Friday, October 3, 2014

NO EVICTION FOR BANK OF AMERICA HOMEOWNERS SAMUEL AND COURTNEY ADAMSON

Photo of Bank of America ATM Machine by Brian Katt, Framingham Rest Stop, Massachusetts. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

No Eviction for Couple Who Haven’t Paid Mortgage Since 2008

Posted on September 29, 2014 by Dave Jolly

In December 2008, Samuel and Courtney Adamson stopped making mortgage payments on their Utah home and they are still living in the house.

The mortgage was owned by Bank of America who turned foreclosure proceedings over to a subsidiary of theirs called Recon Trust. In January 2010 Recon Trust sold the Adamson’s home in a foreclosure sale to another one of Bank of America’s subsidiaries.

The Adamson’s continued to attempt to negotiate a new mortgage with Bank of America and refused to vacate their home. The new subsidiary owner then transferred the title of the home to Distressed Asset Solutions Fund I, a company located in San Diego. Distressed then filed a lawsuit against the Admansons in their efforts to evict them.

The Adamson’s fought the eviction lawsuit by claiming that the original foreclosure sale had violated Utah state law that states that only a Utah attorney or company are allowed to legally carry out a foreclosure selling. Bank of America argued against the Adamson’s charge stating they and Recon Trust were legally operating under Texas state law.

The question of which state’s laws apply have been a grey area as courts have ruled both ways in recent years. A year ago, the Utah State Supreme Court ruled that Utah state laws apply in cases like this and not the laws of others states. Bank of America has been involved in some of these other cases in Utah and has already stated that they will appeal the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling to the US Supreme Court.

Bank of America’s case was further weakened this past week when Fifth District Court Judge Jeffrey Wilcox ruled that in the Adamson case, Bank of America and Recon Trust both violated Utah state laws in their foreclosure on the Adamsons. Since the foreclosure was ruled illegal, the eviction order that followed cannot be enforced.

No announcement has yet been issued if Judge Wilcox’s ruling will be appealed or not. In the meantime, the Adamsons, who have still not made a mortgage payment or property taxes in nearly 6 years, are being allowed to remain in their home.

Had the Adamsons not been familiar with the Utah laws governing foreclosures, they would have been gone a long time ago. If you have undergone a foreclosure or are in the process of being foreclosed on, check your state laws, especially if you live in Utah.

Comments

10 comments

Emma 3 days ago
You are correct Linda.

My daughter is dealing with this same situation. It has been 1 1/2 years & they are in this boat because the business went under , due in large part to obama's business killing agenda.

BoA refuse to work with them & they have been in this home for 22 years.

They do have an attorney & the payments are in an escrow account until BoA decides to play by the rules.
Reply

Share ›
- LittleMoose Emma 3 days ago
  BoA is the worst bank there is. I wouldn't deal with them if they were the only bank in the world.
  Reply
  
  Share ›
truthbetold 4 days ago
They haven't paid on their mortgage or property taxes for 6 years would have me believe that they would have accumulated quite a sum of money by now. Squatters! I have no empathy for those who lied about their incomes in order to buy a home far out of their price range. Evict the squatters, and take a large portion of their hoarded wealth.
Reply

Share ›
- Emma truthbetold 3 days ago
  Why would you assume they lied about their income .?
  Frankly, I seriously doubt you would have empathy for anyone..
  My Granny always said this"But for the Grace of GOD there go I"
  I do believe Karma is a wonderous thing... It can kiss your face or kick your backside. All onto what one puts out. It does come back around you know.
  Without knowing these folks' circumstances, one should maybe not be quite so quick to judge.
  1
  
  Reply
  
  Share ›
mbnick 4 days ago
Typical behavior by career Obama moochers. They spend more time at scamming the system than they do getting a job. Just anotrher reason to get rid of Democrats in November who condone this type of behavior.
4

Reply

Share ›
- −
Red_Ruffansore 4 days ago
Normally I never side with a deadbeat but Bank of America has gone to war with weapons manufacturers and tried to dry up their credit and run them out of business therefore I hope many many more people screw BOA out of more money.
10

Reply

Share ›
- Shagnasty1 Red_Ruffansore 4 days ago
  Bank of America was one of the leaders in giving mortgages to criminal aliens without Social Security numbers. I'll bet you can't get a loan from them without a Social Security number. Bank of America is also on the cutting edge of firing Americans only to replace them with Indians. And before any fool says I am insulting Native Americans I am referring to people from India coming on H1 visas which Bill Gates, the US Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and every other crony capitalist supports so they can cut labor costs.
  8
  
  Reply
  
  Share ›
  - jime1 Shagnasty1 4 days ago
    
    Name a big bank that isn't shady? Most of the country is run by crooks, in the private, elected and bureaucratic sectors of this nation.
    
