• Go to page :
  • 12 3
  • Text Only
SangioveseW said:   nsdp said:   Glitch there is something called the Fair Housing Act of 1968. http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pageid=... Probably passed before you were born. Applies to purchase, sales, and lending for residential single family and multifamily dwellings among other things. It happens to prohibit suits or collections where a lien holder has no equity to attach to.I think that you've completely lost it. The Fair Housing Act of 1968, codified at 42 USC 3601, as amended in 1974 and 1988, contains a blanket prohibition against lenders seeking deficiency judgments against their borrowers in recourse loan situations? You really are making a fool of yourself here.

By the way, just in the past few years, there have been thousands if not tens of thousands of deficiency lawsuits out there, many of which have been contested by extremely competent lawyers. If there was a blanket prohibition out there, in the Fair Housing Act or elsewhere, it would have been asserted a very long time ago, which would've ended all the lawsuits right away and borrowers would've been able to walk away from their recourse obligations without worrying about deficiency judgments.


How many deficiencies have been successfully pursued since the lid blew off the MERSCorp scandal? The banks haven't yet straightened out their books and records in compliance. What happened is lawyers let the documents in under the business records act without thinking about whether or not the transfers were properly recorded in the deed records. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/09/counties-suing-banks-over-m... Fundamental rule of real estate law under the Fair Housing Act is a loan isn't valid unless its recorded. Lawyers who goofed still have the right to file an equitable bill of review alleging fraud in the business records submitted by the banks. May be beyond your comprehension but read this from the title industry rag. http://titlesearchblog.com/2011/10/28/mers-assignment-mechanism-... Do you not keep up with the local news? " California Attorney General Kamala Harris said Sept. 30 that she was rejecting a proposed settlement with the banks and would conduct her own mortgage investigation because the state “was being asked for a broader release of claims than we can accept and to excuse conduct that has not been adequately investigated.”

I see you are still being lazy this time on the 11 USC522(f). Google motion to avoid lien under 11USCD522(f) Straight from the bankruptcy court form book. http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/Local_Bk_Forms/LBF4... Even pro se debtors get this one right. After the 522(f) that the HEL or HELOC is reduced to an unsecured loan and subject to the general discharge 11 USC 727.

The part of the Fair Housing Act that burns the banks is the use of MERSCORP rather than filing of record in the Deed Records as required by the Fair Housing Act. Why have so many foreclosures been stopped dead in their tracks? You should know unless you have been living on Mars for the last two years. http://merscaught.blogspot.com/2011/09/mers-class-action-update.... Are You a Victim of MERS?

YOU have made a fool of yourself, I haven't made a fool of myself. You are lazy and get to a point you like the answer and then quit. You don't check to see if there is a Catch-22 someplace and in Federal Court there always is. That is why 97% of attorney's admitted to state courts are never admitted to Federal Court. It is why one should NEVER depend on Wikipedia for answers to legal issues.

My last approved fee from the bankruptcy court was $350/hr in a debtors case. For you $700/hr and it will be cheap at that price given your mishandling of things.

nsdp said:   I see you are still being lazy this time on the 11 USC522(f). Google motion to avoid lien under 11USCD522(f) Straight from the bankruptcy court form book. http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/Local_Bk_Forms/LBF4... Even pro se debtors get this one right. After the 522(f) that the HEL or HELOC is reduced to an unsecured loan and subject to the general discharge 11 USC 727. So now you are referencing bankruptcy laws (which no one is disputing, and have nothing to do with this) to justify a claim about the Fair Housing Act?

nsdp said:   How many deficiencies have been successfully pursued since the lid blew off the MERSCorp scandal? The banks haven't yet straightened out their books and records in compliance. What happened is lawyers let the documents in under the business records act without thinking about whether or not the transfers were properly recorded in the deed records. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/09/counties-suing-banks-over-m...None of this has anything to do with your prior statement or with this discussion.

You previously claimed that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 "prohibits suits or collections where a lien holder has no equity to attach to." Where exactly does it do this? Either put up or shut up, as you like to tell people out there.

