The Quiet Title option to Richmond eminent domain mortgage seizure and California bank foreclosure

quiet_title_foreclosure_evictionQuiet Title is a critical term with which every homeowner should become familiar. A quiet title action, brought by an individual homeowner, is possibly the one sensible and legal alternative approach to the City of Richmond’s proposed plan to seize underwater mortgages under eminent domain. Quiet Title is also a potential legal remedy to growing bank foreclosures of underwater mortgages in Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, and the US.

What is Quiet Title?

Facing government seizure on the one hand, and potential foreclosure from predatory financial institutions on the other, individual homeowners are faced with a King Kong v Godzilla no-win situation. Individual homeowners are completely marginalized by powerful corporate interests including cities (Richmond), banks, Wall Street finance, and large national loan servicing agents, who will easily spend tens of millions of dollars to defend their respective claims in court.

A Quiet Title Action is a lawsuit to determine who owns a piece of real estate, and so “quiet” any disputes over the title. Only a homeowner can bring Quiet Title Action against unlawful claims, including from banks, on the lien of a property. An action to Quiet Title gives property owners an opportunity to inexpensively defend themselves, to restore order to their chains of titles caused by the mortgage meltdown, and to render their properties marketable once again, free of third-, fourth-, or fifth-party claims.

Richmond’s eminent domain mortgage seizure scheme

The City of Richmond, California (Richmond), in a money-making effort to raise cash for its own strapped finances, clouded by economic downturn, deflated property values, foolish spending, and underwater public employee pension debt, announced in September 2013, that it will buy or seize, under eminent domain, 600+ mortgages held in “private-label” securities.

Richmond says it will try to negotiate on price first, but if an owner rejects a lowball offer, the City will take the mortgage anyways, as a way to fight blight and protect home values.

The twist to Richmond’s eminent domain plan is that it would not take the 600+ properties, but seize the mortgages. Then, in partnership with Steven Gluckstern’s private, politically connected, for-profit entity Mortgage Resolution Partners (MRP), new mortgages would be created for those properties at below current value, then refinanced through FHA.

According to MRP’s published statements, this strategy would generate profits of up to 20% for MRP and its investors, plus a cut for Richmond. This profit would be based on the expected spread between the 80% of current value seizure price and the 95% refinancing once the loan is sold into FHA securitized pools that count on the underlying value of the property.

About Mortgage Resolution Partners

MRP positions itself as a partner to help municipalities use the power of eminent domain to refinance underwater mortgages into “sustainable loans” with lower principal balances. MRP is also pitching its mortgage seizure strategy to a number of other cities throughout California and Nevada.

MRP was founded by a group then led by former California Treasurer Phil Angelides. Angelides was eased out of MRP when he crowed to potential investors and others that the firm’s political connections were a huge part of MRP’s “secret formula” to negotiate deals to buy distressed mortgages.

MRP claims the program it sets up with Richmond and other California cities is voluntary, and “does not affect homeowners who choose not to refinance.” This is a ridiculous statement, as MRP’s whole strategy, quoting from the front page of its website, is based upon cities using eminent domain, which perforce means the forced seizure of a property, or in this case, the mortgage.

The Banks say “Hold on a minute”

Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank, as Plaintiffs, almost immediately jointly filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Richmond (Defendant). Plantiffs, asserted, among other claims, that the mortgages, or the ‘beneficial owners’ of said mortgages are not in Richmond, nor even within California in most cases. Without addressing this basic jurisdiction question, the judge dismissed the complaint as “too soon,” which suggests the banks will have better grounds for yelling bloody murder once, or if, Richmond actually goes ahead with its plan.


In its filing, Plaintiffs represented themselves as trustees for hundreds of downstream Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) trusts that hold mortgage loans from Bank of America, American Mortgage, Bear Stearns, and a host of others. The complaint has many layers, below are some notable highlights.