    2
    
    Reply
    
    Share ›
- nonstopca Red_Ruffansore 4 days ago
  I take it you don't hold any BOA stock.......If you or "daddy and mommy" are retired, and have money in a retirement fund, you may want to rethink...hurting ANY Corp. is not to good for the economy. and it's the Government that is "intimidating" the banks in to going after the "weapons manufactures (and others)" Called operation choke point. Get your facts straight, before trying to ruin my retirement.
  8
  
  Reply
  
  Share ›

SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE GEORGE BOWDEN VOIDED JACOB'S BRADBURN'S FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT!

Judge Overturns Bank of America Foreclosure

posted by ANSEL HERZ on WED, FEB 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM

ROB WILSON / SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

Here's some great news: Marysville's Jacob Bradburn, a 32-year-old crane operator, won a pre-trial summary judgement against Bank of America last week overturning his 2009 foreclosure. Snohomish County Superior Court judge George Bowden ruled that Bank of America's actions had been "unfair and deceptive" andvoided the foreclosure. Bowden writes:

I was troubled... that [Bradburn] was told that he should stop making his mortgage payments so that he could qualify for refinancing with Bank of America (BANA) and that once he fell behind he not only wasn’t approved for that refinance but then found himself unable to bring his mortgage loan current or resolve what he believed was a dispute about how much he was behind.

"They called me every day asking me if I wanted to refinance or get caught back up on the loans," Bradburn told me by phone today. "I’d say yeah, whatever it takes to save my house. And they would never tell me how to do it... I never qualified for loan modification." The scenario is reminiscent of Phyllis Walsh, a south Seattle woman who, according to her suicide note and family members, thought she was refinancing her mortgage with US Bank, but was actually being foreclosed upon. As I reported in October, Walsh killed herself two days before she was to be evicted from her home.

Citing ongoing litigation, a spokesman for Bank of America wouldn't comment on the ruling. And Bradburn's lawyer, Scott Stafne, cautioned against too much optimism, pointing out that the bank can still appeal. But he says it's "one of the first cases that I know of where a Superior Court has held a sale which took place four years ago to be void." It's also a strike against the widespread practice of having companies that have an incentive to foreclose act as the "trustee" on the home—in this case it was ReconTrust, which itself is a subsidiary of Bank of America. They're supposed to be neutral under state law; I'll have more on that in a future post.

If Goldman Sachs is a great vampire squid—apologies to Matt Taibbi—then Bank of America is a headcrab. The bank has a history of playing dirty tricks: its personnel boasted of spying on and trolling Anonymous activists, stalled homeowners it was supposed to help, as Bloomberg News reported, "with repeated requests for paperwork and incorrect income calculations," and "systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure," according to whistleblowers.

"I think Bank of America tries to abuse their power too much," says Bradburn. "Everybody bows down to them and all they get is a slap on the hand." But Bradburn didn't bow down, and he's hoping that means a settlement that enables him to buy another home.

Knecht v. Fidelity National Title Insurance, Banks Stealing Homes From Their Owners Based on a General Principle of Ignorance, a Well Known Industry-Standard

EXCLUSIVE: The Secret Theft Mechanism of an American Foreclosure

Susanne Posel (OC) : One foreclosure case in Washington State that is still on-going, has raised the not-so-obvious question of whether or not banks are essentially “writing blank check[s] to take” homes from their owners?

Revelations from evidence in the case Knecht v. Fidelity National Title Insurance have shed light on one interesting way banks have begun the process of theft before the foreclosure is first enacted.

Scott Stafne , attorney for Knecht and partner with StafneTrumbull law firm, filed a declaration with the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle and Judge Richard A. Jones, to explain one ingenious scheme the banks use to takehomes from their owners based on a general principle of ignorance that is a well known industry-standard.

In his declaration, Stafne exhibited for the court, the document used to take Knecht’s home and “initiate” the foreclosure process.

