Matt Weidner Blog

• front page
• About
• Mortgage Modification- HAMP is the Answer!
• Mortgage Modification Madness- The Futility of Trying
• Chapters 658 and 660 Florida Statutes and Foreclosures in Florida
• Foreclosure inPinellas- Short Sale Steals and Interesting Deals
• RSS

Warrant Issued For Arrest of Matthew Weidner In a

Foreclosure Case
March 5th, 2010 · Foreclosure

On March 1, 2010 a warrant for my arrest was signed by a Pinellas County Judge. The
warrant was signed based on an affidavit of probable cause that was signed by an officer
of the private company that the Pinellas County Sheriff’s office has contracted to process
all their probable cause affidavits and arrest warrants. For hundreds of years, only actual
deputized officers of the Sheriff’s office signed these affidavits and they were kept within
the Pinellas County courts, but that process was recently contracted out to a private
company.

When I appeared before the judge, I reviewed the affidavit and it was clear that
whomever signed the affidavit got the facts all wrong. I’m 175 pounds, not 204. I’ve got
brown hair, not white hair. I’ve got blue eyes, not brown eyes. And most importantly, I
couldn’t have committed the serious felony crime the affidavit accused me of because I
wasn’t even born yet on the date the affidavit said I committed the crime. When I
appeared before the judge and pointed all this out her response was astonishing…while
she admitted that the affidavit was totally wrong and that it was clear from its face that I
could not have committed the crime, she told me, “The prosecutor admits that the
affidavit is wrong and while you may not have committed this specific crime, the
affidavit says you committed a crime. The prosecutor assures me that they believe
you’ve committed a crime even if it’s not the crime that I’m going to sign this arrest
warrant for and that’s enough information for me.”
 The judge signed the arrest warrant even though she knew and the prosecutors
admitted that the facts in the affidavit did not support my arrest.

There were hundreds of attorneys in the courtroom who had clients that were being
arrested on precisely the same obviously wrong set of facts, but they could do nothing.
The facts were all wrong, the files were all wrong, but the warrants were signed. If this
weren’t bad enough, I thought about the thousands of files on the judge’s bench where no
attorney were present. She was so busy and those accused had no attorney to challenge
the facts in the affidavit, so the judge just signed thousands of those cases every single
day.

Sorry lenders, sorry plaintiff’s attorneys, I was not arrested. The story above did not
happen. Not exactly that way anyway. But every single day in courtrooms all across this
country, acts no less severe than the ones I described above are happening. While an
arrest is the most serious exercise of judicial power, close behind it is the judicial act of
throwing a person or family out of their home. Unfortunately, this dire judicial act is
being done hundreds of thousands of times across the country every day based on
fraudulent information and based on facts that are in direct contradiction to taking that
most severe judicial act–throwing a person out of their home.

We truly are living in a Kafaka-esque world where this scenario above plays out in
courtrooms across the country every day. Lenders and their attorneys are committing
gross fraud on the courts. The practice is shockingly widespread and pervasive. The lies
and tactics employed by the banks and officers of the court to fulfill their ultimate goals
of taking back property (to what end? who will buy them? how will the banks recover $
$ even after they have taken the property back?) are becoming very well documented in
depositions, SEC filings, class action lawsuits and other definitive places.

There are bright spots though….the Sixth Circuit of Pinellas County, Florida and the
Second District Court of Appeals in Florida is one such place. The recent opinions
released by judges from these two courts make it clear that the judges take their jobs and
their solemn responsibility to their citizens seriously. The opinions that force lenders to
prove their right to foreclose and challenge the improper tactics of the banks and lenders,
make it clear that in their courtrooms and neighborhoods at least, the law and the rights of
consumers and citizens are more important than the arrogance, bullying and abuses of
nameless, faceless, shifting entities that are attempting to steal our country!

We can only hope that courts in the rest of the country will turn their gaze to
Pinellas County, Florida….

The Flames of Justice Are Burning Bright!

→ 4 CommentsTags:affidavit fraud·bac funding·foreclosure fraud·matt weidner·pinellas

county·second district court of appeals·sixth circuit·verizzo
Another Order Dismissing Foreclosure- Judge Jirotka
6th Circuit Pinellas County
March 4th, 2010 · Foreclosure

Attached here is the latest example of a Pinellas County Circuit Court judge applying the
law and sticking up for the rights of homeowners and consumers. The pattern in Pinellas
County, Florida is becoming clear…..the judges here “get it” and are not afraid to issue
correct legal decisions–despite the fact that the consequences for banks and their bad
behavior is going to be significant.