Once again, over the past few years thousands if not tens of thousands of deficiency lawsuits have been litigated, often with highly competent lawyers and excellent law firms representing debtors. If The Fair Housing Act or any other provision prevented lenders from pursuing deficiencies, that argument would've been made a long time ago and all the deficiency lawsuits and deficiency judgments would've gone away.

Fundamental rule of real estate law under the Fair Housing Act is a loan isn't valid unless its recorded.Nonsense. Recordation has to do with lien priority, which by the way, is not addressed by the Fair Housing Act in any way.

I see you are still being lazy this time on the 11 USC522(f). Google motion to avoid lien under 11USCD522(f) Straight from the bankruptcy court form book. http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/Local_Bk_Forms/LBF4... Even pro se debtors get this one right. After the 522(f) that the HEL or HELOC is reduced to an unsecured loan and subject to the general discharge 11 USC 727.Once again, 11 USC 522(f) lists exemptions for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. How is this relevant to your earlier claim that the Fair Housing Act contains a blanket prohibition against lenders seeking deficiency judgments against their borrowers in recourse loan situations? In fact, how is this relevant to anything?

Some genius(YOU "If the debt balance exceeds what is recouped from the foreclosure sale, the lender has every right to pursue the borrower for the remaining balance due (aside from purchase-money mortgages in a non-recourse state, of course)") here claimed that you couldn't get rid of HEL and HELOC loans in bankruptcy because they were secured loans.

One thing that is highly developed in trial work is the ability to remember a witness's prior statements and catch them in contradictions.

SangioveseW read this http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/lawsuit-alleges-th...

Then tell me how they get the note being sued on into evidence. No recording no evidence. Bedsides 522(f) makes them an UNSECURED creditor automatically discharged under 11 USC727. Their protection against discharge has been stripped by "lien Stripping" and they are subject to penalties under Section 524 by attempting to collect a discharged debt. You wrongly assume that a HELOC or HEL will survive a 522 f motion. Example of penalties: http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Indymac-Sanctions-emotional.pd...

nsdp said:   Some genius(YOU "If the debt balance exceeds what is recouped from the foreclosure sale, the lender has every right to pursue the borrower for the remaining balance due (aside from purchase-money mortgages in a non-recourse state, of course)") here claimed that you couldn't get rid of HEL and HELOC loans in bankruptcy because they were secured loans.

One thing that is highly developed in trial work is the ability to remember a witness's prior statements and catch them in contradictions.
This is almost scary, as you seem to be having imaginary conversations with people. You are the only person in this entire thread who has talked about bankruptcy.

Why don't you stop attacking people and start reading their posts.

nsdp said:   SangioveseW read this http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/lawsuit-alleges-th...Why are you posting links to random articles that have nothing to do with this discussion?

SangioveseW said:   nsdp said:   Big catch for the HELOC and other "recourse loans" is that they must prove that they held at least $1 in equity over and above the mortgage portion of the loan to maintain their right of recourse.

Banks always lose under 11 USC522(f) if the loan is a HELOC and did not pay off the purchase money mortgage.11 USC 522 contains a list of exemptions for Chapter 11 bankruptcies, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with your prior statement or with anything else being discussed here.


Your point is valid, but I wish to add that the 522 exemptions also apply to chaps. 7 and 13. Nsdp's earlier comment invoking bankruptcy was completely non-sequitor, and (aside from being the product of a frenzied mind) was wrong. Federal exemptions do not have supremacy over state exemptions if the state has decided to opt out of the federal exemptions list.

The only federal exemption I'm aware of that is available regardless of the state's choice is found in 522(b)(4)(C) and (D). This is the the IRA exemption that is also found in 522(d)(12).

Nsdp: on the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

When did California affirmatively and completely opt out of the Federal exemptions.? There are two sets if you didn't know and set 1 can be used under 522(f) if there is no equity. http://www.jabbarlegal.com/other-services/bankruptcy/california-...

One unique feature of the California bankruptcy exemptions is that there are two sets of exemptions available to debtors. One set of exemptions is found in California Code of Civil Procedure 703 and the other is found in Code of Civil Procedure 704. In general, the Section 703 exemptions mirror the federal exemptions and are typically used by debtors who do not own real property. The 703 exemptions provide for a smaller Homestead exemption but allow for use of the unused Homestead exemption as a sort of wildcard to protect any property. In contrast, the Section 704 exemptions have a large Homestead exemption but no wildcard.