This document appears to be unofficial, yet it is all that is needed from the bank to begin the process of foreclosure.

Exhibit 1 of Stafne’s declaration reads: “The undersigned beneficiary or authorized agent for the beneficiary hereby represents and declares under the penalty of perjury that the beneficiary is the owner of the Promissory Note or other obligation secured by the Deed of Trust.”

This document is signed by Kathy Smith, signature of mortgagee, beneficiary of authorized agent.

Stafne showed that Smith cannot be the beneficiary as described in Washington State RCW 61.24.030 which defines a beneficiary as “the holder of the instrument or document evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust, excluding persons holding the same as security for a different obligation” because she is a robo-signer for hire.

Smith was hired by Countrywide Bank in 2010 to robo-signing a foreclosure according to documents provided from another foreclosure.

In that same year, Smith was employed by American Brokers Conduit for more robo-signing to steal homes from owners.

Yet again, Smith robo-signed another foreclosure into existence as an employee of Lender Processing Services; and this time she also claimed to be “assistant secretary, MERS as nominee for American Home Mortgage” after a change to the original document was made by the bank . . . to cover Smith’s tracks.

Shockingly, in a deposition with Stafne regarding the Knecht foreclosure, Tamara Yellin, staff attorney for Default Resolution Network (DRN) for Fidelity National Title Insurance (FNTI), explained how her organization did not have 100% proof that they had real possession of title before initiating the foreclosure process.

Yellin explained to Stafne that she is “not certain of the exact corporate structure” of the corporation she works for; however they “operate as FNTI in the state of Washington. We are all division of FNTI as the overall parent company. We are all divisions of Fidelity National Financial (FNF).”

Yellin told Stafne: “Not all states even require declaration under penalty of perjury that you’re the owner of the note. Because there are hundreds, if not thousands of securitized trusts out there and if we were to review every securitized trust agreement, we wouldn’t be able to do business.”
Staggeringly, toward the end of the deposition, Yellin revealed that FNTI had “commenced a substantial amount greater than 1000” nonjudicial foreclosures – in the 3 or 4 days prior to the deposition (in Washington State alone).

According to Washington State RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) “A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.”

Yet, Yellin, working for FNTI, who have initiated foreclosure against Knecht, admitted that they do not know who the actual holder of the mortgage note is.

Smith, a hired robo-signer, declared that she is the holder of the actual mortgage document; however shehas made that declaration before for countless other employers.

The punchline to Stafne’s declaration is found in Exhibit 2 where Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC) sent the homeowner another robo-signed foreclosure initiation document dated 2 months into the future!

Susanne Posel, Occupy Corporatism

Read more from our coverage of the USA in domestic, foreign, and other issues with news, analysis and opinion, in nsnbc international – your daily independent online newspaper.

ANOTHER HOMEOWNER WINS! THIS TIME AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA.

Foreclosed Homeowner Beats Big Bank;
Judge Voids Sale of Man’s Home

By Ronald L. Ray —

In the ongoing “war for plutocracy,” by which the Rothschild dynasty of financial pharaohs and the weasels of Wall Street seek to separate the common people from their property, the debt-slavers normally count on the dutiful support of the courts when turning distressed homeowners into America’s homeless. But Snohomish County, Washington Judge George N. Bowden showed both courage and character on January 30 when he voided the foreclosure sale of Jacob Bradburn’shome by giant Bank of America (BOA).

In a sense, Bradburn’s story is that of the American “Everyman.” Following the 2008 economic collapse, caused by avaricious Big Banks, Bradburn fell upon hard times. He turned to his mortgage servicer for help in keeping his home, only to hear the advice given by seemingly every servicer and credit card company.

Because he was still current on his mortgage, he was told he had to “miss a payment” before he could qualify for refinancing. Like so many other debtors before him, Bradburn did so, but the conundrum of bank-induced consequences was such a “convoluted case in the minefield of mortgage foreclosure litigation,” wrote Bowden, that even the legally trained judge’s mind struggled with the muddle of facts.

Immediately after the missed payment, the BOA snake constricted around its prey. Bradburn was denied refinancing. A dispute arose over how much money he continued to owe on the house—not uncommon in the quicksand of additional interest and penalties inflicted on delinquent homeowners, even when their delinquency was caused by a bank’s demand. And in the midst of Bradburn’s continuing efforts to seek assistance from the predatory lending institution, BOA foreclosed extrajudicially on his home and sold it out from under him. So much for helpful customer service.

