It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


forclosures fraudulent and coming to an end in california

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:19 PM
California is following in the footsteps of Tennessee!!!!!

All Mortgages are Fraudulent - Former owners will have recourse to sue for fraudulent foreclosures. Spread this far & wide! The whole industry could collapse completely!!!!!!!!!!
Due to the recent ruling by the Sups, MERS is not the title holder (real party in interest) of any property and never was. ALL mortgages past and present are therefore fraudulent! This has devastating repercussions for all of the loan industry, not just MERS, because there is no longer a chain of title. People who have, or have had mortgages or are being foreclosed on, or have been foreclosed on, now have an out. These people are now able to win in court and having their mortgages settled and the people are keeping their houses, for the fear of the banks losing far more in class action suits!

Now California is getting in on the action and suing MERS for filing false recordings with the county recorders in every county in the state, since MERS started filings over 10 years ago! At a fine of 5-10K a pop, this stands to create millions and possibly billions of dollars in penalties against MERS which will effectively bankrupt the fraudulent mortgage industry. This could mean that anyone with a mortgage will have it immediately settled and the current owners get the title free and clear no matter what balance they owe because fraud has no statute of limitations. Former owners will have recourse to sue for fraudulent foreclosers. The resulting litigations will have the banks on their knees in no time flat. The whole industry could collapse completely. Only time will tell. Lets just see what happens.

i have no way of verification of details and will post in skunk untill more details emerge
please post any MSM or proof as this is huge if substanciated


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:26 PM
Okay.. I am with you and am going to hold my comments until we get more information. This really sounds too good to be true. This would be like winning the lottery. (never happens to me type thing) Please post more info as you receive it. Will keep an eye on this and do some research myself. Very interesting!!

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:27 PM

But, in this latest decision, the bankruptcy judge in California didn’t agree, writing in his opinion:
“Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.”

Did you get that? Since MERS didn’t own the underlying note, it couldn’t transfer the beneficial

from halfway down text of lawers blog

external linky


ps still looking into this


Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.

edit on by Ahabstar because: correct external source tags

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

found PDF of court ruling

Eastern District of California
Honorable Ronald H. Sargis
Bankruptcy Judge
Sacramento, California
May 20, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.

external linky

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

original akensaw ruling

Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”) appeals a decision of the
Benton County Circuit Court denying its motion to set aside a decree of foreclosure and to
dismiss the foreclosure action.1 MERS alleges that the circuit court erred in ordering
foreclosure because as the holder of legal title it was a necessary party that was never served.

external linky


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

more case law

Before a plaintiff (lender/servicer) can establish a prima facie case and file for foreclosure against a homeowner, he/she must satisfy the threshold questions of proving that the mortgage and mortgage note exist, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment. Campaign v. Barba, 23 A.D.3d 327 (2d Dept. 2005). Put another way, if one does not have title to a mortgage, then that person cannot foreclose on that very same mortgage Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537 (2d Dept. 1988). This applies to lenders who are assigned the note and mortgage from the original lender or from a servicer such as MERS who received as nominee, or a middle party, from the original lender. A plaintiff lacks standing where there is no proof that that both the mortgage and the note have not been assigned to plaintiff. HSBC Bank USA v. Miller 26, Misc.3d 407 (NY Sup Ct, Sullivan County 2009). Proof of the mortgage alone being assigned is not

external linky



Mod Edit: External Source Tags Please Review This Link.

edit on by Ahabstar because: External source tags

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

It involved something called an "assignment of mortgage," the document that certifies who owns the property and is thus entitled to foreclose on it. Especially these days, the assignment is key evidence in a foreclosure case: With so many loans having been bought, sold, securitized, and traded, establishing who owns the mortgage is hardly a trivial matter. It frequently requires months of sleuthing in order to untangle the web of banks, brokers, and investors, among others. By law, a firm must execute (complete, sign, and notarize) an assignment before attempting to seize somebody's home.

external linky from a legal stand point


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by tinkytink1207

im still studying this but i beleive this is a precident set against forclosure in california where if the title chain and deed cannot be followed prior to filing then the court fines the electrionic transfer company that transfers title to the bank

if correct and upheld started in akensaws and upheld in california then a presedent can be claimed and applied prima facia to all bank forclosure claims nation wide bought by lawers on behalf of the banks

this is huge if i can find more court records
it reminds me of a case where the lawers proved the title deed had been on sold and the banks faced no loss and couldnt produce the deed and the judge awarded the property to the victim untill the title was produced and loss shown

lol @#$% the banks they screwed us to hard now the judges are creating a releif for us

lol yay


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:54 PM
You have been busy!! I have been researching this myself since my last post so I just flipped back to see what else had been posted! Good job on the info.
I was surprised at how much I was able to pull up, and how many people were complaining etc. Our mortgage was with Wachovia which is now Wells Fargo so I was trying to search these banks especially. I was surprised to see all this stuff come up about Wells Fargo, and they have been in trouble with this problem in these states you spoke about. I live in Alabama and wonder if this will be something that would effect me now personally. Going to have to keep reading this material and try to add productive comments. I am really bad with understanding Banking systems but I get the general idea of how big this could impact not only the people(yeah!!) but the banks(ha ha ha)!!