In preparing a California bankruptcy filing it is generally necessary for us to analyze the case under both exemption schemes to fully advise our clients of the best set to utilize.

Quick Reference Guide to the California Bankruptcy Exemptions

California Exemptions Set 1

Homestead or Burial Plot

Debtors may claim a Homestead exemption in up to $22,075.00 in value, in real property or personal property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, in a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, or in a burial plot for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. CCP 703.140(b)(1).

Vehicles

Debtors may exempt one car with fair market value up to $3,525.00. Married filers may not double. CCP 703.140(b)(2).

Read more about how car loans are treated…

Money & Other Property

Debtors may use the “wildcard” exemption for money and other property. The wildcard provides an exemption for the debtor’s interest in any property not to exceed $1,175.00 plus the unused portion of the Homestead exemption. Thus, the total wildcard exemption is $23,250.00 if none of the Homestead exemption is used.

Household Goods & Furnishings

Debtors may claim an unlimited exemption in household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel, appliances, books, animals, crops, or musical instruments that are held primarily for the personal, family, or household use of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. The value of any particular item may not exceed $550.00. CCP 703.140(b)(3).

Jewelry

Debtors may exempt up to $1000 in all engagement and wedding rings. A.R.S. § 33-1125(4). Married filers may double this exemption. CCP 703.140(b)(4).

Tools of the Trade & Books

Debtors may exempt up to $2,200.00 in any implements, professional books, or tools of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor. CCP 703.140(b)(6).

Life Insurance

Debtors may exempt up to $11,800.00 in accrued dividends or interest under, or loan value of, any unmatured life insurance contract owned by the debtor under which the insured is the debtor or an individual whom the debtor is a dependent. CCP 703.140(b)(8). For unmatured life insurance proceeds there is no limit but the exemption does not apply to credit life insurance contracts. CCP 703.140(b)(7).

Health Aids

Debtors may exempt all professionally prescribed health aids for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. CCP 703.140(b)(9).

Support, Maintenance, Social Security, & Public Assistance

Debtors may exempt all rights to receive Social Security, unemployment compensation, local public assistance, veterans’ benefits, disability, illness, unemployment benefit, alimony, support, or separate maintenance, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor. CCP 703.140(b)(10)(A)-(D).

Pensions & Profit Sharing Plan Payments

Debtors may exempt a payment under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor, unless all of the following apply: (i) That plan or contract was established by or under the auspices of an insider that employed the debtor at the time the debtor’s rights under the plan or contract arose. (ii) The payment is on account of age or length of service. (iii) That plan or contract does not qualify under Section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, or 408A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. CCP 703.140(b)(10)(E).

Crime Victim’s Reparations

Debtors may exempt all rights to receive money under a crime victim’s reparation law. CCP 703.140(b)(11)(A).

Wrongful Death Benefits

Debtors may exempt all rights to receive money on account of a wrongful death of an individual whom the debtor was a dependent, to the extent necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor. CCP 703.140(b)(11)(B).

Life Insurance Proceeds

Debtors may exempt all rights to receive money under a life insurance contract that insured the life of an individual of whom the debtor was a dependent on the date of that individual’s death to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of he debtor and any dependent of the debtor. CCP 703.140(b)(11)(C).

Personal Injury Awards

Debtors may exempt up to $22,075.00 in any right to receive payment on account of personal bodily injury, not including pain and suffering or compensation for actual pecuniary loss, of the debtor or an individual of whom the debtor is a dependent. CCP 703.140(b)(11)(D).

Loss of Future Earnings

Debtors may exempt all rights to receive payment in compensation of loss of earnings of the debtor or of an individual whom the debtor is or was a dependent, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor. CCP 703.140(b)(11)(E).


California Exemptions Set 2

Homestead

Debtors may claim a Homestead exemption as follows:

Up to $75,000.00. CCP 704.730(a)(1).
Up to $100,000.00 if the debtor or spouse living in the residence and there is at least one family member living in the Homestead that has no interest or their interest or whose only interest is a community interest with the debtor. CCP 704.730(a)(2).
Up to $175,000.00 if the debtor or spouse of the debtor who resides in the Homestead is a person 65 years of age or older, mentally or physically disabled, or is 55 years of age or older with a gross annual income of not more than $15,000.00 (or $20,000.00 if the debtor is married). CCP 704.730.(a)(3).

