A Jacksonville federal judge has issued a sharp critique of Bank of America in a case involving a Jacksonville couple where the bank mishandled court filings and began a years-long process of trying to collect a non-existent debt and falsely filing for foreclosure.
Bank of America ruined their retirement, Deborah and Ronald Goodin testified, and it may have ruined their marriage, too.
The Goodins, like many American families, made a bad business decision just as the Great Recession began. By 2009, they filed for bankruptcy. They never missed a payment into a bankruptcy trust that was supposed to take care of their mortgage.
But then a year after taxpayers gave Bank of America a $45 billion bailout, that bank took over the mortgage from another lender in August 2009, and Bank of America, which handles trillions of dollars of deposits, failed to file a routine legal motion that would give it access to the bankruptcy trust.
BOA like the other banks is in pursuit of foreclosures for many reasons. They have no right to foreclosure and the real creditor is being blocked out of the equation. The so-called investor doesn’t even know the foreclosure was filed. And they are contractually stopped from even inquiring, just as the Trustees of the REMIC Trusts don’t know anything, don’t have anything and are not allowed to do anything or ask anything.
The plain truth is that BOA and other banks are pursuing foreclosures not because they are the lender or a successor to a lender or even an authorized representative of the real creditor. They are actually using the illusion of a default and foreclosure to cover up the fact that they are really suing for themselves — even if they are not the lender, the successor or authorized representatives. They are getting title to homes in which they have no investment.
SO THE FREE HOUSE IS GOING TO BOA AND OTHER BANKS, NOT THE BORROWER.
1. Bank of America’s Motion to Amend Pleadings is DENIED.
2. The Court intends to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Ronald and Deborah Goodin and against Bank of America in the amount of $204,000 once attorneys’ fees have been decided. The Goodins have until July 15, 2015 to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and Bank of America has until August 10, 2015 to respond.
DONE AND ORDERED
23 June 2015 Timothy J Corrigan Goodin v Bank of America Jacksonville Florida
Reference Info:Federal, 11th Circuit, Florida | United States
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 2015, Bank of America, Bank of America $45 billion bailout, Bankruptcy, BOA, Deborah Goodin, Duval County, false foreclosure, Florida, Jacksonville, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, june 23, non-existent debt, pursuit of foreclosures, real creditor blocked out, REMIC, right to foreclosure, Ronald Goodin, so-called investor doesn't know
2011 Comm. Fin. News. 18
Commercial Finance Newsletter
February 28, 2011
Borrower Cannot File Suit to Determine Whether MERS Has Authority to Commence Foreclosure, and Trust Deed Expressly Authorized MERS to Do So. [Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,(Cal.App.).]
A California borrower executed a deed of trust, in which Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was designated as the nominee for the lender. Following the borrower’s default, an agent acting on behalf of MERS initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. The borrower filed suit challenging the authority of MERS to act on behalf of the underlying owner of the note and deed of trust. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer, and the court of appeal affirmed.
The court held that the borrower had no factual basis for believing that MERS lacked authority to act on behalf of the beneficial owner of the note and deed of trust, and there was no statute permitting a private action seeking to determine whether MERS had such authority. As a fallback, the court also held that MERS did, indeed, have the authority to initiate a foreclosure, under the express terms of the deed of trust.
In holding that MERS had the authority to conduct the foreclosure, the court declined to follow Landmark Nat. Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528, 216 P.3d 158 (2009)
, holding that MERS had no standing to intervene in a foreclosure case (and, by implication, that MERS was simply irrelevant to the foreclosure process). The court noted that under Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(1)
, “[t]he trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents shall first file… a notice of default.” Therefore, since MERS was an “authorized agent,” it necessarily acted properly in commencing the foreclosure.
By holding that the borrower could not even file suit in state court in order to determine whether the proper party had commenced the foreclosure, the court has sent a clear (and perhaps inadvertent) message to borrowers and their attorney’s: instead of filing suit in state court, file a bankruptcy petition. That shifts the burden to the creditor, who will have to file a motion for relief from stay in the bankruptcy court and will have to establish its right to foreclose as part of that motion. Unlike the California state courts, the California bankruptcy courts have been critical of poorly documented mortgage transactions and sloppily conducted foreclosure proceedings.
As to the substantive issue, i.e., whether MERS really has the authority to act on behalf of the lender, the case law is decidedly mixed. The cases in California tend to be more sympathetic to MERS, while the cases in much of the rest of the nation are much less deferential to MERS. For discussions of some of those cases, see:
— 2010 Comm. Fin. News. 51,
Foreclosure Is Valid Because MERS Has Power to Designate New Trustee Under Deed of Trust, Even Though It Holds No Interest in Underlying Note.
— 2009 Comm. Fin. News. 103,
Assignee of Mortgage Lacks Standing to Foreclose Because Assignee Failed to Show That MERS Assigned Underlying Promissory Note, Along with Mortgage.