1. Plaintiffs hold that Richmond’s seizure program (RSP) avoids loans held by Fannie Mae or directly by banks, but instead targets performing loans because the scheme cannot be profitable unless the seized loans can be refinanced. Essentially, Richmond cherry-picked homeowners with good credit ratings and repayment histories to make good on the loans to provide MRP and itself with profits. [Editor Note -- Some even claim that a substantial number of the targeted properties are not even in the at-risk neighborhoods in which Richmond wants to battle blight.]

2. Plaintiffs are miffed that MRP and Richmond’s scheme seriously under compensates the owners of the loan (i.e., Plaintiffs and their RMBS trusts), and that the plan could not work at all without a government lowball offer for a property that artificially deflates the loan value. Implementation of the RSP would result in significant economic harm to the banks and the trusts as well as adversely impact interstate commerce, plaintiffs claim.

3. Plaintiffs also claim that the plan will not reduce foreclosures and that Richmond and its residents will actually be harmed because lenders will be less willing to write mortgages for citizens of Richmond due to the City’s “chilling effect on future mortgage credit” worthiness.

What about the homeowner?

Pity any homeowner that finds themselves trapped between the proto-Maoists running Richmond City Council on the Left pushing for liberation (by government seizure) of mortgages controlled by the evil American Empire, and Capitalist giants of the mortgage and banking industry on the Right. Each side is willing (and eager) to spend any amount to protect its claim. What chance does an individual homeowner have to defend themselves? Who advocates for them?

Meanwhile, MRP makes out either way, thanks to cronyism and no bid contracts.

The implications of the RSP could have a staggering impact on the individual homeowners of the targeted properties in Richmond who may be “forced to be free” and participate in Richmond’s program willing or not. Additionally, after City Hall poisons the well of credit worthiness of Richmond property owners, any homeowner or business owner in Richmond would be put at risk of not being able to find an affordable mortgage, loan refinance, or second.

If that isn’t enough, when Richmond attempts to move in on the existing contracts between the homeowners and the mortgage holders and displace the contract, not only will the banks sue Richmond for tortious interference of a contract, but the individual homeowners participating in Richmond’s program could face immediate foreclosure not from the City of Richmond, but by the banks for breach of contract.

All of this will leave the homeowner, who has been making payments on a performing loan, the owner of a property a) having diminished value, while b) is being sued and foreclosed on by the bank. Richmond gets no money because MRP won’t be able to refinance the loan for properties that a) have no value, and b) cannot get title insurance due to defects in their chains of title.

About Clouded Title Defense

Dave-Krieger-Clouded-TitleAccording to an exclusive, in-depth interview with Dave Krieger, a title consultant to counties in the US, a leading authority on challenging foreclosure and chain of title issues, and author of Clouded Titles, “If MRP or the City of Richmond, comes in and tells the homeowner ‘in order for us to do this program you will need to convey the property to us and give us an interest so we can refinance the loan or litigate;’ once that happens, ‘all bets are off.’”

MRP and the city of Richmond will create a hot mess of unintended consequences. Up until this point the underwater mortgage was being paid, and wasn’t being foreclosed on. As soon as the homeowner makes the conveyance, under Paragraph 18 of most deeds of trust, it’s a breach of contract that can invoke the due on sale clause in the loan agreement.

In other words, you sell the property and transfer it out of your name to Richmond, and all of a sudden the banks are calling the whole loan due. When homeowners sign up with the City of Richmond and the banks discover you’re involved with MRP and the City of Richmond, the lawsuits are going to rain down. And when the banks foreclose, what do Richmond and MRP have? Nothing.

“The law on this is plain,” explains Krieger. “The “obligation of a contract cannot be impaired.” Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This is what the banks will use when they come in and sue the City of Richmond for everything it’s got. They’ll put Richmond in bankruptcy before this is over.”

About MERS

In 1995, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Mortgage Bankers Association and others, launched a computer-based digital mortgage electronic registration system or MERS. The system was fully implemented in 1999, and between 1999 and 2008, MERS, which says it holds nothing, enabled a vast system of counterfeit deeds of trust to be created that in essence allowed for the separation of loans from the deed of trust.