Vehicles

Debtors may exempt up to $2,725.00 in one motor vehicle (any combination of aggregate equity, proceeds of execution sale, and proceeds of insurance or other indemnification for loss, damage, or destruction). CCP 704.010.

Read more about how car loans are treated…

Household Goods & Furnishings

Debtors may claim an unlimited exemption in household furnishings, appliances, provisions, wearing apparel, and other personal effects that ordinarily and reasonably necessary to, and personally used or procured for use by, the debtor and members of the debtor’s family at the debtor’s principal place of residence. CCP 704.020.

Residential Building Materials

Debtors may exempt up to $2,875.00 in materials that in good faith is about to be applied to the repair or improvement of a the debtor’s principal residence. CCP 704.030.

Jewelry

Debtors may exempt up to $7,175.00 in all jewelry, heirlooms, and works of art. CCP 704.040.

Health Aids

Debtors may exempt all health aids reasonably necessary to enable the debtor or the spouse of or a dependent of the debtor to work or sustain health, and prosthetic and orthopedic appliances. CCP 704.050.

Tools of the Trade

Debtors may exempt up to up to $7,171.00 in tools, implements, instruments, materials, uniforms, furnishings, books, equipment, one and one commercial vehicle (not to exceed $4,850.00 in value) if reasonably necessary to and actually used by the debtor in the exercise of the trade, business, or profession by which the debtor earns a livelihood. These amounts may be doubled by married filers who exercise the same trade together (up to $14,350.00 and two commercial vehicles up to $9,700.00). CCP 704.060.

Earnings

Debtors may exempt all or 75% of “paid earnings,” as defined in CCP 706.011, that were paid during the 30-day period prior to filing. CCP 704.070.

Public Benefits in Deposit Accounts

Debtors may exempt the following amounts in deposit accounts:

Public benefits (one depositor designated as payee) up to $1,425.00
Social Security Benefits (one depositor designated as payee) up to $2,875.00
Public Benefits (two or more depositors designated as payees) up to $2,150.00
Social Security Benefits (two or more depositors designated as payees) up to $4,300.00

The amount of a deposit account that exceeds exemption amounts is also exempt to the extent it consists of payments of public benefits or Social Security Benefits. CCP 704.080(c).

Life Insurance

Debtors may exempt up to $11,475.00 in aggregate loan value of unmatured life insurance policies. CCP 704.100.

Public Retirement Benefits

Debtors may exempt all public retirement benefits. CCP 704.110.

State or Public Employee Vacation Credits

Debtors may exempt all accumulated vacation credits accrued pursuant to Section 18050 of the Government Code or pursuant to any law. CCP 704.113.

Private Retirement Plans & Benefits

Debtors may exempt all private retirement plans, including self-employed retirement plans and individual retirement accounts or other accounts provided for by the IRC of 1986 including IRAs qualified under Section 408 or 408A to the extent the amounts held in the plans, annuities, or accounts do not exceed the maximum amounts exempt from federal income taxation under that code. This provision also includes most annuities, pensions, retirement allowances, disability payments, or death benefits from a private plan. CCP 704.115.

Unemployment & Disability

Debtors may exempt all unemployment, disability, and strike benefits. CCP 704.120.

Private Disability & Health Insurance Benefits

Debtors may exempt all private disability and health insurance benefits. CCP 704.130.

Personal Injury & Wrongful Death Causes of Action

Debtors may exempt all causes of action for personal injury & wrongful death including awards and settlements reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and the spouse and dependents of the debtor. CCP 704.140, 704.150. Periodic payments and structured settlements are treated like earnings.

Worker’s Compensation Benefits

Debtors may exempt all worker’s compensation benefits. CCP 704.160.

Welfare

Debtors may exempt all public aid and welfare benefits. CCP 704.170.

Relocation Benefits

Debtors may exempt all relocation benefits paid pursuant to Title 1 of the Government Code or the federal “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.” . CCP 704.180.