— 2009 Comm. Fin. News. 59,
Assignees of Mortgages Cannot Enforce Unendorsed Notes in Their Possession Because MERS Documentation Does Not Expressly Authorize Assignment of Notes.
— 2009 Comm. Fin. News. 57,
Assignee in Possession of Mortgage Note May Not Enforce It Because Note Is Not Endorsed to Assignee.
— 2008 Comm. Fin. News. 104,
Mortgagee May Not Obtain Relief from Automatic Stay in Order to Foreclose When Necessary Evidence Is Supplied by Low-Level Clerk Without Personal Knowledge of Underlying Facts.
— 2008 Comm. Fin. News. 95,
Mortgage Assignee’s Failure to Record Assignment Does Not Empower Mortgagor’s Trustee in Bankruptcy to Avoid Underlying Mortgage.
— 2008 Comm. Fin. News. 86,
Mortgagee’s Agent May Not Foreclose if Agent Cannot Properly Trace Assignment of Mortgage from Original Lender to Assignee Pursuant to Securitization.
— 2007 Comm. Fin. News. 93,
Mortgage Holder Seeking Relief from Automatic Stay in Order to Foreclose May Be Denied Relief for Failure to Establish Chain of Title from Loan Originator to Ultimate Assignee.
Copyright Thomson Reuters
|End of Document
||© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Posted in Foreclosure, Law, Mortgage Crisis
Tagged 1714.10, 2924, 2924a, 2924i, Bankruptcy, California, Commentary on Gomes, eviction, Foreclosure, Gomes, Gomes v Countrywide, Law Review, Mortgage Crisis, Rule 2004, Shifting Burden of Proof
I have to say I am NOT in the business of making attorney referrals. I am much more interested in “disbarring the entire profession” and thereby restoring free-market competition based on competence alone to the legal profession. I submit that abolition of the Court-licensed “integrated” bar, abolition State Supreme Court issued law licenses, and allowing all people who care to educate themselves or obtain education formally to engage in the same freedom of speech, freedom of association, and free exercise of the right to petition as enjoyed by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Marshall, Roger Brooke Taney, Samuel Jones Tilden, and yes, even Abraham Lincoln. I would thus like to restore robust freedom to think, create, and imagine the best ideals, rather than the most practical and politically effective expedients, to the actual practice of law and legal advocacy.
But having been at least “roped into it” by publishing my response to one reader’s letter, earlier today, I feel obliged to publish my good friend Catherine Bryan’s Response and HER (Kokopelli Community Workshop’s) list of “Recommended Attorneys”. But for the record, I have had NO personal contact, direct or indirect, with even a single one of the lawyers whose names are listed (at Catherine’s/ Kokopelli’s behest alone, without crosschecking or any other due diligence exercise) below, except as mentioned in my own article/blog-post earlier today.
BUT ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING, LET ME MAKE THIS ONE THING VERY, VERY CLEAR:
I DO NOT RECOMMEND WORKING WITH LICENSED ATTORNEYS—I RECOMMEND RELIEVING THEM OF THEIR MONOPOLY STATUS, THEIR FAUX STATUS and TITLES OF NOBILITY “ESQUIRE” and “OFFICERS OF THE COURT” and ABOVE ALL I RECOMMEND, ADVOCATE, AND AS U.S. SENATOR WOULD FIGHT TO DESTROY FOREVER LAWYERS’ SPECIAL DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP ON AND WITH THE JUDGES BEFORE WHOM THEY MUST APPEAR:
In my opinion, All the people Charles referenced below are even worse than the banks, especially Micheal Pines and Dennis Russel who actively engage in publicity stunts to get their name in the news so that people turn to them for help . !
multiple complaints tell us these attorneys all rake in big money and never do any effective work!
tell me more about any Paul Nguyen winning cases- please!
I have a pile of homeowner complaints on my desk from multiple homeowners say they were ripped off by Paul and Diane Beal and no good reports on either won of them.
Kokopelli Community Workshop foreclosure relief project (link) has recently received an enormous number of urgently requested legal referrals for victims of predatory lending who urgently require the services a qualified attorney.
There are currently around 1,000 foreclosures recorded each day in San Diego County alone and unfortunately good legal help for any reasonable cost is quite difficult to come by. Anyone interviewing an attorney should insist that the attorney in question provide a list of several cases they have actually won! Our ongoing investigation into wrongful attorney practices reveal that many attorneys who have wonderful predatory lending web-site but are really interested in acquiring your property and their real business is their real estate brokerage.
The sad news is a majority of attorneys charge hefty retainers and have never or seldom actually won a case or even assisted the homeowner to negotiate with their creditor. To make matters worse there any a number of people including attorneys selling quick fixes through filing commercial liens and other instant rescue systems, none of which work and all of which drain the homeowners pocket book. There seem to be far more predatory attorneys and predatory rescue scams than true remedy.