Read the decision and contact me with questions….these favorable decisions should be
cited early and often!

→ No CommentsTags:Foreclosure·George Jirotka·lost note·pinellas county

A Crystal Clear Explaination of Foreclosure Fraud-

Schenider v. Deutsche Bank Class Action
March 4th, 2010 · Foreclosure

Sometimes lawyer types talk all lawyerly when we’re trying to make the case that the
lenders don’t have the right to proceed against our clients…..that causes “normal” people
and even judges to glaze over with a “what?” or “duh?” expression on their face.

The class action lawsuit attached here, Schneider v. Duetsche Bank is a wonderful, easy
to understand explanation of what’s going major wrong in the reckless pursuit of
foreclosure cases across the country. Among the most damming allegations:

Widespread assignment fraud;

Widespread notary fraud;

Deceptive and unfair practices;

Widespread pleading fraud;

This suit is the tip of the iceberg and when discovery is conducted all the world will see
examples of the problems they plead. Any person named as a defendant in a suit by
Deutsche Bank should contact the firms involved for inclusion in this suit!

→ No CommentsTags:assignment fraud·capacity·deutsche bank·docx llc·foreclosure

fraud·Graham L. Newman Richard A. Harpootlian·Howard A. Janet Janet·Jenner &
Suggs·LLC·lost note·Lynn Ellen Szymoniak The Szymoniak Firm·matt
weidner·MERS·P.A·securitized trust·usbank

Florida Second DCA Reverses Summary Judgment in

Foreclosure
March 3rd, 2010 · Foreclosure

Apparently the Second District Court of Appeals is serious about enforcing and applying
the law. Attached here is a reversal of summary judgment that a Manatee County Court
entered. The issues warranting appeal were the failure of the Plaintiff to provide the
documents that supported the Summary Judgment more than 20 days before the hearing,
and the inconsistency between the pleadings and the documents.

It’s fantastic to see the Appellate courts applying the law….this is trickling down and
soon summary judgment will be the exception rather than the rule!

→ 2 CommentsTags:foreclosure sarasota·matt weidner·verizzo v. Bank of New York

Fantastic Explanation of MERS- More Judicial Cracks

Appear!
March 2nd, 2010 · Foreclosure

As a homeowner begins research into the lending and foreclosure crisis, there will be
many unfamiliar terms, names and companies that come to their attention. Chief among
these will be MERS.

MERS is the acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. It is a national

electronic registration and tracking system that tracks the beneficial ownership interests
and servicing rights in mortgage loans. The MERS website says:

“MERS is an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and
servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance
industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading
residential and commercial mortgage loans. “

In simple language, MERS is an on-line computer software program for tracking

ownership.

MERS was conceived in the early 1990’s by numerous lenders and other entities. Chief
among the entities were Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and a
host of other such entities. The stated purpose was that the creation of MERS would lead
to “consumers paying less” for mortgage loans. Obviously, that did not happen.
This article will attempt to explain MERS in very general detail. It will cover a few issues
related to MERS and foreclosure, in order to introduce the reader to the issues of MERS.
It is not meant to be a complete discussion of MERS, nor of the legal complexities
regarding the arguments for and against MERS. For a more in depth reading of MERS
and findings coming out of courts, it is recommended that the reader look at Hawkins,
Case No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR (Bankr. Nev. 3/31/2009) (Bankr. Nev., 2009) . It gives
a good reading of the issues related to MERS, at least for that particular case. Though in
Nevada, it is relevant for California.

(Please note. I am not an attorney and am not giving legal advice. I am just reporting
arguments being made against MERS, and also certain case law and applicable statutes in
California.

