[HOME ] [ABOUT] [PHOTOS] [VIDEO] [BLOG] [HOUSTON] [TEXAS] [U.S. NEWS] [WORLD NEWS] [SPORTS] [POP CULTURE] [CONTACT]
How homeowners are fighting back and winning to prevent foreclosure
by Joseph Ernest October 29, 2010
Newscast Media -- Randy Kelton, host of the Rule Of Law Radio program gives advice about how the legal system can be used against corrupt officials. Kelton is a "pro se" litigator who gives homeowners practical steps on how to avoid foreclosure.
He advises homeowners to go pro se in other words, to represent themselves in court, if they can't afford an attorney. Below are guidelines he recommends homeowners facing foreclosure should follow to empower them in order to file a suit against your lender.
(i) Look at your Truth in Lending statement and your note. Almost everyone will have a principal and interest on the note, that is different from the principal and interest on the Truth in Lending statement.
(ii) Run an amortization on both of them. The amount that you would overpay when you run the Truth and Lending statement may amount to tens of thousands of dollars as compared to what the actual numbers are on the note. (e.g $45,000)
(iii) After running the calculations, take that as a fraud claim, because in a fraud claim you do not file for the amount you have been defrauded of, but the actual amount you would have been defrauded of, had their plan come to fruition. However, you don't sue for $45K. You sue for triple.($45,000 X 3 = $135,000)
(iv)Also look at the lender fees. The lender is only allowed to charge the borrower those fees the borrower would have to pay if they purchased the house in cash, and those fees, the lender must pay to a third party vendor. But at closing, they didn't provide you with any documentation to show you that the fees were (a) Proper (b) Allowed by law (c) That the services provided by the vendor were necessary (d) That the amounts charged were reasonable (e) Neither did the lender show you his or her disbursement, to show you that he or she didn't take an unauthorized markup on the amounts charged. If they can't produce these documents, then the transaction was bogus. It was a fraud, and the bank can't foreclose on you.
(v) Ask them to show you the actual loan Note. Because these mortgages have been sold over and over again, it is almost impossible for the party foreclosing on you to produce the original note. Most mortgages also have MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) as the beneficiary which has already been ruled by courts as fraudulent. Look at page #2 of your Deed of Trust.
EXAMPLES:
(1) U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Linda Riegle has ruled that the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) could not represent lenders seeking to foreclose on delinquent homeowners already in bankruptcy unless it could produce the actual loan note. This goes to the heart of how home lending has evolved over the past two decades, with a loan rarely staying on the books of the originator but often being sold several times to other institutions or investment groups. As a result, producing a loan document is far more complex than opening a drawer in a filing cabinet.
(2)A California judge made this ruling about MERS: “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.”
In other words, since MERS didn't own the underlying note, it couldn't transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to Citibank.
In this decision the court found that MERS was acting "only as a nominee," under the Deed of Trust, and that there was no evidence of the note being transferred. The judge’s opinion in this case also said that "several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying note and therefore could not transfer the note, the beneficial interest in the deed of trust, or foreclose on the property secured by the deed", citing cases of: In Re Vargas, California Bankruptcy Court; Landmark v. Kesler, Kansas decision as to lack of authority of MERS; LaSalle Bank v. Lamy, a New York case; and In Re Foreclosure Cases, the "Boyko" decision from Ohio Federal Court.
And the court concluded by stating:
“Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case."
What the courts in California said is that MERS can't foreclose and CITIBANK can't collect. Period. End of story. . Add Comments>>
Resources:
Mortgage Crime: http://www.mortgagecrime.com
ice Legal : http://www.icelegal.com/
|
|
Join the Newscast Media social networks
for current events and multimedia content.
Copyright © Newscast Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Privacy Policy