Source: https://livinglies.me/foreclosure-defense-forms/causes-of-action-against-all-or-any-defendants/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:42:25+00:00

Document:
‘*** BORROWER BEWARE **** NEW YORK CITY BANKRUPTCY COURT PROTECTS GMAC MORTGAGE AT THE EXPENSE OF BORROWERS (We lose our home in 90 days).
After discovering on Jan. 2013 (by a fluke) that we were victims of; Appraisal Fraud, Fraud in the Inducement, other mortgage and consumer fraud concealed from us for over ‘NINE YEARS’ by GMAC Mortgage I immediately took the steps and gave notice (in writing and verbally) that I was Voiding our Mortgage Loan and Withholding Further Payment. I then demanded that GMAC Mortgage sit down, address the allegations, and find a resolution. Instead they (and shortly thereafter Ocwen who acquired our loan as a result of the ReseCap/GMAC bankruptcy) ignored my numerous letters, calls, and rejected complaint after complaint with various, local, state, and federal agencies.
Six months later in June 2013 Ocwen Loan Servicing filed for foreclosure in Cook County Illinois Chancery Court. For the past four years my attorney has repelled four different ‘White Glove Law Firms’ attacking our affirmative defenses over and over again, and not responding to issues of fact in order to prevent our day in court before a jury. The judge is notorious for ruling for the banks.
Two months ago Ditech Financial, LLC who purchased our loan from Ocwen files for Summary Judgement yet never answers either our issues of facts and affirmative defenses. As part of their Motion for Summary Judgment they produced a Bankruptcy Court 363 Asset Sale Court Order from back in Feb. 2013 (as part of the ResCap/GMAC Ocwen Assest Purchase Agreement where homes were purchased from GMAC Mortgage for ‘pennies on the dollar’). The Bankruptcy Court Judge completely insulated any Holder of our Note from any claims whatsoever (to include any fraud later discovered). The BK Court Order bared ours and any borrowers lawsuit from going forward.
Our Illinois Judge ignored all our affirmative defenses of; Fraud in the Inducement, Appraisal, Mortgage, and other Illinois Consumer Frauds and disregarded our notice to rescind the loan due to Fraudulent Inducement. She also disregarded over 50 Issues of Fact that were never resolved. Because of the Bankruptcy Court Order she claimed she had no other alternative but to allow the Summary Judgement and mover forward to the Sheriff Sale in 90 days to take our home from us. The reality is (and seems to stick a finger in the eyes of Public Policy) is a mortgage lender can commit fraud and steal from the borrower to enrich themselves, then run to the Bankruptcy Court to be protected from their crime and there’s noting the borrower can do.
We have spent over $40K fighting the banks and don’t have anymore to money to fight (we need to save the last of our savings to afford moving to an apartment).
As a Disable Senior I’m not too happy with my government. Does anyone have any solution, any ideas we can use to overturn the Cook County Illinois Chancery Court Judge who affirmed Ditech Financial, LLC’s Summary Judgment they can offer that I can pass along to my attorney?
Is anyone familiar with how to accurately fill out the homeowner claim form in the GMAC bankruptcy? Deadline approaching soon.
@simon..I am also in Cook County. I met with Fish…unless you want to sign a HUD contract and agree to comply and conform with the coverup and wave all of your legal rights to sue for fraud and accept a loan mod or a short sale, Fish aint bitin.
Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) — A proposed multistate settlement to resolve probes of flawed foreclosure practices won’t release banks from criminal liability, according to a person briefed on the talks.
Any final agreement will be narrowly focused to release banks from claims related only to documentation errors and other so-called robo-signing conduct, said the person, who declined to be identified because the talks are ongoing.
U.S. regulators including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development would be free to pursue cases related to securities fraud, loan origination and other practices, the person said.
Banks wouldn’t be released from tax or fair-lending claims. They also wouldn’t be freed from liability related to Merscorp Inc., a registry for real estate deeds and liens that acts as a proxy for banks that pool and sell mortgages.