MERS was formed as a shell company (which is virtually judgment-proof) versus MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., to which lending and title institutions join to participate in the buying and selling of digitized home mortgage instruments. There is a 18-digit MERS number on your deed of trust before you sign the contract. Your loan has already sold into the MERS “system” before you get the keys! The loan originator has already been paid, by the first of many such transactions down the daisy chain toward securitization of the note on Wall Street.

According to Christopher Peterson in his “Foreclosure, Subprime mortgage lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, “Because MERS came to “own” over half of the nation’s mortgage loans in a time span more brief than many lawsuits, there is sparse appellate law explicitly dealing with the company and its unprecedented attempt to usurp county title recording systems and become the national foreclosure plaintiff.

The shady operations of MERS, helped create the so-called robosigners and document mills that cranked out loan documentation as loans were created out of thin air, as notes were sold not once, but many times over in the secondary RBMS markets. Your loan could even have been fractionalized into 35 parts then mixed up with other baskets of loans and sold multiple times and become a part of sophisticated derivatives traded on Wall Street. At that point, who knows which trust owns which scrap of the lien against your property?

See Peterson’s schematic of a Subprime Mortgage Loan Recordinng with MERS as Purported Mortgagee.

peterson-mers

According to Peterson,

In addition to its record keeping and recording system liaison roles, MERS has also become directly involved in consumer finance litigation. Historically, when a homeowner defaults on a home mortgage the owner of the mortgage loan, or a servicer hired to collect borrower payments, sues the homeowner in a foreclosure action.

In order to move foreclosures along as quickly as possible, MERS has allowed actual mortgagees and loan assignees or their servicers to bring foreclosure actions in MERS’ name, rather than in its own name. Thus, not only does use of MERS’ services allow financiers to avoid county recording taxes, it also allows them to list an obscure, purported “official” institution (MERS) as the instigator of a foreclosure.

Enter Quiet Title

Quiet Title is defined in the California Code of Civil Procedure, CCP §760.010—765.040, with Superior Court jurisdiction defined at §760.040.

In the scenario of illegal foreclosure, what quiet title litigation does is challenge a third-party and or all other unknown parties’ claim to an interest in your property. This could be the third or fourth, or tenth party down the daisy chain that bought your loan or portion of it. These claims may be proven legally suspect and void because the new promissory note and other papers churned out by the document mills and executed by robosigners were never properly assigned to the original deed of trust sitting in the County’s real property records.

These various third-party claims may cloud the chain of title. But if a homeowner brings an action to quiet title, and is able to demonstrate to the court that the alleged claimant(s) has no standing—because of not having properly recorded its alleged assignment to the deed—the claims against the homeowner’s title, including the deed of trust that created the lien interest against the property in the first place, can and has been expunged in many cases.

Al West, an Attorney in Redondo Beach, California, who is familiar with quiet title litigation, has helped many homeowners (most recently in San Jose, California), publish their quiet title complaint against everyone claiming an interest in his clients’ property title. According to West, “The banks, some not even in business any longer, have nothing to tie their claims to the security instrument, and so they’re stuck with a promissory note that they don’t have standing to prove. The resulting action could potentially render the note unsecured and the home potentially foreclosure-proof.”

Unlike Richmond and MRP getting involved between homeowners’ contracts with a bank, it’s only the homeowner that has the lawful opportunity, and as we’ll see later, a duty to pursue quiet title action.

Krieger asks, “What does a bank foreclose on? They don’t foreclose on your deed of trust in California; they foreclose on the note, because the deed of trust follows the note. That means whether the house is underwater, based on the property values or not, fundamentally, it is not Richmond’s concern.” The issue belongs in the County (Superior) Court where quiet title litigation should take place after careful analysis of the chain of title (COTA).

The impact of Glaski

Glaski v. Bank of America, brought in August, 2013, is a published case in the 5th Appellate Court out of Fresno, CA. Glaski challenges the claims of the Trusts, that Deutsche Bank says it represents, from coming in and taking property that doesn’t belong to them because of noncompliance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) of the original loan document.

