Forum Replies Created
January 13, 2013 at 8:31 pm #34118
I don’t have any objection to filing a Certificate of Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Warranty Deed. It’s a school of thought by some circles that a Warranty Deed may not have been perfected at origination. Not sure about that or if filing a Certificate of Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Warranty Deed adds any authority to title ownership beyond a court granted quiet title, but I don’t think it would cause any harm. If there is any case law that I could scrutinize that would shed more light on the subject, I might be more influenced to record these docs. Please let me know if you can cite some references. Here’s something I found: http://www.dre.ca.gov/files/pdf/refbook/ref07.pdf
I do agree that selling the asset after quieting title is not a bad idea, but even so, a hostile party (true or false) can always come around and file suit whether the property has been sold or not.
Thanks for your input Dave.January 13, 2013 at 2:41 am #34116
Fundamentally, when it is known that there is an absence of assignments and recordings, which causes you initiate suit against a lender for quiet title, you are, in fact, claiming that the lender has been paid in full on the promissory note and that the lender has lost any power to enforce the mortgage.
A- I do not hold that position. Without having access to the entire chain of assignments, I have no clue who was paid in full or who wasn’t. I have no idea who can enforce and who can’t. I am motioning the court to quiet title because a real party of interest did not show up for an evidenciary hearing to claim ownership of rights, therefore, title is clouded and the court is motioned to clear title. That’s it.
You are demanding that the lender prove it is, in fact, a party of interest on the mortgage note while alleging you have the deed and that there is a mortgage recorded against the property which has been satisfied in full.
A- Nothing has been proven to be satisfied nor do I care to find out. I just want to eliminate invalid liens on title.
This brings about the need (for the homeowner) to accept the Warranty Deed and get it recorded to precede a quiet title filing. In almost all closings the warranty deed is never accepted at closing but rather is left open and incomplete. In order to claim you have the deed, I believe you must accept it and get it recorded.
A- A warranty deed is evidence of a voluntary sale or transfer of a property between a seller and a buyer (new owner) that is almost always recorded in a timely manner to identify the new owner. The new owner does this to let the world know he is the owner. This is a simple recording and there’s not much more to read into this.
Anyone have any observations on accepting the deed and when to do it?January 13, 2013 at 12:33 am #34181
OK Dave, I follow:
The NEO allows the homeowner a way out should they decide they want to go in another direction.
If they are doing the quiet title funding themselves, that likely makes sense, but doesn’t it leave you with nothing for your time and effort? I’d be willing to do that, the first time perhaps, to gain experience, but not after. If other parties are involved and providing funding then perhaps another more controlling method should be employed, such as the land trust.
With due respect, I am rigorously qualifying candidates as beneficiaries, (homeowner included), based on the terms that I feel will give us the best chance for success. Really the only beneficiaries that are directly involved in the outcome of a quiet title action will probably be the homeowner, a quiet title expert and myself. If you were to bring a homeowner to the table, you would become a passive beneficiary and your interests will be secure in the transaction.
I suppose there is not much more to discuss until I can communicate with your homeowner. No homeowner will be a beneficiary until they have received my Equity Share/Trust/QTA training. I would understand perfectly if these conditions do not meet your needs. Thanks.January 12, 2013 at 8:57 pm #34179
Dave, I had thought that placing the property into a EHT would have occurred early on, to both gain control and to manage the Quiet Title process via a special power of attorney/direction as a co-beneficiary.
Thus, I’m wondering why it was deferred until after the Quiet Title success? Certainly, there seems to be motivation to wait and save the cost of the trust set up until Quiet Title is achieved – perhaps that’s the reason? If so, what technique did you use to maintain control?
Without knowing the outcome beforehand, I give the homeowner the assurance that they can back out if they ever get uncomfortable with the process. However, I do extol the virtues of a land trust for the sake of security, anonymity, ease of transference, asset protection, probate avoidance, etc.
I can hold my position with an extended NEO.December 24, 2012 at 2:21 am #34114
An equity share offer to a pretend lender is contingent upon their ability to proof up.
If they can proof up, an equity share should be offered to give the homeowner the best chance to maintain control of their asset.
If they cannot proof up, they may expose themselves with damaging statements and/or documentation that can be used as future evidence of non standing. This is evidence that can be included in a Quiet Title Action.December 23, 2012 at 10:37 pm #34165
Title companies insure the accuracy of chain of ownership. A court order granting quiet title is the best proof of clear title that a title company could ever have to avoid any future payouts in the event of litigation.
With respect to an EHT, the title owner is the trustee. Ownership was transferred from homeowner to trustee. No big deal. In a QTA, the plaintiff is the trustee. Court representation is made by the attorney for the trustee with the seller beneficiary as a witness of the chain of title. The trustee does not have to appear as a witness. Why? Because the transfer of title to a trustee was done by the homeowner for the purposes of asset protection, control, financial planning and tax purposes. Again, no big whoop. Assets placed in trust is not that unusual of an event. No need to read anything more into a very simple transaction.December 20, 2012 at 7:56 pm #34163
There are not any elevators in the Sonora! (joke)
Is it 50%. Or 49%? The 1% difference is the political fight in the US currently.