Claims by state pension funds, including those related to their purchases of mortgage-backed securities, also wouldn’t be affected by a final settlement, the person said.
In a separate announcement today, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said a new multiagency mortgage unit will help streamline investigations into mortgage-backed securities and the subprime lending collapse.
Federal regulators and attorneys general from all 50 states have been investigating foreclosure practices for more than a year after the discovery that banks, faced with a flood of loan defaults, used flawed documents in seizing homes.
Banks have used the robo-signing talks to push for a broader release of liability, including protection from claims related to the sale of mortgage-backed securities to investors including pension funds.
Under the draft agreement still being negotiated, banks would get credit for helping borrowers refinance into less- expensive loans and forgiving mortgage debt on homes that have fallen in value. Banks also would agree to improve their foreclosure practices.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said in October that the settlement, under negotiation for since April, wouldn’t prevent state and local officials from pursuing other claims, including those related to packaging mortgages securities.
Harris and others, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, are conducting their own investigations into bank practices related to mortgage lending and securitization.
The nation’s largest mortgage lenders and servicers, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc., are participating in the negotiations.
Request for public discussion. Though controversial, maybe someone should consider suit against the attorneys who represent the banks based on conspiracy, fraud, etc? Here, it may require a court order as a condition to such a suit, but it can be done with the proper evidence, we believe. It has been done outside of Calif. Why not here? Your thoughts?
I don’t know who this Kim Thomas is …but if you need a ride to the airport or shirt off his back….he is the man.
As for his choice in lawyers….
GEORGE E.BABCOCK .. . You are the man and looking forward to hooking up and testifying in court.
I would not want to go up against George ….your that good…..got my vote. Take em out…one by one ! Just Do It!
Wow…what an amazing sunrise we have coming up here …I’ll be back!
Wowo…what an amazing sunrise we have coming up here …I’ll be back!
Wow…I am lost here…..Wow! Affirmative Defiances…..Ummmm Wow! Who brought the mental anguish for beliefs and for calims, and your therefore alleging?
Are you delinquent ? …and how far back ….Judge won’t listen to the arguments….(my opinion) ….causes are …?
Your prayer here is for releif….why , I mean …what …. or ….because your hurting?
Not a licensed attorney and only a licensed attorney can practice law in your state. Call the State Bar for more information. Not licensed as an attorney and for not for advisement – for info only.
Does anyone have any info on case law wherein the homeowner seeks damages for emotional distress and/or where homeowner seeks a discharge of the mortgage by court order? I’m preparing to go pro se (I’m not as yet a defendant in a foreclosure but it’s coming up on me fast) and I intend to seek damages in excess of the amount of the mortgage and I believe I have an excellent argument for that, having been held hostage by a known predator (American Home Mortgage) for over two years now.
I’m in Massachusetts, but would appreciate any help or leads from anywhere.
CONTACT THE PRIVATE MORTGAGE INSURER!!!
I have private mortgage insurance on my property and did some digging and questioning to find that the mortgage servicer who fraudulently claimed a default on my property had set up a claim with the private mortgage insurance company even prior to the servicer’s alleged default.
The private mortgage insurance, MGIC, (Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation) had given me this information. I also discovered that this policy not only protects the holder-in-due-course against financial loss in the event of a deficiency recovery, but also PAYS ALL OF THE LEGAL EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEFAULT CLAIM THROUGHOUT THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS!!!
This gives the entities foreclosing on the property limitless resources in trying to steal homeowner’s property. This is especially heinous in non-judicial states (like my state of Texas) where the homeowner is burdened with pursuing legal assistance in saving their home and must bear the financial burden in preventing a wrongful seizure of their property.
I have had enough of the deep pocket games being played by the servicer and servicer’s foreclosure mill, so I decided to send an email to the private mortgage insurer who insures my property.
If the servicer has wrongfully opened a claim with the private mortgage insurer, then they are committing INSURANCE FRAUD.
Simon, and anyone else needing legal advice, the following link is for a pro se law course that I am using. It’s helping me understand how to go into court prepared and strong. We are pro se standing against attempted foreclosure in Hawaii by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (was Countrywide Home Loans, Inc./ MERS, now BA/MERS unannounced to us).