Glaski v Bank of America in relation to Quiet Title Action in California

According to Krieger, “What Glaski says is that the assignment of the note to the land title or deed of trust was not recorded within the time frame allowed by the PSA, which are the SEC’s controlling documents that are mentioned in the 424(b)(5) Prospectuses on Wall Street for the trusts, which were created to benefit investors wondering what they are putting their money into and how the trust will work. Because of the fact that the assignments and paper work were not recorded in the public records before they were submitted into the Trust, it contravenes New York State trust law and is invalid.”

See this sample assignment evidence from Barroga v GMAC in Hawaii, that documents the assignment being registered three years after close of a trust.

“Because each one of the Trusts down the daisy chain of reselling the loan is connected to a Trustee, and in order for them to claim that they have a security interest in the Deed of Trust and be able to prove they own it, no matter what they say in court, the assignment has to be conveyed within 90 days before the closing date of the Trust” explains Krieger. “Most trusts provide for corrections to existing documents within 90 days AFTER the closing date of the trust. Aside from that exception, the PSA’s are pretty specific as to how loans are assigned to the trust pools.”

County recorders, are mandated by California statue to record an assignment whether or not it’s valid. Validty of assignment is a challenge not for County staff but for the courts on whether the Trust did not get the note legally. Joe Canciamilla, the current County Clerk in Contra Costa, has confirmed this state of affairs.

Glaski makes this challenge: “The trust has no standing to foreclose, and using Glaski, a lot of people could end up quieting title to their properties without any interference at all from the intervening assignees of the loan using the MERS® System. And this is why the foreclosure mills want
Glaski de-published, so that homeowners cannot cite this case in California,” says Krieger.

“Glaski has opened the flood gates for people to challenge Deutsche Bank and others to claim that the bank is not the Trustee and that they have no standing to be there to sue for foreclosure because their documents are not in compliance with the PSA under Glaski, No standing. The potential to quiet title exists.

“What most trusts require in their PSA is ‘three true sales,’ from originator, to sponsor-seller, to the depositor. In the MERS system, there’s no proof of the three true sales and the back dated assignments do not offer any true proof. “The assignment is being recorded years after it’s supposed to be done. It’s supposed to be recorded in the land records before the closing date of the Trust and they never are,” claims Krieger. “Assignments are typically recorded years later when a default occurs.”

According to Krieger, “As the loan moves on its way to becoming a securitized instrument to be traded, what we are seeing in the assignment is that MERS conveys it directly from the original lender, who may be bankrupt, directly into the trust pool— skipping the three true sales. Going directly from the originating lender into the trust itself can’t be done. It’s in violation of the PSA. That’s Glaski.”

quiet-title-barroga-assignment

In effect banks have gained cover from the politically connected and protected MERS system to fabricate assignments, endorsements, and affidavits that purport to transfer Deeds of Trust, Notes, and rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes that banks use as a practice of playing “hide-and-seek” with debtors, judges, and other bankruptcy players.

“What is really happening here is that the MERSCORP member is telling its $10 an hour employees to sign anything put in front of them, with no specific knowledge of the contents therein, conveying the deed of trust, and sometimes the note, to themselves, in what’s known as a self-assignment.”

Don’t forget about Wall Street

Meanwhile, the investors at the end of the daisy chain who bought the worthless certificates in the Trusts are now getting involved. The Phoenix Light litigation, currently before the Southern Manahattan U.S. District Court of New York, has brought claims of trust fraud and misrepresentation right into the back yard where most of these Wall Street trusts are headquartered.

According to Krieger,

In the complaint of Phoenix Light v Credit Suisse (Sept, 2013), the plaintiffs are saying there is a 100% failure rate of the documents being handled per the PSA, which is what Wall Street investors look at to make a decision as to whether they want to invest in a pool of mortgage loans.

Phoenix is filing lawsuits against the trust pools, claiming that the trusts never got the notes, that they were misrepresented and lied to, and that the assignments were never done when they were supposed to be. PSA non-compliance violates New York trust law, which makes the entire transfer void and ineffective. Investors want their money back! The banks want to settle for pennies on the dollar. Many of these investors are retirement funds, including public employee pension funds like CalPERS!

