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 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34155
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    Dave hill have you checked with your title company if they would insure a title that was quieted by court ruling?
    I don’t know.
    Cork h.

    #34156
    Avatar of mtnwizard
    mtnwizard
    Participant

    I have first received a 5-Day Notice to Quit which I ignored. Then I received a notice offering to pay me $3,700 if I move out by Jan 7 and stating that failure to do so would result on my being locked out by the sheriff. These dunderheads know full well they are ******* in the wind as a Court Order of Eviction is necessary and a hearing has not even been scheduled yet. Unfortunately, with my wife ill and very stressed, I located a satisfactory house to lease.

    I don’t harbor any illusions about winning in an Arizona court. I was already told by a real estate attorney who is a former DA and who should know about criminal behavior, that although they committed a Class 1 Misdemeanor by recording a false document with Yavapai County, and a host of other civil or criminal infractions with forged “notes”, etc., that “I know all the judges in Yavapai County and there isn’t one who will allow you to remain in the home because you stopped paying“. Never mind that nobody knows who truly owns the loan and that the Deed of Trust says this is a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan and neither of those organizations knows anything about the loan.

    I will prepare a comprehensive documentation of the timeline and PROVE way beyond any doubt that there was no note to secure and therefore the title should be free and clear. I don’t expect a decision in my favor, but I do want this documentation on the record so that some attorney or plaintiff can use it to support their own claims. Who knows? A miracle may occur.

    #34157
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    @Buzzbox wrote:

    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.

    #34158
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    Well done, dave S.
    So far so good.
    Now to proceed with candidates I have…
    Cork H .
    619 887 2000

    #34159
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    Gary the presiding judge will simply remind you it is an eviction proceeding.
    Is there an outside chance the judge will consider the right of the evicting party?
    Have you considered becoming a student in the very courtroom where you are to appear?
    Has the lender gotten a trust deed from the auction process?
    Without proof of ownership the alleged landlord cannot evict.
    As I experienced this a landlord/tenant HEAring was rescheduled for a trial in MarIcopa county and the sanTan muni court.
    As soon as the judge saw I was raising issues of ownership he reSet the case for a trial by judge(himself)
    Has the alleged owner given you 90 days to quit under the federal tenant law of 2009?

    #34160
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    dave as soon as i can get a grip on your use of NEO we can proceed.

    #34161
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    @corkhorner wrote:

    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.

    #34162
    Avatar of corkhorner
    corkhorner
    Participant

    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,
    Cork horner
    Ps
    Lurkers unite!

    #34163
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    @corkhorner wrote:

    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,
    Cork horner
    Ps
    Lurkers unite!

    49%

    #34164
    Avatar of buzzbox
    buzzbox
    Participant

    Cork, looks like Dave S. has made it clear regarding title insurance issuance subsequent to a successful Quiet Title. I agree fully. I have not checked into what a title company here in Washington might think. Your comment reminds me to do so. I’ll post the answer(s) when I get them.

    Dave’s advice is to sell as quickly as possible – presumptively not because of any title insurance issue, but to transfer title before someone tries to contaminate it. Once the property is sold, even if a future claim is mounted, there is no real property to attach if the claim produced a judgment.

    Also, as an aside, title insurance, I believe carries forward from the original home-owner, so title is protected to that point and back in time. Having conveyed into the land trust a future transfer event has occurred, so I’m wondering if title insurance obtained to confirm granting of the Quiet Title would be appropriate, if the property is to remain unsold and title continued in the land trust.

    Also, in a Quiet Title action, initiated while the property title is held by the trustee in a land trust, such as the EHT, who is granted Quiet Title, the trustee, or does it revert one step back, to the SB? Hopefully Dave S has the answer for this.

    Regarding the original subject of this thread – does anyone have anything more to offer to help with Gary’s situation?

    Filing a bankruptcy seems the only way to get control of an eviction action. Gary may be precluded from that, because of an earlier filing?

    Happy Holidays everyone, and keep communicating.

    #34165
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    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.

    #34166
    Avatar of buzzbox
    buzzbox
    Participant

    Hey Wiz,

    Have you triggered a quiet title and claim for damages?

    Seems to me you have enough evidence to show that there was no holder in due course that can be identified.

    Therefore, the foreclosure was a sham and fraudulent by those involved.

    Hopefully you’ve been able to locate a willing litigator?

Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (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