The course is written by a 26-yr practicing lawyer in Florida, who is also actively working cases against the mortgage fraud. The website also has an active forum where you can ask questions. Frederick Graves, the attorney, also does consults for a fee. He might look at your documents, and you can probably post them on the forum. Hopefully this information is not too late for you.
Thank you, Neil, for providing the information on this page and this place for people to help where we can, and to sharpen each others swords.
If anyone knows anyone working on a case in Hawaii, please refer my email address LawOfLiberty@gmail.com.
Here in Cook County, Illinois I filed a pro se federal complaint 16mos ago – it appears on Pacer (88 docket entries so far). Is it against the law for me to make it (only the complaint) available for public viewing here?
I have been unable to find an affordable lawyer who “gets it”.
The first complaint that I want to show my computer friends was dismissed for failure to state with particularity under Rule 9. I was granted leave to file proposed amended in order to state with particularity. I did so, then my proposed amended complaint was rejected for failure to state “short and plain” under Rule 8. Judge giving me one final chance to submit a proposed amended that complies with Rule 8. Leave to file an corrected amended complaint has been granted. May I publish the dismissed complaint and the rejected proposed amended?
I’m trying to see if anyone can figure out what the judge actually wants to see, I can’t see how I can state a claim with particularity with a short and plain statement.
I would like to post them here on Livinglies, in the hopes someone can tell me what’s wrong, or maybe find an attny that can take over on contingency or small payments. Previously, I was recommended to one Darren Fish, Esquire in IL but he never replied to my emails.
Note that this is just the common view of most banks to litigation and what causes of action they are most prepared for.
As a Pro Se, I have learned that reading appellate decisions about how claims fail is very instructive (even if it isn’t a foreclosure case). What you may soon learn is that you can lose right at the beginning (to borrow from Neil’s admonition to win at the beginning).
•	Most pro se litigants know just enough procedure to kill their cases from the get go and even a skilled attorney brought in later can’t fix what was broken.
•	Many attorneys write crappy pleadings and were a complete waste of money for their client.
•	You have to put in the very long hours at a real law library. Find your state/federal causes of action reference texts and learn the rules of what you have to plead – or should plead – in your complaint or answer.
•	Learn about how cases get removed from State to Federal court and what that means to you – especially Twombly pleading standards.
•	Learn the procedures of the court you are in. Not just the official statutes but find some books written to get attorneys up to speed on the procedures and terminology.
•	Learn to search appeals decisions for your court (this is often available from the web). With a bit of keyword search skill, you can get access to how your state/fed court views the rules for proving various claims or how it views things like recission, Lis Pendens, injuctions etc.
•	Evidence, evidence, evidence. Learn your court’s rules and objections. (If you watch Neil’s youtube vids, you might see a classic text on Evidence in the background … hint hint) Some of the books on evidence are massive so you will have to learn about what parts are likely to affect your case.
•	Most of all, if you are going to do this Pro Se, you cannot learn everything you need to know from the web. Hit the real books made out of dead trees!
•	Whatever you do, don’t mistake a rant against securitization (of which this blog has thousands) as a sufficient basis for your pleadings or motions.
Its way more work than you think. This is also why picking the right attorney with specific experience in this area of litigation – and familiarity with modern foreclosure defense – is critical.
This is madness and a waste of courts time and parties money. The plaintiff has no idea what to argue…clueless. The transfer of assets is immaterial to the case as Indy Mac was compelled by receiver to transfer all performing assets, while leaving others out to under Government receipt and held by the FDIC and charged the balance (toxicity) to losses.
The interest is solely a certificate and or proffered stock that is valueless.
In taking judicial notice of the events surrounding the FDIC’s sale of Indy Mac to One West, this Court cannot find that One West’s sole purpose for purchasing Indy Mac was to facilitate debt collection, including the collection on the plaintiff’s mortgage.