The Phoenix group is saying that they were misrepresented and lied to as to the value of the bonds, as to the quality of the loans that had become worthless paper.

Krieger sums up Phoenix this way: “The mortgage loans were designed en-masse to create a credit event in the Trust pool where after 90 days of being delinquent, the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC), which is supposed to be tax exempt, goes to the default insurance carrier, who, in trying to collect on default insurance; or a pool of derivatives or credit default swaps, which are side bets, they go and cash them in, making themselves and their part of the pool, whole.”

Between 2003 and 2008, the banks collectively took in over $53-trillion in credit default swap money literally making every single Trust transaction whole which means the borrowers’ notes were paid in full. They’ve already been paid, now they’re coming back and foreclosing on property for which they’ve already been paid.

The reason the Wall Street investors, don’t agree with the foreclosure, and will sue against the City of Richmond’s eminent domain seizure, or a bank’s foreclosure, or both, is because the certificates that they bought were evidently fraudulently rated by Moody’s, Fitches, Standard and Poor’s. They were based on non-recourse bonds, which means the only thing investors can sue on against the sponsors and sellers of the Trust is based on fraud and misrepresentation of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus. That’s the only thing the investors can sue on and they are lining up in droves.

And don’t forget about the Title companies that underwrote loans on properties with a clouded title? It follows that they most likely sold fraudulent title insurance to homeowners!

A Battle Royale v. homeowners

When the loan has that 18-digit number “MIN,” that’s MERS. If that number is there, it means that the intent of the lender all along was to sell the loan and they didn’t care what happened to that loan because it wasn’t their liability anymore. They sold it,” says Krieger. “They got paid. They don’t care about those investors, they don’t care about the retirement accounts, they don’t care about CalPERS investment in the securitized loans, the judge’s retirement account, they don’t care about any retirement account, or homeowner.”

What’s happening now is that financial institutions like Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and other major banks and mortgage companies are conveying thousands of distressed properties to servicers like Nationstar and BayView Loan Servicing, says Krieger. “These alleged bottom feeders go in and attempt to make money by stealing the spoils in foreclosure, using suspect documents ginned up in document mills and fraudulently processed by robosigners, claiming that they’ve got an assignment to the trust pool, alleging that that trust owns the loan.

“The servicer now wants to make money. In fact, this is the reason why servicers are so quick to foreclose because they get to collect on fees and that’s how they make their money. If the borrower is not savvy to realize the entire scenario and Glaski, they’re going to lose their house. Homeowners and their attorneys must become more fully aware of the big picture of the current foreclosure arena and why they may need to file a quiet title action.”

For investors, including large pension holding concerns, it gets even worse, explains Krieger.

“The banks burned everyone: investment companies, Detroit, the Chinese, homeowners, pension funds, everyone. The employee unions invested in the lower tranche of securities, the high risk bonds, because they wanted the big rate of return. They were talked into buying the B and the C level bonds which were at that time nothing but junk based on alleged ratings from Moody’s, Fitch’s, and Standard & Poor, who are all being sued now by the investor pools for improperly and fraudulently misrating the bond pools.”

Legal Challenges to Glaski

Propagandists of bank and finance interests point to judicial resistance to Glaski in Danhken v Wells Fargo, Diunugala v JPMorgan, Newman v New York Mellon, and Subramani v Wells Fargo. In these Federal cases, the cases were dismissed as the plaintiff claims were denied because they were neither a participant or beneficiary to the trust.

But these rulings are a misreading of Glaski, explains Al West. Those cases are Federal and a California judge follows California law.

These Federal judges are saying that the homeowner cannot challenge the PSA. Glaski doesn’t do that. What Glaski does is it uses the PSA as evidence to document the date of the trust to show that the assignment of the trust, the claim against the deed, did not comply with the Civil Code.

Glaski declares that if you assign title to the trust after it closes, it is a void instrument. Glaski was permitted to cite the suspect transfer of the deed of trust to the securitized trust occurred after the closing date, even though Plaintiff was neither a party nor beneficiary to the PSA.

