What claims are being released?” Miller Asked. “Where did this $ 20 billion number come from for damages? What mortgages does this apply to? Does it apply to securitized mortgages that the banks don’t really own? Will they be able to pass on the losses for their own misconduct? Which homeowners get relief? If it’s just a dollar figure that the banks have to hit, will they pick the most expensive houses for relief and increase resentment against those who get the breaks in America?”
Brown, Miller and the coalition arguing for a “fair settlement” want a thorough investigation, with the inclusion of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (at this point not a part of this settlement). “It’s hard to know what a meaningful settlement would look like when we don’t have full disclosure,” Brown said. “Instead of a thorough investigation and criminal prosecutions, we’re talking about not much more than a slap on the wrist. The banks are not just too big to fail, they’re too big to jail.”
Justin Ruben of MoveOn.org, a key coalition partner, cited new polling showing that found that 70% of Americans believe the banks have not been investigated enough on their foreclosure practices, and that 60% of those polls would be less likely to support the President for re-election if he gave the banks a sweetheart deal. By contrast, the President would gain support if he announced a real investigation into Wall Street’s practices. MoveOn has forwarded a petition asking for an investigation, and has acquired over 360,000 signatures.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, Justin ruben, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, moveon, National People’s Action, New Bonttom LIne, Obama, protests, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, sherrod brown, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND 
Livinglies’s Weblog
Anonymous 99 Video – Fight Back Against Corporate/Govt Crime & Lies
Cenk Uygur breaks down a video by Anonymous 99 introducing their plan to ‘engage in a relentless campaign of non-violent, peaceful, civil disobedience’ to fight back against crime by banks and government agencies. They also announced an upcoming ‘Operation Empire State Rebellion’.
Southern Montana Co-op Members Rage Against Bankruptcy Attorney
The battle to unseat Jon Doak as bankruptcy attorney for Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative Inc. continued Friday, with a creditor in the case and member of the Southern Montana co-op claiming it’s Doak’s fault that its trustee was disallowed from an October meeting.
Beartooth Electric Cooperative’s trustee, Arlen Boyd, wasn’t allowed to participate “upon Doak’s recommendation” that three other trustees vote against her participation, Beartooth said in court documents.
The board of trustees is composed of a representative from each of the six members of the Southern Montana co-op, and Boyd was appointed to represent Beartooth. But on Oct. 21, when Southern Montana declared bankruptcy, she wasn’t allowed to attend the meeting, the objection said.
Two trustees representing Yellowstone Valley Cooperative Inc. and the city of Great Falls, Mont., left the meeting in protest, saying the three members who voted against allowing Boyd to participate were “acting illegally,” Boyd said in a sworn statement.
It isn’t the first objection to Doak’s representation of Southern Montana in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, in which liabilities top $ 130 million.
Yellowstone Valley, the largest member of the Southern Montana co-op, objected in early November, stating that Doak represents a separate cooperative owned by four members of the Southern Montana Cooperative called SME. (Yellowstone Valley and Great Falls aren’t a part of the SME co-op.) This representation is a conflict of interest, Yellowstone argued.
Additionally, Doak is a creditor in Southern Montana’s bankruptcy, Yellowstone said, because of he is owed legal fees from that representation, meaning he’s not a “disinterested party” as required.
Southern Montana called Yellowstone’s objection another chapter in its bid to exit its contract by causing Southern Montana to liquidate, according to court documents, accusing it of illegally making public confidential Southern Montana financial statements.
After this response was filed, Great Falls filed another objection the next day.
“Testimony at the first meeting of creditors suggests that Mr. Doak and the Doak and Associates may have received preferential payments from the debtor in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy filing,” the city said in court documents.
Neither Doak nor attorneys for Beartooth or Yellowstone were immediately available for comment Monday.
The hearing on Doak’s application to represent Southern Montana was postponed in December and is scheduled for Jan. 24 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Butte, Mont.
7th Circuit finds no tort claim priority against Chapter 7 debtor in ‘novel’ decision
A tort claimant injured by the actions of a Chapter 7 debtor during the interval between the appointment of a trustee and liquidation does not hold an administrative claim against the bankruptcy estate, a federal appeals panel in Illinois has ruled.
Thomson Reuters News & Insight: Bankruptcy Law – Insight
Hedge funds must continue to defend against suit by Madoff trustee
Two investment funds that allegedly received over $ 30 million from Bernard Madoff’s firm have lost their bid to overturn a New York bankruptcy court’s refusal to dismiss trustee Irving Picard’s avoidance suit.
Thomson Reuters News & Insight: Bankruptcy Law – Insight