Student Financial Aid

Debtors may exempt all financial aid for expenses while attending school provided to a student by an institution of higher education. CCP 704.190.

The provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522 determine whether a California resident has been domiciled in California long enough to require use of the California exemptions. The analysis looks at the domicile history of the debtor for a 730 day period prior to when the case was filed. If a debtor has not been in California for 730 days, it is then necessary to analyze domicile during the 180 days prior to the 730 day period. If during that 180 day period the person was domiciled in California for the longest period of time, then they may take the California state exemptions. If the domicile tests indicate domicile in another state, a person filing in California will be required to utilize that particular state’s exemptions even though their case is filed in California. In rare cases, the federal exemptions may have to be used if no state’s exemptions apply.

Get a Free Online Case Review
Schedule an Appointment


View Posts By Category
Top Rated Attorney

Lawyer Hamid Jabbar | Top Attorney General Practice

Lawyer Hamid Jabbar | Lawyer General Practice

Lawyer Hamid Jabbar | Lawyer General Practice
Explore.

Forms Download
Hamid Jabbar Attorney at Law
Practice Areas
Academia
Litigation
Business Services
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 13
Case Planning
Arizona Bankruptcy Exemptions
Truths vs. Myths
California Bankruptcy Exemptions
Fees
Forms
Get Started Online
Real Estate
Lawyer Profile
Discussions
Contact
Subscribe
Client Access
Terms of Use
Sitemap

Recent Discussions.

Preventing Academic Plagiarism
Plagiarism at Colleges & Universities
Gallery Representation Agreements
Copyright Infringement vs. Plagiarism
Plagiarism and Government Research Grants

Users.

Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org

http://www.jabbarlegal.com/other-services/bankruptcy/california-... So they can go through the motion to avoid under the Section 703 exemptions. The California state bar even provides a form for that.

The California Legislature in the Legislative History even says that the 703 exemptions are based on and intended to be used in a like manner as the Federal Exemptions. The only real difference is the dollar amounts are different and a couple of the nonrelevant exemptions to this thread are not carried over.

Now you are copying and pasting some random website. What is going on here?

Nsdp, you previously claimed that The Fair Housing Act of 1968 contains a blanket prohibition against lenders seeking deficiency judgments against their borrowers in recourse loan situations. Where exactly does it do this? Either put up or shut up, as you like to tell people out there.

Once again, over the past few years thousands if not tens of thousands of deficiency lawsuits have been litigated, often with highly competent lawyers and excellent law firms representing debtors. If The Fair Housing Act or any other provision prevented lenders from pursuing deficiencies, that argument would've been made a long time ago and all the deficiency lawsuits and deficiency judgments would've gone away.

Ok, I think I get it. Someone has programed an Eliza-style program to provide legal advice!

nsdp said:   My last approved fee from the bankruptcy court was $350/hr in a debtors case. For you $700/hr and it will be cheap at that price given your mishandling of things.

I assume this was directed at me. $350 an hour is less than a day 1 associate at a good firm bills.

The whole page is there because others (Glitch99) complaint about not being able to find the answer. T

Here is the IDIOT's Guide to Rights of HELOC and HEL Loans and How to Extinguish Them.

The California statures normally protect HEL and HELOC loans against discharge by making them secured loans. Step 1. House is under water no equity. Agreed? Second step Bankruptcy. Third step is to avoid the security interest of the HEL or HELOC under Sec522. With the security interest wiped out, the creditor is barred by Section 524 from seeking recourse claims. So the loan is wiped out in BK.

Now the Fair Housing Act adds a second layer of protection. It bars assertion of interests in property if that interest is not recorded. In a non bankruptcy case the creditor is required to prove they own the loan. If the lien transfers are not properly recorded in the Deed Records they have no interest under the Fair Housing Act and therefore cannot sue. Lack of legal standing. The holder of record is MERS which is a shell corporation. It is not a qualified lender under the Fair Housing Act. Condemnation comes along only holders of interest of record are entitled to compensation. If the interest is unrecorded the holder is screwed and forfeits any rights he may have by virtue of a claim against the property. There is no equity so the condemnor gets title from the state or federal court free and clear of the HEL or HELOC. Now the lender no longer holds the loan according to the legal records, it has been transferred to MERS. MERS lacks standing to sue for any deficiency since it has never qualified as a lender with HUD. It is Catch 22. MERS can't sue because they don't qualify with HUD. The lender can't sue because the lender transferred record title of the loan to MERS.