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes “securitized” have been lost or destroyed. The cases we are going to look at reflect the stark fact that the unnamed source’s speculation may be well-founded.

Where’s the note, who’s the holder: Enforcement of the promissory note secured by real estate
external linky

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:02 AM
Sorry for the skepticism
but this sounds more like
Tim Turner BS.

This was one of the articles of the RAP
Restore America Plan.

Yep, just file a paper and get your house back.
I ain't holding my breath til I get my house back.
Mine was foreclosed in April this year.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:06 AM
You might try to dig up what happened to the european holders of these bundleded mortgages when they tried to forclose a while back...
I believe they could not produce proof of ownership or some such and lost their bid to forlse...?
This was in NJ or somewhere there i think....
this omes in Fla.[edit on 6-8-2010 by stirling]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by stirling]

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by tinkytink1207

i beleive after reading the articals three things have to be satisfyed by the notary public before bringing a foreclosure before courts is your state because of this latest decition

please resurch and seak legal advice as i have no legal training and am not qulifyed to give legal advice

that said
1. the courts have to prove legal chain of ownership and show they are acting on behalf of the legal owner not themselfs as these deeds of title have been sold over and over again

2. if the banks have sold these morgages to a third party they have no loss in the transaction as they have been paid and can show no damages

3. many documents are not properly filed by the lawers prior to forclosure and documented by a notary public within the time frame required

4. if a person has lived on a property for a certain amount of time and no lawful claim is made on the property then tittle reverts to the person on the land (not sure how long this takes and varys from state to state

5. there is no statute of limitation on fraud and may involve 10+ years of forclosures

6. electronic transactions of title MAY be iliigal at transfering tittle if the owner of the CDO is not involved

lol @#$% the banks lol


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:10 AM
I also saw where Restore America had info on this topic, but then I kept going and there are a lot of other sites, blogs, etc that were also posting the same information. So I am still reading. I agree with you about not holding my breath, but it does seem that maybe some pain might come to some banks. If this is able to help people then so be it. Maybe the banks might loose some money over this. I am still researching. Still would like to see what others with more experience in banking industry think about this??

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

please read the pdf of akensaws court ruling
then read the pdf of california court ruling
the jist is that if the courts make a ruling it sets a precident and can be refered to

any new forclosures HAVE to prove ownership and chain of title and
show that they are acting on behalf of the cuurent tittle owner

BEFORE the court case can start

this is in skunk till i can confirm with sources outside posted PDFS
im surching .gov web sites nd such right now please help find info to prove of dis prove


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by tinkytink1207

Here's a pretty good article on it.

Ends up saying:

Unfortunately, the courts in Bellistri and Hawkins were provided insufficient explanations and evidence to demonstrate that MERS’ agency relationship falls within the exception. Consequently, while such litigation will continue – for the short run, anyway – the net result may be favorable for MERS, with changes in the law that finally recognize and incorporate the utility of the MERS system.

I have to agree with him I think ultimately, MERS will win.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:50 AM
It's happened before and should happen all the time. S+F OP


Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to plaintiff.

Edit to add ruling:

Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

[edit on 8/6/10 by thov420]

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:57 AM
reply to post by thov420

thank you for the case law i think that the courts found the creation of money by the bank was by accounting entry alone and that the bank suffered no financial loss because they CREATED the money simply by adding the amount to a ledger.
the fact that the bank also could not show ownership or that they were acting on behalf of the owner was a factor

these new decitions are about getting all the paper work lawfully ready before a court action can proceed

as far as i canm tell the court always asumed the banks were right always and now they must prove loss and ownership prior to forclosure

its amazing how a change in attitude from the legal perseptive from the judges can have a profound effect on the people in their jurisdiction


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:07 AM
reply to post by Pauligirl

thank you for the link this was written prior to the califonia decition and even then the test case had been won by the lein holder and not mers so i think this muddys the water a bit

As a result, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the first lienholder. MERS unsuccessfully challenged the ruling. The Supreme Court found that since MERS did not have any tangible interest in the mortgage (i.e., it was not a beneficiary, did not issue the loan and was not entitled to collect on the debt), it was not entitled

external linky ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by thov420

the banks cant show loss

The president of the Bank admitted that the Bank created the money and credit upon its own books by which it acquired or gave as consideration for the Note; that this was standard banking practice, that the credit first came into existence when they created it; that he knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this.

the banks cant show ownership or that they are operating on behalf of the current owner or show chain of title

if the title and the trust under which the morgage relates or pertains to is seperated then no claim can be made

when morgages are packaged up an sold off in a bundle like morgage backed securities MBS this seperates the tittle and the trust

ask your bank to produce an original copy of the tittle deed and the trust together and bingo most cant find them

im not a lawer and this is intended as a debate topic only and not intended as legal advice please seek legal representation from a lawer and no recourse is given implied or extended

its a scam people and if you read the ruling from this link you will understand the scam and why judges are ruling in favour of the people

thanks to thov 420 for providing the link to the case law

external linky

this needs to be screamed from the roof tops so average joes have a chance to use this president to save there families and homes

if enought people know the lawful process then the judges are compelled to find in the favour of the human and not the corperation or bank

yay freedom

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in