West points out an additional wrinkle to the Federal cases that rule that the homeowner does not have standing by noting that, in fact, the “homeowner, the borrower, is obligated under the terms of the original deed of trust to defend title.” Of course the homeowner has standing!

In fact, the IRS tax code, the New York State laws concerning trust creation, and the PSAs all require notes, loans, debt, mortgages and promissory notes to be deposited prior to the close of the trust. It can’t be filed 5-6 years later by document mills and notary robosigners in another state.

The fact is, West explains, “Glaski is standing law in California.”

Legislative attacks on the Richmond Eminent Domain scheme

Not to be outdone, legislators are also active in challenging Richmond and MRP’s eminent domain scheme, evidently as water carriers of the banking industry.

In July, California Congressman John Campbell (R-Irvine, CA-45) reintroduced his Defending American Taxpayers from Abusive Government Takings Act (HR 2733). The legislation, originally introduced in 2012, seeks to “stop reckless city and county governments from enacting profiteering schemes that seek to cash in on the plight of underwater homeowners through the arbitrary seizure of private home loans.”

The Act prohibits Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from purchasing, the FHA, USDA from insuring, and the Department of Veterans Affairs from guaranteeing, making, or insuring, a mortgage that is secured by a residence or residential structure located in a county in which the State has used the power of eminent domain to take a residential mortgage.

Campbell has been hailed as a hero by the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Additionally, the Federal Housing Finance Agency came out with a strongly worded statement about eminent domain proposals, particularly Richmond’s. Official FHFA statements claim the FHFA will pursue all legal avenues to keep eminent domain proposals from ever taking effect.

Meanwhile, lobbyists on the Left, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Popular Democracy, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FHFA for failing to respond to their request for information, as the FHFA seeks to block eminent domain moves by municipalities.

Summary

Full circle. This, admittedly, incomplete overview clearly shows that beleaguered homeowners could soon become the equivalent of homeless refugees in a No-Man’s Land in the upcoming legal Armageddon between municipalities seeking gain by the use of crony capitalism and eminent domain on the one hand, and powerful mortgage banking and Wall Street interests on the other. Other interests are lining up behind these champions. It is clear, neither the City of Richmond, nor Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank, or NationStar are interested in a solution that protects homeowners in Richmond and beyond. So what can homeowners and communities do?

Recommendations

1. Know your rights. Interested individual homeowners should consult an attorney familiar with real estate and preferably Quiet Title cases and proceedings both in California and New York where most real estate trusts are located.

2. At the municipal level, the City of Richmond should drop its plan to seize private mortgages under eminent domain to battle blight. Too much harm will come to the City of Richmond and the homeowners affected by this scheme seemingly designed to help everyone but the homeowner.

3. Local community action will prove more effective than just ill-advised government action aided by crony capitalists. Already, one community-based organization has formed, Stop Investor Greed. With the backing of West Contra Costa Realtors, it has created a petition to stop Richmond’s plan and has scheduled local Town Hall discussions for residents.

Needless to say, every citizen and homeowner must carefully ascertain whether local organizing efforts from across the political spectrum offer genuine solutions that benefit homeowners, or are astroturf stalking horses for banking or government interests.

4. At the County level, the Civil Grand Jury in Contra Costa County, ought to recommend an immediate audit of the property records for the 600+ properties targeted by the City of Richmond and MRP to verify the clouded title issues affecting those homeowners.

5. Furthermore, the Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury, and every county in California, should investigate chain of tile issues (COTA) in their respective County Recorder Offices and recommend expert audits for the purpose of exposing the clouded title issues affecting the vast majority of property records, estimated to be 90+%, per a recent audit in Illinois.

The District Attorney should take those findings and consider investigation of Title Companies that have operated in Contra Costa County between 1999 and 2010 to determine grounds for fraud charges.

6. In the interest of every homeowner in every county in California, County Supervisors, should work with State legislators, the Attorney General, and the California Governor to evict MERS and MERSCORP from the State of California.

7. The California State legislature should pass legislation making clear the rights and responsibilities of homeowners, lenders, and investors under Glaski.