So tell me how any one can collect. MERS has standing to sue but can't because of the Fair Housing Act failure to register with HUD. The loan holder can't sue because they are not the owner of record of the loan and therefore have no legal standing to sue or collect.

cestmoi123 said:   nsdp said:   My last approved fee from the bankruptcy court was $350/hr in a debtors case. For you $700/hr and it will be cheap at that price given your mishandling of things.

I assume this was directed at me. $350 an hour is less than a day 1 associate at a good firm bills.


Yes they may bill that, but that associate only gets paid $50/hour under the Supreme Court guidelines. Mine was under a Section 330 court order for payment of attorney's fees. Even senior partners like Harvey Miller may bill $1250/hour but the Section 330 order for employment of counsel for American Airlines only authorized $500/hour. I guess that shows how much you know about attorney fees in this area.

Here is the IDIOT's Guide to Rights of HELOC and HEL Loans and How to Extinguish Them.You are still having imaginary debates with people, as you are the ONLY one in this thread who has talked about HELOC's/HEL's.

You may want to re-read the posts to understand what people are talking about.

nsdp said:   Now the Fair Housing Act adds a second layer of protection. It bars assertion of interests in property if that interest is not recorded.You are backpedalling. You previously claimed that The Fair Housing Act of 1968 "happens to prohibit suits or collections where a lien holder has no equity to attach to." You then proceeded to insult people who asked you for the source of that claim.

So, where exactly does The Fair Housing Act of 1968 contain a blanket prohibition against lenders seeking deficiency judgments against their borrowers in recourse loan situations?

You like to accuse people of making frivolous arguments. To me, it seems like you are the one making absolutely frivolous arguments. You are the one with extensive experience with federal courts, which you like to post about all the time. So, tell us, what would a federal judge do to a practitioner who claims that The Fair Housing Act of 1968 contains a blanket prohibition against lenders seeking deficiency judgments against their borrowers in recourse loan situations but fails to substantiate that claim? You are the one with all this experience and knowledge, so you tell us what would happen to a practitioner who did that.

nsdp said:   Some genius(YOU "If the debt balance exceeds what is recouped from the foreclosure sale, the lender has every right to pursue the borrower for the remaining balance due (aside from purchase-money mortgages in a non-recourse state, of course)") here claimed that you couldn't get rid of HEL and HELOC loans in bankruptcy because they were secured loans. I claimed no such thing. Bankruptcy has nothing to do with this, and changes the situation entirely. Besides, it is bankruptcy law that clears the right to collect a loan, not the Fair Housing Act as you are trying to claim.

nsdp said:   The whole page is there because others (Glitch99) complaint about not being able to find the answer.
If you'd actually read my posts, I (and others) complain that your link doesnt contain the answer you are claiming it does. The links typically dont even relate to the same subject that you are claiming they do. Copying and pasting the entire content of a link doesnt solve that.

Well it is very unlikely to happen because the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure won't let it happen. I highly recommend that you read them if you had you would know the answer.

This is not for a purchase money mortgage!

In the Complainant's they must allege in individual numbered paragraphs the following:
1. the date and original parties executing the note.
2. The payee on the note.
3. Any dates of transfer of the note and the transfering note holder and transferee.
4. The date of the recording of any transfer and where recorded. Copy attached as exhibit 1
5. Repeat 3&4 for each subsequent transfer.
6. The record name of the current owner of the note AS RECORDED in the Deed Records.
7. The current amount due on the note.
8. There are no defects in any transfer of ownership of the note so as to create a gap in the chain of tile.
9. If there are gaps how Complainant has cured the gaps. attach exhibits showing cure
10. Complainant has standing to sue and has registered with HUD (Attach Certificate with Number). This paragraph will eliminate MERS because they have no certificate and standing requires the loan holder to be the holder of record in the Deed Records. Case dismissed with prejudice. If Record title is in MERS name then the suit has been brought by the wrong party. Case is dismissed with prejudice. Attorney's fees in the amount of $xxxx awarded to defendant.
11. The Amount is due and liquidated and there are no defenses or set offs that defendant may assert.
Complaint signed by Bank's attorney certifying all of the above is true.