A follower of great minds,
49%December 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm #34161
dave as soon as i can get a grip on your use of NEO we can proceed.
Okay, forget the NEO. Let’s just do this. Whoever you talk to, just say this,”I have an associate that just eliminated over 500K in mortgage liens through a quiet title action on a California property. Would you like to get on a 3 way call to see if he can do the same for your residence?” If he says yes, set the time. Or you can say, “I have an associate that just became a 50% beneficiary of a trust worth over 500K with a $10 agreement. Would you like to get on a 3 way call to see if he can do the same for your investment portfolio?” If he says no, just ask the next person on the elevator.December 18, 2012 at 5:13 pm #34157
Quiet Title, if successful clears the security instrument from title but it does not cancel the note. You have gained clear title but still owe on the promissory note. That potentially is a problem and could become an issue you may have to fight. The title company doesn’t care, all it wants is a clear title on the real estate and the court provided that with QT. The note is not a matter of public record with respect to the real property so will not influence the title insurer.
Now I’m wondering how the HOPES concept fits into this, If the lender is a participant (equity sharing) under what I’ve understood regarding HOPES, why would they want to file for QT?
It must be remembered that HOPES first qualifies the lender as a legitimate party of interest for an equity share. They are given the opportunity to proof up after they are required to produce a proper chain of assignments. HOPES is offered especially when an alleged loan is in arrears or if foreclosure is part of the equation. This is an offer in lieu of a quiet title action. If the lender refuses an out of court settlement to become an equity share co-beneficiary, an investigation is started to verify the status of the loan and note. If evidence suggests bifurcation, a quiet title action is started.
If the homeowner is current with payments, the lender is not offered HOPES at all. An investigation is started to verify the status of the loan and note. If evidence suggests bifurcation, a quiet title action is started.
With respect to the court granting quiet title, I have communicated with numerous title companies, all of which are under the direction of attorneys, and in every case the answer has been the same. A recorded court ruling always trumps everything that was recorded previous to the ruling. Now, can someone that is holding a note come into the picture to sue? Of course they can. But the mere holding of a note can be problematic for the holder. I can hold your car’s title. Is it mine? Is it yours? Did I steal it? Did I fabricate it? Is there a proper chain of assignments? Incidentally, (I should have started with this), my team of attorneys have said that they are 100% confident, for a little extra in fees of course, know how to “squash” appeals. Secondly, any counter suits would have to be made knowing that the real estate is now an unsecured asset as per county records.
My point from the very beginning is what mortgage securitization experts have been claiming all along. Bifurcation clouded title AND note ownership. Who really owns the note? Where is the note? There is real fear here that it is now virtually impossible to make a legitimate claim of ownership of title, of the loan, of the note, all because Wall Street made a horrible boo boo. The investors of Mortgage Backed Securities, the real victims in all of this, were told they had a secure investment. They didn’t. They got a wagon full of crap. The investors don’t have real estate. They don’t have a note. They don’t have a title. They have crap; a weak promise to receive monthly payments from a bunch of low life homeowners that didn’t even have a job when they got approved for their loans.
Why do you think attorneys for Proctor and Gamble, a company that invested billions of dollars in MBS are going after Wall Street MBS makers and not homeowners? Because they know that bifurcation became a black hole for legal title ownership and suing is the only remedy. The only holders of notes that could appear in court would be real criminals. If they were to introduce the note as evidence, they would also have to prove proper chain of assignments, There was a break in the chain on every single one of those puppies. Why was there a break (bifurcation)? Wall Street had to incorporate lost docs and fake docs in order to complete the crime. Evidence of criminal activity would be discovered and the banksters would commit fraud on the court further exacerbating their deeds.
Now fellas, with all of this said, I sure hope you don’t get so bogged down with superfluous tedium. Do you want to be a co-beneficiary of the new California gold rush or not? There is a land grab going on. Who’s gonna get it? You and your co-beneficiary homeowner or the pretender lenders? It’s that simple.December 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm #34153
Progress Dave. Progress.
Basking? Like in valley of the Sun? You joking?
I know what you meant.
A big question remains “sell sell sell” well yah! The question begs to who and with bonafide title insurance?
A- Title companies know all about QT. Court orders are the most dependable form of clear title.
Have you determined that yet?
Sure possession …… Etc…..Super Bowl games are predicated on that usually at the 1 yard line at the final bell.
I am not a nay nay bird do do not misinterpret my statements.
Having been thru these issues around amelioration in San Diego and also foreclosure tenant issues in phienix I am not a virgin in these.
I am more than open to seeing and participating in those teams that can navigate the murky mortgage mess without having to restate the who and how it got there. If it all were laud on the table congress would never go on vacation and build a few thousand more federal prison vacation spots.
The bankster/ fraudsters know this very well and ‘hush’ appears to be the byword.
Yogi bara: it ain’t over til it’s over. And when ya come to a fork in the road take it.
A jokester in the Sonora,
CHDecember 17, 2012 at 6:01 pm #34151
Explicit rules the day.
I suspect that your clarification here will bring a lot of inquiries your way.
It may be significant that dr Gary opened this can of worms here.