The bad news is there are a multitude of homeowners currently reporting that they are enticed into default by loss mitigation specialists who work for the servicer or the bank. The good news is some judges are considering loan mod fraud as valid grounds for taking affirmative action and in a few cases have found the bank instead of the homeowner to be at fault.
Anyone who can provide us with the name(s) an attorney(s) who have achieved settlement or won a trial against a foreclosing creditor in one case or more please provide us with case #, and contact information for our special list of attorneys who can actually provide remedy, in exchange for a retainer.
Kokopelli Workshop Project is actively involved in large analysis and statistical study of how judges review cases where homeowners pursue affirmative against banks for wrongful foreclosure and which cases settle out of court, and we study which cases actually win, and why. Here is our list of qualified attorneys who have won or settled one or more predatory lending cases; and no complaints!
THEODORE E. BACON (CA Bar No. 115395)
SCOTiJ. STILMAN (CA Bar No. 120239)
NANETtE B. BARRGAN (CA Bar No. 240116)
AL V ARADOSMITH
A Professional Corporation
633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 229-2400
Fax: (213) 229-2499Law Offices of Kenneth Graham
1575 Treat Blvd. #105, Walnut Creek,
California website, www.elaws.com
|Attorney Barry Mills
3588 4th Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
Attorney John E. Mortimer
|44489 Town Ctr Way #D-466
Palm Desert, California 92260
ALAN L. GERACI, ESQ.
Geraci & Lopez, Attorneys at Law (619) 231-3131
817 W San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos, CA 92078
Karen S. Spicker, SBN 127934 Doan Law Firm, LLP 2850 Pio Pico Drive, Suite D Carlsbad, CA 92008
L. Quintana, Esq. (SBN 157291) and Victoria Carry, Esq. (SBN 256872) QUINTANA SARTE REYNARD LLP 101 W. Broadway Suite 1050, San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619.231.6655
ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP, Jeffrey K. Berns (SBN 131351), David M. Arbogast (SBN 167571) 6303 Owensmouth Avenue, 10th Floor, Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2263 Tel: 818.961.2000
Powell and Powell, Attorneys at Law
402 West Broadway, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 232-6363 Office
To all this, William Daniels (email@example.com) would add:
Pines just got out of jail on bail and is trying to raise money for his case.
I heard that Paul Nguyen’s ‘win’ was because the bank defaulted and that was only temporary as they appealed and, last I heard, Paul is still fighting the case – they’ve had no other wins that I know of . . .
To all this I would just like to reiterate that I expressed my reservations about Paul Nguyen and Michael T. Pines, but included direct PACER-derived links showing the actual history of their cases. I now strongly suspect that EVERYTHING connected with A. Howard Matz’ Court in the Central District of California should be regarded with the UTMOST suspicion. Chase Bank’s default in that case almost seemed, itself, to me to be engineered by Matz—the whole thing in Matz courts—and others—appears to be the effect of a what was called in the days of Josef Stalin’s USSR a “SHOW TRIAL”—what Joseph Zernik, Ph.D., has recently started calling “Simulated Litigation”—thus avoiding the ugly, but probably accurate, implied historical connection between Soviet Communist Practice in the 1920s-40s and the mortgage/foreclosure/eviction litigation now practiced throughout the United States, but especially in California and other Western States (even though it now appears it was invented in Massachusetts….almost exactly 100 years ago….)
Jennifer Lee wrote to after midnight on June 12, 2011 (Pentacost Sunday):
As for Paul Nguyen he stole 4 k from my mom and promised an adversarial complaint and never did it and I could give you a list of horrible things he did to her including a chapter 11 bankruptcy that he botched so badly and abandoned her when she had paid in full to him. He then told us he has 100 customers and can’t possibly help them all so he had to pick which ones he is going to let loose and he doesn’t care less if they loose and get evicted. He told us he chose us to loose as our case was more difficult and he doesn’t care. I just spoke to a lady I saw tonight who told me he did the same to her and many more people she knows and she has someone who is going to go after him for her. I was given advice of how to report him. I have been too busy but I really need to report him to the bar and judicial review. Don’t remember off hand the place.he is a con man. Diane beall was upset to hear what he did to us but she told me she was losing all her cases so she needed to learn from him and she needs money even though she didn’t want to be there and she was sick to watch what he did to mom. She tried to confront him for what he did to us and she got in trouble for it.
Posted in Campaign Finance, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, Foreclosure, History and Civilization, INCEPTION, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, Plato, Plato's Republic, politics, Uncategorized, United States Senate
Tagged A Howard Matz, Attorney Paul Nguyen, Bankruptcy, Bissell House, Catherine Bryan, Chapter 11, Diane Beall, eviction, Foreclosure, Harrison, Hoyman, Jennifer Lee, Josef Stalin, Kokopelli, Kokopelli Community Workshop, Mortgages, Pasadena, Paul Nguyen, Recommended Attorneys, Recommended Counsellors-at-Law, Recommended Lawyers, Soviet Show Trials, USSR, William Zernik