But the BOA constrictor lives in a continent-wide jungle, designed to enrich the banksters through a complex secondary mortgage market where beneficiaries of promissory notes and mortgage instruments are ultimately unknown, and the actual holders of a mortgage change hands regularly. The name of this usurer’s paradise is Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS), created by bankers for bankers.

Connecticut attorney Christopher G. Brown explains that MERS is like a private club for plutocratic poobahs—mortgage originators and secondary buyers and sellers—designed to prevent the “inconvenience” of paying government fees and taxes for registration each time a mortgage is sold. This eases a repeated change of creditors, enriching investors as much as 40 times over simply holding the mortgage. Often, transactions occur with deliberate anticipation of default and foreclosure. And, as in Bradburn’s case, MERS acts as a “placeholder” for the unknown actual creditors, preventing any equitable settlement of the mortgage debt prior to foreclosure.

Wading through the morass of names and contradictory claims by BOA, MERS and other financial entities involved, Judge Bowden concluded that the institutions violated both the strict requirements of the Deed of Trust Act and the Consumer Protection Act, prior to the home foreclosure sale. This included failing to appoint an independent trustee.

Most surprisingly, Bowden then granted partial summary judgment for Bradburn and his attorney, Scott Stafne, of the law firm, Stafne Trumbull, LLC. This means that, even assuming all the facts in favor of BOA, evidence pointed overwhelmingly towards the violation of Bradburn’s rights. Bowden voided the foreclosure sale of the Bradburn home and ruled that BOA, et al., were subject to “liability under the Consumer Protection Act,” due to “an unfair or deceptive practice, [which] occurred in a trade or commerce, and that those practices impacted the public interest.”

Bradburn can continue to sue the banksters, and, most importantly for now at least, he can keep his home.

Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.

- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=16674#sthash.PBOzAi3o.dpuf

Thursday, October 2, 2014

STAFNE LAW CRUSHES MERS, FIDELITY AND DEUTSCHE BANK IN KNECT V. FIDELITY

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Celebrate as Stafne Law Crushes MERS, Fidelity and Deutsche Bank in Knecht v. Fidelity Summary Judgment; MERS Assignment a Legal Nullity.

Above: Attorneys Scott Stafne and Josh Trumbull at the command center

as we discussed the ramifications of yesterday's Federal Court victory.

Several months ago KingCast/Mortgage Movies cameras interviewed Attorney Scott Stafne relative to the Unconstitutional Nature of the Deed of Trust Act vis a vis his pending case ofKnecht v. Fidelity, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113131 (Washington WD 2014). We were both clearly worried but it turned out for the good because they got a Judge who actually gives a damn. You see, in my vast experience as former escrow attorney and in shooting dozens of courtroom videos I see that some Courts and Judges get it: See Bradburn v. ReconTrust in which I shot the entire argument on some of the same issues manifest herein. See also this summer's case of Pardo v. OCWEN, MERSCORP, NWTS. In this case the Judge denied the Stafne Constitutional arguments but at least got most of the the evidentiary matters correct.

However, some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what I consider to be basic tenets of Jurisprudence. To wit, Judge Marsha Pechman, who is -- unfortunately in my opinion -- the Chief Justice in the Western District. I'll tell it straight to her face if given the opportunity, it's a Free Country the last time I checked. Heck, Attorney Stafne said as much when he moved to recuse her last year as noted in the above links, supra.

Here is the yesterday's ORDER from Hon. Richard C. Jones. I have taken the liberty of quoting some of the salient passages but there is much more.

"In Washington, lenders hoping to take advantage of the MERS system designated MERS as the beneficiary of deeds of trust, just as ABC did in Mr. Knecht’s deed of trust. But it is now clear that Washington law does not permit MERS to act as a beneficiary unless it is also the “holder” of the note secured by the deed of trust.Bain, 285 P.2d at 47.

There is no suggestion that MERS ever held Mr. Knecht’s note, and yet it purported in April 2010 to assign to DB “the Promissory Note secured by [the Knecht] deed of trust and also all rights accrued or to accrue under said Deed of Trust.” The assignment, which is recorded in King County, was executed by “MERS as nominee for [ABC],” but there is no evidence that ABC actually authorized MERS to effect the transfer. See Bavand v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 309 P.3d 636, 649 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)(noting MERS’s failure to establish its agency relationship with a noteholder). There is no dispute in this case that MERS lacked the power to transfer anything to DB. Knecht, 4-5.