If they fail to provide all of the information in the original complaint, good counsel will file an answer and file a motion to compel complainant to file a more complete original complaint. Once that is done then the defense files a motion for summary judgment to dismiss and attorney's fees.

So if you haven't figured it out yet, the bank's attorney proves that the suit is improperly filed for you. Then depending on whether the suit is brought in MERS name you file a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction because MERS has failed to provide an authenticated copy of it certificate from HUD. If it is filed in a loan servicer's name a motion to dismiss is filed as the servicer is not the owner of record(refer to complainant's exhibit showing recording information) in the Deed Records and there fore lacks standing to bring the complaint. If title is in the loan company's name due to a deed from MERS, you assert a gap in title due to an unauthorized holder MERS and seek dismissal because the loan company does not have a perfected chain of title.

So easy even Cestmoi couldn't screw it up with a little coaching. I don't have to prove ANYTHING. The Bank has to prove EVERYTHING. All I do is point out what they did wrong and when they can't fix it, the case is dismissed.

nsdp said:   ...another wall of text, which has nothing to do with this discussion...You previously claimed that The Fair Housing Act of 1968 "happens to prohibit suits or collections where a lien holder has no equity to attach to." So, where exactly does The Fair Housing Act of 1968 contain a blanket prohibition against lenders seeking deficiency judgments against their borrowers in recourse loan situations?

This very simple question, which arose out of your own claim, has now been posed to you several times. You have yet to answer it. Shouldn't a person with your command of the legal process, which you keep reminding us about, be able to easily answer it?

As you like to say, put up or shut up.

nsdp said:   cestmoi123 said:   nsdp said:   My last approved fee from the bankruptcy court was $350/hr in a debtors case. For you $700/hr and it will be cheap at that price given your mishandling of things.

I assume this was directed at me. $350 an hour is less than a day 1 associate at a good firm bills.


Yes they may bill that, but that associate only gets paid $50/hour under the Supreme Court guidelines. Mine was under a Section 330 court order for payment of attorney's fees. Even senior partners like Harvey Miller may bill $1250/hour but the Section 330 order for employment of counsel for American Airlines only authorized $500/hour. I guess that shows how much you know about attorney fees in this area.


Would love to see that order. Please post the link, I can't find it in the AMR bankruptcy material, only the Weil bills with Miller at $1075/hr. I'd be particularly interested in seeing the order, since the fee examiner was only appointed on June 12th.

FYI, the Weil partners on the Lehman bankruptcy averaged over $1k/hr (not what they billed, what they were paid).

http://morganlawfirm.com/PDF/6_Abrutyn%20Eapen%20HUD-Jan%2009.pd... All the links to the appropriate parts of the US Code and the CFR's are referenced in this article. Why don't you shut up until you have been through all 247 footnotes. If you know what the West Key Number System is and have West Law it will take you about 10 minutes. If you don't pony up the $1k/month for West Law it will take you several days and a couple of trips to your county law library. As I see no evidence that you have spent more than about 30 seconds on a link, I am not going to hand it to you on a silver platter. No free lunch if you are not willing work for it and to spend your time doing the research. You're not paying me for that.

cestmoi123 said:   nsdp said:   cestmoi123 said:   nsdp said:   My last approved fee from the bankruptcy court was $350/hr in a debtors case. For you $700/hr and it will be cheap at that price given your mishandling of things.

I assume this was directed at me. $350 an hour is less than a day 1 associate at a good firm bills.


Yes they may bill that, but that associate only gets paid $50/hour under the Supreme Court guidelines. Mine was under a Section 330 court order for payment of attorney's fees. Even senior partners like Harvey Miller may bill $1250/hour but the Section 330 order for employment of counsel for American Airlines only authorized $500/hour. I guess that shows how much you know about attorney fees in this area.