No of course not. Its acquisition was none the less open and notorious (Judicial Notice) whereby the merger was compelled by regulatory and government officials. It was seen as something One West Bank did not want to associate with At All!
One west received all deposits of Indy Mac without regard to whether a debt was in default.
OMG this is insane. *G*I*B*B*E*R*I*S*H. The attorney for the Plaintiff had Parties before the right court, perfect timing and positioned to take another step at overcoming lender fraud.
HE BLEW IT NO WAY HE BLEW IT NO WAY! . . . Lawyers, Known what your doing please…Be repsonsible…Please. Stupid! A waste of court time and clients home is lost ….stupid!
Man, this courts Gibberish is upsetting. Junk in and Junk out. I know what I am talking about here…Got it!
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, d/b/a INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, Defendant.
Motion to Strike [Doc. 18] should be DENIED, and the plaintiff’s Motion to Correct [Doc. 19] should be GRANTED.
April 12, 2006, the plaintiff entered into a home mortgage, secured by a deed of trust, with IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
home mortgage loan. (Id. at ¶ 13).
including the date of the filing of the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19).
behind on his mortgage payments. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29).
Agreed Order and informed them that the plaintiff was current in his mortgage payments. (Id. at ¶¶ 32-33).
On October 7, 2009, OneWest sent the plaintiff a statement alleging that $1,247.06 was past due on his account.
plaintiff was current in his mortgage payments. (Id. at ¶¶ 37-39).
plaintiff alleges he is current on his monthly mortgage payments. (Id. at ¶¶ 56-59).
of the plaintiff’s claims for relief were preempted by the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C. § 1461, et seq.
falsely misrepresenting to credit reporting agencies that his mortgage was delinquent when it was, in fact, current. (Id.
reporting agencies were also negligent. (Id. at ¶ 100).
requests as required by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(3). (Id. at ¶ 110).
representation of the character, amount or legal status of a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). (Id. at ¶ 119).
payment of a late fee charge is an unfair or unconscionable practice in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(a). (Id. at ¶ 121).
OneWest’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 6]. [Doc. 10].
support his federal law claims. (Id.).
for OneWest’s breach of the loan agreement. ([Doc. 17] at 1).
inappropriate because he continues to receive communications from OneWest under the name of IndyMac MS. (Id.).
which the plaintiff admits contains an incorrect statement of one of the plaintiff’s claims for relief. ([Doc. 19] at 1).
claim.” Johnson v. Mueller, 415 F.2d 354 (4th Cir. 1969).
does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S.
__, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (May 18, 2009)(internal quotations and citations omitted).
otherwise affect their credit activities, except to the extent provided in paragraph (c) of this section . . ..
12 C.F.R. § 560.2(a) (emphasis added).
(10) Processing, origination, servicing, sale or purchase of, or investment or participation in, mortgages; .
2 C.F.R. § 560.2(b)(5) and (10).
the purposes expressed in paragraph (a) . . ..
doubt should be resolved in favor of preemption.
F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2008).
plaintiff’s claims clearly fit within the confines of permissible state law claims laid out in section 560.2(c).
only an incidental effect on lending operations.
that fit within the confines of section 560.2(c) without more than incidentally affecting lending.
expressly relying upon the “as applied” rule articulated in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits. Jones, 2010 WL 1238437, at *5.
their consumers. Id. (citing to “How to Resolve a Consumer Complaint” 1-2, http://www.OTS.treas.gov/docs/4/480924.pdf).
their state- law-based causes of action to protect their citizens. Id.
preempted by federal law. Id.
though this could depend on the nature of the fraud, which is unexplained.”).
allegations proffered in support of the claim and ask on which side of the Ocwen court’s ledger they fall.”).
OneWest moves to dismiss the plaintiff’s Complaint, including both the state and federal law claims stated therein.
either inadequately or inaccurately pled. This Court will now consider each claim in turn.
and defamed him by informing credit reporting agencies that his mortgage was delinquent.
whether the state law has, at most, only an incidental effect on lending.