8. Additionally, voters should direct the East Bay and California Congressional delegation to make California a leader again by championing legislation in the US Congress to disqualify MERS or any automatic, digital property registration systems that bypass timely and legal recording of assignments to Deeds of Trust at County levels.

9. Finally, if the City of Richmond really wanted to fight blight and help homeowners, it ought to reallocate a fraction of the millions of dollars of legal fees it will spend to defend MRP’s eminent domain seizure plan and instead:

A) Grant or lend money (at 2 percent simple interest) to the 600+ homeowners to pay for joint legal representation and the filing fees for 600+ individual Quiet Title actions against all possible claimants to be filed en masse at the steps of the Superior Court in Martinez.

Either Richmond could do this, or MRP could make some money helping to refinance loans that incorporate legal and filing fees. Richmond or MRP; One or the other. Both are not needed.

B) After the recommended property record audit, there is no reason why Counties could not pursue the same en masse action, where the banks would not have the resources to defend, forcing expungement of questionable notes against deeds. Or better, the threat of such an action would provide the leverage to bring banks to the negotiation table where homeowners can finally have a level playing field to clear title and be secure in their homes.

That’s how you put Community back into community action.

Disclaimer

Behold: the author of this article is not an attorney nor does he play one in the movies, on stage, on television, or cable TV. Therefore, it is declared that the reader accepts the information provided in this article as-is and without warranty for any purpose. Errors of fact may have been made for which we apologize but are not responsible for if you make some foolish action based on this article. In all legal matters, please consult your attorney, not this site.

Also be aware that lenders and their agents, and the City of Richmond, and MRP will be following this article and subsequent comments. If you publish comments under your own name, DO NOT DISCUSS your specific finances, state of your mortgage, or any litigation you plan or are involved already in. Definitely DO NOT DISCLOSE if you have already signed some form that connects you to the Richmond Plan. Protect your privacy!

Comments

  1. says

    I dealt with Eminent Domain issues when I worked for right of way branch of PennDOT, but this idea of buying up and buying out foreclosures sounds more like Throwing Good Money After Bad.

    For one thing, where are the funds to finance this silly idea supposed to come from?

    And even if properties are “SAVED” from foreclosure, will the current occupants have the cash flow or the credit worthiness to resume quasi-standard mortgage payments? Chances are, the answer is, “NO!” Which is precisely why the situation exists in the first place.

    Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

  2. Charles Reed says

    This is a no brainer for city because if the party claiming ownership cannot prove ownership they should not be allowed in court, claiming a debt due. Let take Wells Fargo Bank in every single Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) government insured loan (FHA VA USDA) of the 1.3 million it mortgage servicing since Jul 31, 2006. Wells after the Sept 25, 2008 must create forgeries on all these loan that they want to foreclose on because the Note are not endorsed to Wells because they paid not one red cent to purchase any of these loans.

    The loans are in Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) who upon creating the securities the Note must be signed indorsed in blank and relinquishing the Note to Ginnie Mae without a purchase. What this is called is a Glitch from 1971 when the pooling system first began.

    Look if you as a bank did not originate the loan and you allegedly purchase the loan, you only need to show the court the receipt of the purchase and have a valid assignment the day of the sale, if don’t have a receipt you got nothing, and if you got a receipt but not assignment then you got a unsecured debt and it not against the property.

    What we KNOW for a fact is that there is no loan that every been placed into a Ginnie Mae MBS that can ever be properly foreclosed because the Notes are first separated from the Notes forever and forever that Note must remind blank. The holder on the Note under UCC 3 cannot act on the Notes because of UCC 9!Stick a fork in them because they are done!

  3. says

    Remember that MERS was founded by First American Title Insurance Co. in Santa Ana, CA in order to “capture” the foreclosure business through it’s brainchild and creation – CORELOGIC, which occupied the 2nd floor of the same building in Santa Ana, CA (4th and Main). Upon seeing the Title defects that were created-CORELOGIC was spun off into a separate independent Company. See FATCO stock quotes from 1995 through present to verify. The point here is that the title defects were discovered right away-and these are “known defects” in the title industry.

    Hope this helps.

    Ron O’Donnell
    909-862-5789 home