Home Forum Contact Create an Account Sign In Create a Trust

A Fight I Have to Win…

This topic contains 40 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of mtnwizard mtnwizard 6 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34140
    Avatar of mtnwizard
    mtnwizard
    Participant

    http://securitizationauditservices.com/samples/

    Check out this link. These guys have had a series of successful outcomes. May be worth checking out.

    #34141
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    Gary bottom line are they positioned to help you after the fact of a lender who prob has a trustee sale deed?
    As you have stated or alluded to the courts/judges in aZ are not mortgagors (borrower) friendly in mortgage issues?
    I witnessed a trustee sale take place in phienix where title was held in a third party trust.
    Lender issued a trustee deed to wholesale investor buyer anyway!
    The biggest problem lies in fighting fire with fire.
    Meaning deep pocket lawyers against deep pocket lawyers.
    Cork horner
    Ps
    Have you simPly engaged an investor to buy your house from the lender?

    #34142
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    @ Cork
    “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.

    #34143
    Avatar of buzzbox
    buzzbox
    Participant

    Starting from scratch, we need to put together an approach that works – at least most of the time. Clearly the courts are not comfortable with giving someone a free and clear title, when the judges are making payments on their own mortgages, or have struggled for years to pay one off. That’s likely the bottom line in many cases. It has to be shown conclusively that no party in interest exists that can claim ownership of the note and deed of trust, while pointing out that no loan existed in the first place. In other words, no one exists that can prove standing or that a loan was ever made. The courts may disagree, as in Gary’s case, but that shouldn’t stop us because we know what has really happened.

    Others have been successful in achieving a lien free position, as evidenced by the disclosures on this board. But we don’t know precisely how lien release was achieved. The details are missing. Even the Gary Jones transactions that were successful, as I’m assuming some of them must have been, are unknown.

    All of us are more knowledgeable now than a year or more ago – but there still doesn’t appear to be a clear direction established in which to proceed to obtain lien release. No one has yet pointed out any problems with the procedure I’ve proposed. I know it must have weaknesses somewhere, and I’d like to avoid stumbling through the process. There are worries too as some of what has been outlined, as far as I know, is untested.

    For example, in a different thread, “Beneficiary bankruptcy in an EHT Land Trust?”, I attempted to resolve the affect a bankruptcy would have on an SB when an IB entity filed bankruptcy. My concern was to avoid damaging the SB’s credit. Perhaps no one on the board has experienced this or a similar situation. To my mind it remains unknown.

    I suspect most, if not all the answers exist among board members – what we need are details of what made a transaction successful and what really doesn’t work.

    I realize that some things are best left in propriety from a privacy and business point of view, so maybe its best to discuss what didn’t or doesn’t work and why, just as we have in Gary’s case. WE need some aggressive posting.

    Any comments?

    #34144
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    YES dave hill—aggressive posting is what drew another lost personality out if the woodwork!
    Right mr SALCIDO?
    I will not go into a long liturgy here about the meaning of my statements about deep pocket lawyers.
    Are there remote cases of wins against ‘the banks’? Of course there would be.
    I have been around many of the failed negotiations and even landtrusts on properties IN ARIZONA, where in essence the system essentially shrugged it off. Been there — in person.

    If when ‘somebody’ herein has substantial info of people places and times now is better than later.
    Here in THIS BOARD…
    Gary needs massive help on this one. He IS a good negotiator And an expert in EHT.
    Now? Being evicted. I can relate . ARIZONA !

    Dave S —at least my writing here ‘brought you out didn’t it’ ?
    Now maybe the board moderator will see it too?
    Aside from what could be efficient negotiation with Gary’s lender who wil be accomplishing that?
    Are you volunteering DAve S?
    I think he needs an investor to buy the house from the lender. Case closed.?
    The biggest challenge in front of Gary coukd well be to reverse the sale after losing eviction case. Again LAWYERS. No?
    There is massive investor money in AZ.
    A Corker, indubitably

    #34145
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    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.

    #34146
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    I hate it when my small iPhone loses a message in progress like the last one I started and disappeared.
    So Dave S you have the counsel and evidentiary info references for dr Gary after the fact?
    And are we to believe that hopes now has a closed case that you know where title was quieted a loan was eliminated? Or what?
    A big question at this point remains what can dr GARY accomplish in landlord tenant court in his county in AZ which tend to be very landlord/investor oriented! One of my arguments that delayed the eviction trial the investor did not have proof of ownership at the first heading (no trustee deed)
    When at the new trial date the investor ‘owner’ had a trustee deed…..and the justice stipulated the federal tenant law requiring 90 days notice did not hold in his court!
    Coukd I have appealed? Yes, bonds are required at that point. I chose not and vacated house. So here I am looking for a new EHT either in valley of the sun or valley of the coast (southern cal).
    C’mon lurkers give it up?

    A cork horner

    #34147
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    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.

    #34148
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    Well Dave S. I do believe I read your post(s)
    Only in the last one did I interpret you/”we” the beneficiaries in a California mortgage issue were granted ‘clear title’ for the property in the EHT. Correct so far?
    This means then the settlor mortgagors were released from the debt and lien against the real estate? That the trustee can sell the property free and clear to another party ? That a title company will insure the title?
    If all this is accurate it seems to me this woułd have established a landmark case? Or an isolated occurrence because the defendants in a hearing did not appear? Does the cal civil system have rights of appeal from parties who did not appear?

    In Gary mialocqs case if I understand it in Az he went in ‘naked’ against his lender and believed he had won. But by current statements appears he won nothing.
    I do believe that the judges and jurists being people with everyday needs and ‘shortcomings’ can either overlook or not even comprehend the matters before them. That, they also as Gary I think it was said they go to the sane golf courses etc. it’s what is the fascination of many of the present day tv series/movies.
    I think the 3 P’s prevail often….prestige power and position.
    Many years ago I chose to drive a cab while repositioning my family situation and had occasions to transport the state legislators from bar to bar at night . It can be very interesting what conversations take place in taxis between the pax!!!!
    It’s all about The Human Situation.
    I am willing to bet police officers have had private encounters that we’re not utilized in court or were to sway a decision process in court?
    Maybe if computer driven algorithms were to replace human decisions in the courts some cases would be closed with vastly different results. Yes/no?
    I have strong suspicions dave S there are many lurked here such as you were of late who just watch and listen ‘hoping’ for minor miracles I’m their cases.! Also suspect you talk with many of them?
    Effective leadership is still in great demand. Isn’t it?
    Today’s society has many issues and challenges being tested which can be corroborated simply by the news in the papers, the journals, radio and tv. CNN is EveryWhere.
    In fact maybe dr Gary could get some traction with CNN?
    A prudent observer,
    Cork H.

    #34149
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    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.

    #34150
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    Good Dave.
    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?
    When will your client beneficiary actually get a ckeat title deed from the court proceedings?
    Maybe de Gary, dave hill and even me have given you an opening you awaited here?
    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?

    #34151
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    @corkhorner wrote:

    Good Dave.
    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?
    A- Yes
    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?

    #34152
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    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?
    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,
    CH

    #34153
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    @corkhorner wrote:

    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,
    CH

    #34154
    Avatar of buzzbox
    buzzbox
    Participant

    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?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 42 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Posted in
Contact Form
Your Fullname:


Email Address:


Phone:


Best Time to Call:


Subject:


Your Message:


Security Code:

 

Can't read the above security code? Refresh