In Count I, the plaintiff claims that the letters written after September 30, 2009, constituted violations of W.Va.
sale or purchase of, or investment or participation in, mortgages” by federal savings banks. 12 C.F.R. § 560.2(b)(10).
argument, OneWest cites Murillo v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, No. C 09-00504 JW, 2009 WL 2160579 at *11 (N.D. Cal.
ascertain this information because it may not, under the WVCCPA, communicate directly with a debtor . . .
it is based upon said provision.
January 19, 2010, and January 21, 2010, claiming he was one month behind on his loan and imposing a late fee charge.
payment due in May 2008.
alleges he has remained current under the Agreed Order since it took effect in May 2008.
of this claim, the plaintiff alleges he has remained current under the Agreed Order.
HOLA.” ([Doc. 12] at 5).
statute if it did not abide by its agreements or representations regarding those fees . . ..
OTS Opinion Letter P-99-3, Mar. 10, 1999, at 13, n. 63.
under the loan contract, as modified by the Agreed Order.
HOLA. Owens, Op., pp. 12-13.
claims regarding the late fees imposed in this case.
fees, the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim MAY PROCEED.
his loan payments, when OneWest reported that he was delinquent.
imposing restrictions on which determinations of delinquency may be reported to credit bureaus.
claims is to challenge the late fees imposed, and thus, these “tort” claims are preempted.
the plaintiff’s common law negligence claim is preempted. Accordingly, Count VI is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
that the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for common law defamation. Accordingly, Count IV MAY PROCEED.
failed to protect his credit rating after receipt of the requests as required by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(3).
suffered injury,” OneWest argues his RESPA claims must also fail.
imposed and OneWest would not have wrongly informed credit reporting agencies that his loan was delinquent.
damages, such as damages for emotional distress or defamation.
result of the allegedly false report to the credit reporting agencies.
however, the plaintiff’s RESPA claim based upon 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(3) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
taken to collect its own debt. In support of this assertion, OneWest emphasizes that even the plaintiff admits as much.
the FDCPA, the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
has alleged that OneWest affirmatively stated, in correspondence to him, that: “This company is a debt collector.” ([Doc.
15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F) (emphasis added).
connection with the FDIC’s responsibilities as conservator of IndyMac, a failed institution.
such, the plaintiff cannot state a FDCPA claim against it. Accordingly, Count VIII is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Strike [Doc. 18] should be DENIED, and the plaintiff’s Motion to Correct [Doc. 19] should be GRANTED.
The Clerk is hereby directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record.
Rule 12(b) . . ..” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
For Relief,” and so forth. For ease of reference, each claim for relief will be called a “Count” in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
[Doc. 15] should be, and hereby is, DENIED.
unnecessary and unwarranted to strike all references to IndyMac MS. See Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir.
defendant’s Motion to Strike [Doc. 18] should be, and hereby is, DENIED.
Court finds that the plaintiff’s Motion to Correct [Doc. 19] should be, and hereby is, GRANTED.
on the mortgagee’s breach of contract.” Ocwen, 491 F.3d at 643-44.
In so concluding, this Court recognizes that states cannot regulate the terms of the loan agreements entered into by federal savings banks.
[a] homeowner’s state to give the homeowner a defense based on the mortgagee’s breach of contract.” Ocwen, 491 F.3d at 643-644.
web sites fall within the scope of facts of which judicial notice may be taken under FRE 201(b)).
I helped arrange this interview and I’m so glad I did!
Avanti, on April 11, 2010 at 9:35 pm Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
My lender proposed me reducce my commercial loans after I explained my financials. We agree verbaly about the new amount. As same time they noted that they was escrowing the sewer in the property but they was not making the payments timely then my property was for tax sale for 2008 and also 2009 and I needed make the payments for recover my property of tax sale.