Mr. Knecht has offered two pieces of evidence: his original note and deed of trust, in which DB held no interest; and the MERS assignment, which was a legal nullity. A trier of fact could determine that this evidence makes it more likely than not that DB has no valid interest in Mr. Knecht’s note or deed of trust. Knecht, at 7.
***********

Fn3 -- The court observes that it is the beneficiary, not the borrower, who can be expected to possess evidence that it is the holder or owner of a promissory note. The court finds it unlikely that a Washington court would burden the borrower alone with providing that evidence. As the Bain court observed, in cases where “the original lender ha[s] sold the loan, th[e] purchaser would need to establish ownership of that loan, either by demonstrating that it actually held the promissory note or by documenting the chain of transactions.” 285 P.3d at 47-48.
************
Mr. Knecht has evidence of damages caused by MERS’s and DB’s conduct. Mr. Knecht did what many homeowners faced with the prospect of foreclosure would do: he investigated. His evidence establishes that he spent substantial time on that investigation, and that suffices to establish a CPA injury. Walker, 308 P.3d at 727 (“Investigative expenses, taking time off from work, travel expenses, and attorney fees are sufficient to establish injury under the CPA.”). DB and MERS insist that the cause of Mr. Knecht’s injury was his default, not their wrongdoing, but they are mistaken. If a jury concludes that DB had no authority to foreclose, then a trier of fact could infer that the cause of his need to investigate was DB’s wrongfully-initiated foreclosure proceedings."

ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?

Friday, October 3, 2014

NO EVICTION FOR BANK OF AMERICA HOMEOWNERS SAMUEL AND COURTNEY ADAMSON

No Eviction for Couple Who Haven’t Paid Mortgage Since 2008

Comments

SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE GEORGE BOWDEN VOIDED JACOB'S BRADBURN'S FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT!

Judge Overturns Bank of America Foreclosure

posted by ANSEL HERZ on WED, FEB 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Knecht v. Fidelity National Title Insurance, Banks Stealing Homes From Their Owners Based on a General Principle of Ignorance, a Well Known Industry-Standard

EXCLUSIVE: The Secret Theft Mechanism of an American Foreclosure

ANOTHER HOMEOWNER WINS! THIS TIME AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA.

Foreclosed Homeowner Beats Big Bank;
Judge Voids Sale of Man’s Home

Thursday, October 2, 2014

STAFNE LAW CRUSHES MERS, FIDELITY AND DEUTSCHE BANK IN KNECT V. FIDELITY

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Celebrate as Stafne Law Crushes MERS, Fidelity and Deutsche Bank in Knecht v. Fidelity Summary Judgment; MERS Assignment a Legal Nullity.

DO YOU NEED HELP TO AVOID FORECLOSURE?

Friday, October 3, 2014

NO EVICTION FOR BANK OF AMERICA HOMEOWNERS SAMUEL AND COURTNEY ADAMSON

Comments

Related articles

SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE GEORGE BOWDEN VOIDED JACOB'S BRADBURN'S FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT!

Judge Overturns Bank of America Foreclosure

posted by ANSEL HERZ on WED, FEB 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Related articles

Knecht v. Fidelity National Title Insurance, Banks Stealing Homes From Their Owners Based on a General Principle of Ignorance, a Well Known Industry-Standard

EXCLUSIVE: The Secret Theft Mechanism of an American Foreclosure

Related articles

ANOTHER HOMEOWNER WINS! THIS TIME AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA.

Foreclosed Homeowner Beats Big Bank; Judge Voids Sale of Man’s Home

Related articles

Thursday, October 2, 2014

STAFNE LAW CRUSHES MERS, FIDELITY AND DEUTSCHE BANK IN KNECT V. FIDELITY

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Celebrate as Stafne Law Crushes MERS, Fidelity and Deutsche Bank in Knecht v. Fidelity Summary Judgment; MERS Assignment a Legal Nullity.

Related articles

DO YOU NEED HELP TO AVOID FORECLOSURE?

Foreclosed Homeowner Beats Big Bank;
Judge Voids Sale of Man’s Home