This ‘can of worms’ is far far from over….
Including at the wall street level.
What is the answer to in the cal civil system the process of appeals from the defendants who failed to appear? My experience is that appeals are part of the civil and criminal justice system?
A- Let’s first bask in the victory okay? Two things. Possession is nine tenths of the law so to speak. I would always recommend that we do what the fraudsters are doing. SELL! SELL QUICKLY! Secondly, if we are dealing with fraudsters that have the cojones to show up, they will have to deal with already introduced evidence of bifurcation and lack of standing. Good luck with that.
When will your client beneficiary actually get a ckeat title deed from the court proceedings?
A- QT is clear title as per records.
Maybe de Gary, dave hill and even me have given you an opening you awaited here?
A- Thank you.
It could be enlightening to find out who has the computer/web analytics regarding how many lurker readers there are here?
Unfortunately since the recent 3arck meltdown this board became a frozen wasteland—but as with all chemical and nuclear reactions it starts with just a few actions…..
That is to say: BOOM!!!!
Ate you going to enlighten new candidates particularly in California what it is you want and how to proceed and what out if pocket front end expenses?
Then the ‘what abouts’. What about when the alleged defendant mortgagee/servicer/lender or bifurcated interest DOES appear with the appropriate 3 piece talking suits called lawyers who do know the rituals of the system?December 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm #34149
Let me try to set the record straight for all eyes to see.
I believe, and have believed from day one that HOPES, a homeowner/lender (or pretend lender) co-beneficiary agreement is the most reasonable way to correct clouded title issues that were created by foolish Wall Street note/deed bifurcation. Bifurcation was an honest mistake. It was a calculated crime. Who cares. Clear title can only be corrected in a court of law or through out of court settlement.
I am not emotionally attached to the cause, those that caused the problems, homeowner and investor victims, case law or the global collateral damage that has resulted. I am a business person. Yes, a capitalist if you choose. I saw an opportunity to make money if I could create a working co-beneficiary arrangement. I held back for a while merely to evaluate if HOPES could realistically withstand the obstacles that stood in its way. In a recent California Quiet Title action involving a HOPES co-beneficiary, the court ruled in favor of QT being awarded to my co-beneficiary. This court ruling trumps all previous liens on that property that appear in county records. Our trust property, as it stands, for all intents and purposes is free and clear of mortgage liens. My beneficiary interest in this trust is 49% as per agreement. How did this happen?
-The homeowner plaintiff, under the direction of my team, filed the complaint motioning the court for Quiet Title
-Defendants were served notice to appear
-All potential defendants were notified by newspaper announcements
-A “prove up” evidenciary hearing was scheduled
-Defendants failed or refused to appear to defend their alleged interests
-Witnesses testified (part of my team)
-Evidence of clouded title was introduced supporting witness testimony
-CA Judge was compelled to follow rules of procedure as per Cal. App.4. (2012)Plaintiff v Defendant decision
-Motion for QT was granted
HOPES, in my opinion and based on previous success, is now viable in California if my team continues to hold the court to the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. My wish is to have Wall Street beg for my team’s assistance for out of court settlement en masse in lieu of debilitating litigation. I doubt that will happen so, QTA’s will continue one by one as I keep creating EHT after EHT in California and then throughout the USA.
I now feel empowered to take my team to the people of California to advise them that:
-their titles are probably clouded
-QT is needed to clear title
-my co-beneficary team has successfully been granted QTin numerous QTA’s in CA
-a co-beneficary agreement is a good way to quiet title
-I will be glad to become a co-beneficary with a homeowner if they agree to follow my team’s direction and they get properly prepared to be an EHT co-beneficary.
- the homeowner co-beneficairy must be willing to become a complainant in a QTA and pay the necessary costs
-becoming a HOPES EHTco-beneficary requires training and the training is fee based
Lone wolves or “Do It Yourselfers” need not apply.December 17, 2012 at 4:19 am #34147
Hmmm….please read my post.
We were granted a QT on an EHT. The beneficiaries were successful. I can now confidently promote HOPES in California only at this time. We have a team of trained attorneys and mortgage securitization experts that can give solid expert witness testimony. I cannot offer HOPES in AZ at this time. Neither can I do anything wih a property post foreclosure.December 16, 2012 at 7:55 pm #34145
I chose not to post for months because I had nothing more to add. HOPES all along was based on reasonable theory. Until 12/13/12, I had no conclusive evidence that HOPES supported by a QTA would hold up under the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure.
Take emotion and foreclosure out of the equation. Bring in good counsel that understands how to introduce real evidence and false parties or parties with no real interests will not appear in court. The judge will then have no choice but to grant a homeowner’s motion to the court to quiet title.
Forget “who owns the note” or “was a loan really created” or “was a loan paid in full at origination”.
These are courtroom distractions. The only thing that holds weight is evidence that passes evidentiary muster. The only compelling evidence in QT is when no parties of interest show up at a deposition.December 15, 2012 at 7:29 pm #34142
“deep pocket lawyers against deep pocket lawyers”
That’s an assumption on your part I take it. Never underestimate the power of negotiation and the power of an EHT.