Since they noted it, in the modification reduccion they add that I need waive or release any claims. I did not accepted waive anything, since I was asking just for a modification. The bank gave me only 8 minutes to take my decision or sign or they will foreclosure my properties because I was 15 days in default. I did not wanted sign it until they don’t delete the waiver of my rights. Then they take all my mony from my accounts that I had in lender’s bank. May be someone can give me some sugestion what I need to do? or is the Bank is right to force me give me a reduccion only if I release my rights?
where the PUBLIC can order a copy of the title for $39.00. This is private information about you! I called the title company and they knew nothing about NW selling these, and said that they didn’t approve, that the title report they issue (that costs you $1000+ and even you cannot get one given to you) is private and solely for the trustee and beneficiary. Everyone that has or is being foreclosed on by NW Trustee Services needs to make a complaint to the Attorney General in the state in which they reside. Routh Crabtree is the actual person that sends it out to the public. Routh Crabtree acts as a debt collector – so that’s a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act USC 15 1692.
If you want info about that case, email me.
IndyMac/One West Bank are demanding that I pay my note in full and are threatening foreclosure . However, they do not show up on the UCC at our county Court House. They have not responded to my request. What should I do now? Please advise.
Hi, my name is Nancy and we are in the process of being evicted tomorrow by Duetsche Bank. The first time they filed the Unlawful Detainer was on 2/9/09 through Citi Residential Lending, Inc. & Deutsche Bank and we were thrown out by the sheriff’s on 6/15/09 and let back in our home the next day. Now Deutsche Bank filed another Unlawful detainer on 12/24/09 and we did not respond to the complaint and a default judgement was issued and possession given per the first complaint and eviction to take place on 03/09/10. We have tried so hard to get someone to help us but have been unable. We have tried to explain that what Deutsche Bank is doing is wrong and according to the recorders office and the real estate D.A. they see nothing wrong and that the Trustee Deed Upon Sale is the same as Assignment. Everybody has told us that there is we can do. We have filed a Notice of Appeal and hoping upon review that the judge see the wrong doing of these companies. If you have any recommendations, we would greatly appreciated.
For Every DIVINE ONENESS AMEN. Peace.
Please help. Shortly after signing a loan modification, we learned about all that going on and didn’t make the first payment, asking the servicer to disclose our lender and their role, etc. We got very little information but enough to know that our loan has been sold 4 or 5 times. When JP Morgan Chase was named, we asked them to validate their standing, with affadavits of transfers, etc. We got nothing from them and from the servicer, we got that all the info we asked for was subject to business and trade practices which are proprietary and confidential and will not be provided.
They then announced that they were selling the loan again; then we got foreclosure notice. The supposed creditor was not the one they said they were selling it to. There are contradictions all along in terms of lenders, etc. To date, no filings of transfer in the county record.
Based upon our three month track record of requesting this info required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that we sent a Cease and Desist Affadavit, the judge granted a temporary restraining order, halting the foreclosure and ordered them to bring a complete chain of title to the upcoming hearing. One day before the hearing, the defendants send a notice of removal to federal court, citing jurisdiction. What should be our next step, please. We appreciate any guidance. 404-284-9667.
The Loss Mitigation Negotiator from Homecomings Financial (a Division of GMAC) for the property I own in Altadena, CA made a commitment with me back in May, 2009, that if I listed the property, she would postpone the sale and continue to postpone it every thirty days while it was listed.
The property is listed, appears in the Pasadena-Foothills Multiple Listing Service and a copy of the listing was faxed over to the Homecomings Loss Mitigation Department.
We have 2 offers, one for 415,000.00 and one for 460,000.00, which were also fax (and a lot of interest by other Realtors), but one of the negotiators, Dianna Hansen, who has never answered my calls and always seems to be busy, went on vacation and has a message (as of today still), that she is coming back on the 26th of June and will return call on the week of the 29th, but she does not pick up or answer her phone, nor call back. The other negotiator, Cindy McQueen, who had previously postponed the sale, also does not pick up, does not return her voice or email messages and as of yesterday has a voice mail that says that it is full. Cindy McQueen, acknowledges in her notes in the file the she had received the listings, but not the offers and she made a notation in the file (I just found this out today) stating we were not aggressively pursuing the sale and therefore released the hold on the Trustee Sale. I do not know how she reached this conclusion, however she never bothered to email me or call me to inform me about it. Executive Trustee Service (a Division of GMAC) NEVER answers their phone either, does and when I went to their office there is a gate (with a guard shack) barring entrance to the facility (however there was no guard in sight. The property to a private party for 285,000.00 (Which creates a Huge tax liability, almost $200,000.00 more than if Homecomings accepted one of the offers and not only that, we had so many interested calls that I had instructed the Realtor to increase the price (and the government is telling us not to seek assistance, instead, to “deal directly with our lender“.