Would love to see that order. Please post the link, I can't find it in the AMR bankruptcy material, only the Weil bills with Miller at $1075/hr. I'd be particularly interested in seeing the order, since the fee examiner was only appointed on June 12th.

FYI, the Weil partners on the Lehman bankruptcy averaged over $1k/hr (not what they billed, what they were paid).


If you have those kinds of resources you don't need me to lead you down the garden path you can easily find it on your own if you are not too lazy.

The bonus in Lehman Bros was well deserved considering who they managed to get preference money back from and what missing funds they managed to find. American is a walk in the park so no one will be allowed those fees. Probably Lehman was the most complex case I have witnessed in 40 years. The old Guy Thompson trustee for the Missouri Pacific under the Act 1898 is the only one of like kind I am aware of. The order you are looking for is a typical first day order that sets temporary cash flow rates and allows Weil to justify more per hour when American gets back on their feet. My access is through the US 5th Circuit Clerk's office. You might try your local COA if USCERT has given you full access.

nsdp - we value our opinions, but may I ask you for a favor: please sit down for one minute and repeat "I have no stake in this battle. Therefore I will not reply to every post. When I want to reply - I will limit myself to one quote and one paragraph of the text discernible by mildly intelligent laymen"

I obviously can't enter into a legal argument, but here's my blackmail: unless you stop I will invest one hour of my time into the script which will locate every on of your posts and red it

howitzer tank

nsdp said:   http://morganlawfirm.com/PDF/6_Abrutyn%20Eapen%20HUD-Jan%2009.pd... All the links to the appropriate parts of the US Code and the CFR's are referenced in this article. Why don't you shut up until you have been through all 247 footnotes. If you know what the West Key Number System is and have West Law it will take you about 10 minutes. If you don't pony up the $1k/month for West Law it will take you several days and a couple of trips to your county law library. As I see no evidence that you have spent more than about 30 seconds on a link, I am not going to hand it to you on a silver platter. No free lunch if you are not willing work for it and to spend your time doing the research. You're not paying me for that.Why should anyone be researching and finding references for your claims except you? If you want to make the claims, be prepared to substantiate them.

nsdp said:   the Section 330 order for employment of counsel for American Airlines only authorized $500/hour.

NSDP, you flatly claim that this order exists, authorizing $500/hour. This isn't a matter of opinion, you're claiming a specific document exists authorizing a specific figure. I questioned the existence of the document you claim exists. Prove it. Since you made the assertion, it's incumbent upon you to support it. Absent such proof, we can only assume that your claim is simply pulled out of thin air.

The interview with the guy who drives this (Steven Gluckstern, chairman of San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners):
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/eminent-domain-fix-h...

He's slick, sketchy on details, says they will earn a fee "in excess of $4500"; BTW he's a big political contributor.

He does acknowledge that mortgages not owned by banks, but by "trusts" (401Ks, pensions), he skips agency owned/insured mortgages and second mortgages topic .

IMO it's a scam as I posted above ...

Good analysis from SF Chronicle (precedes my post above, but I did not see it at the time):
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Battle-on-over-plan-to-sei...

Notable quotes:
Laurie Goodman, an analyst with Amherst Securities Group, has heard from potential investors that the plan is to pay 75 to 80 percent of the home's value for seized mortgages. The city would then reduce the balance on the original loan to 97.75 percent of the home's market value, allowing the homeowner to refinance into a new FHA-insured loan. Proceeds from the new loan would refinance the old loan. The new loan could be sold into a Ginnie Mae pool at roughly 106 percent of its value, making it a sweet deal for the city and its investors.
As I wrote earlier: con - steal from taxpayer first, take a cut, turn around and sell back to taxpayer for a next con.

Even some "progressives" from SF (where this curiosity originates from) see this through:
Mark Buell, a prominent San Francisco progressive who has held various civic positions, says he was approached about investing but decided against it.

Having worked in redevelopment agencies, "I'm familiar with eminent domain," he says. "While technically this (new plan) may serve a public purpose, I question whether it is the intended use of eminent domain."

bump for more comments

bump for an interesting thread

Condemnation is quite a legal process as far as I know. I just wonder who will be authorized to pick the winners in losers in this little round of corruption.

Any updates?



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014