The Realtor had faxed all the pertinent information to Homecomings (listing and offers) as they occurred, and as a precaution, (due to the upcoming) sale date), on 6-26-2009 I emailed Cindy McQueen (cindy.mcqueen@gmacm.com) a PDF file with the print out from the Multiple Listing Service of listing.
The foreclosure was ordered by MERS, who, I understand, has been challenged in Court (and even lost some cases regarding this), as not having legal the legal standing to act as the “Lender” and order a foreclosure.
Although Homecomings filed, and was granted a relief from stay, (at the time, I was not aware I could and did not file an objection) I am still in bankruptcy and I intend to file and adversary proceeding (I’ve been up all night working on it) against all of the herein named companies, employees and other related entities; seeking a TRO and or an injunction barring the transfer of the property, a lis pendens on same and damages to compensate for the added tax liability, as well as redress form a number of violation of Federal and State Consumer Protection Laws (RESPA, TILA, HOEPA, et al.
A search of the internet for lawsuits against GMAC and or Homecomings and Executive Trustee Services for said violations, produced a very long list, some of these even in local courts, so it looks like this has been their modus operandi for some time.
Any feedback from your readers which can assist me in this situation will be greatly appreciated.
Sale Location: At the West side of the Los Angeles County Courthouse, directly facing Norwalk Blvd., 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA.
Trustee: Executive Trustee Services, Inc.
I have been fighting with Ocwen since Jan. 2009. I sent in some paperwork to you on June 29,2009. Hope you can look it over and help me save my home from the auction block slated for July 23, 2009. i have applied twice for Obama’s program and been denied both times. I have to wonder who is being granted this high honor of his program. I’m not bitter.
Use the TRO-OSC method to use tila or respa to stop the sale in California. You will need to prove up a preliminary injunction, which is tough, but the TRO postpones the sale at least giving you more time. There is an exemplar here on Living Lies for all this.
Be sure, though, that your complaint alleges violations that would be grounds to prevent the bank from selling if you won the case (i.e., rescission remedy) or else you will not stop the sale. Also, be sure you can show a likelihood of success on the merits (i.e., a blank Notice of Right to Cancel form), and that the balance of risk is toward your client.
Otherwise, if you file your complaint long enough prior to the sale, you can go in for a regularly noticed preliminary injunction motion. The standard is the same; different procedural posture. TRO-OSC is for last minute interventions.
Does anyone have samples of complaints or a points and authorities memo in support of stopping a non-judicial foreclosure sale in CA based on TILA or RESPA? I’m not quite understanding what cause of action will give the borrower actual possession of the home.
I am first year attorney who was hired by a firm doing mortgage litigation; however, I’m finding that they are not into “teaching me the ropes” as I much as I hoped.
Please contact me. I am getting ready to appeal to the U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico on behalf of Miguel Guetierres, deceased, and Inga Gutierrez, incarcerated and incomunicado. Someone must step in for these valiant warriors who I honestly believe have a winnable case. I will learn the case as best possible and then seek to find the best appropriate attorney. In the meantime, as far as I know, I am the only person who has even considered the importance of preserving this case. I am not an attorney. I am an undergrad student who had planned to graduate this term but have decided to cut my load in half so that I can pursue this legal matter. My studies are in foreign languages and Latin America Studies. Obviously, I would be most grateful for any assistance that may be profferred.

References: § 1461
 § 2605
 § 1692
 § 1692
 v. 
 v. 
 § 560
 § 560
 § 560
 v. 
 § 2605
 § 2605
 § 1692
 v.