The MERS Process

Traditionally, when a loan was executed, the beneficiary of the loan on the Deed of Trust
was the lender. Once the loan was funded, the Deed of Trust and the Note would be
recorded with the local County Recorder’s office. The recording of the Deed and the
Note created a Public Record of the transaction. All future Assignments of the Notes and
Deed of Trust were expected to be recorded as ownership changes occurred. The
recording of the Assignments created a “Perfected Chain of Title” of ownership of the
Note and the Deed of Trust. This allowed interested or affected parties to be able to view
the lien holders and if necessary, be able to contact the parties. The recording of the
document also set the “priority” of the lien. The priority of the lien would be dependent
upon the date that the recording took place. For example, a lien recorded on Jan 1, 2007
for $20,000 would be the first mortgage, and a lien recorded on Jan 2, 2007, for
$1,500,000 would be a second mortgage, even though it was a higher amount.

Recordings of the document also determined who had the “beneficial interest” in the
Note. An interested party simple looked at the Assignments, and knew who held the Note
and who was the legal party of beneficial interest.

(For traditional lending prior to Securitization, the original Deed recording was usually
the only recorded document in the Chain of Title. That is because banks kept the loans,
and did not sell the loan, hence, only the original recording being present in the banks
name.

The advent of Securitization, especially through “Private Investors” and not Fannie Mae
or Freddie Mac, involved an entirely new process in mortgage lending. With
Securitization, the Notes and Deeds were sold once, twice, three times or more. Using the
traditional model would involve recording new Assignments of the Deed and Note as
each transfer of the Note or Deed of Trust occurred. Obviously, this required time and
money for each recording.

(The selling or transferring of the Note is not to be confused with the selling of Servicing
Rights, which is simply the right to collect payments on the Note, and keep a small
portion of the payment for Servicing Fees. Usually, when a homeowner states that their
loan was sold, they are referring to Servicing Rights.)

The creation of MERS changed the process. Instead of the lender being the Beneficiary
on the Deed of Trust, MERS was now named as either the “Beneficiary” or the “Nominee
for the Beneficiary” on the Deed of Trust. The concept was that with MERS assuming
this role, there would be no need for Assignments of the Deed of Trust, since MERS
would be given the “power of sale” through the Deed of Trust.

The naming of MERS as the Beneficiary meant that certain other procedures had to
change. This was a result of the Note actually being made out to the lender, and not to
MERS. Before explaining this change, it would be wise to explain the Securitization
process.

Securitizing a Loan
Securitizing a loan is the process of selling a loan to Wall Street and private investors. It
is a method with many issues to be considered, especially tax issues, which is beyond the
purview of this article. The methodology of securitizing a loan generally followed these
steps:

• A Wall Street firm would approach other entities about issuing a “Series of
Bonds” for sell to investors and would come to an agreement. In other words, the
Wall Street firm “pre-sold” the bonds.
• The Wall Street firm would approach a lender and usually offer them a
Warehouse Line of Credit. This credit would be used to fund the loans. The
Warehouse Line would include the initial Pooling & Servicing Agreement
Guidelines and the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement. These documents
outlined the procedures for creation of the loans and the administering of the
loans prior to, and after, the sale of the loans to Wall Street.
• The Lender, with the guidelines, essentially went out and found “buyers” for the
loans, people who fit the general characteristics of the Purchase Agreement,.
(Guidelines were very general and most people could qualify.” The Lender would
execute the loan and fund it, collecting payments until there were enough loans
funded to sell to the Wall Street firm who could then issue the bonds.
• Once the necessary loans were funded, the lender would then sell the loans to the
“Sponsor”, usually the Wall Street firm. At this point, the loans are separated into
“tranches” of loans, where they are then turned into bonds. Then, they went to the
“Depositor”, usually either the Wall Street firm or back to the lender through as
separate entity, and then they would be sold to the “Issuing Entity” which would
be the created entity for the selling of the bonds. Finally, the bonds would be sold,
with a Trustee appointed to ensure that the bondholders received their monthly
payments.

As can be seen, each Securitized Loan has had the ownership of the loan transferred two
to three times minimum, and without Assignments executed for each transfer.
(Note: This is a VERY simplified version of the process, but it gives the general idea.
Depending upon the lender, it could change to some degree, especially if Fannie Mae
bought the loans. The purpose of such a convoluted process was so that the entities
selling the bonds could become a “bankruptcy remote” vehicle, protecting lenders and
Wall Street from harm, and also creating a “Tax Favorable” investment entity known as
an REIMC. An explanation of this process would be cumbersome at this time.)

New Procedures
As mentioned previously, Securitization and MERS required many changes in
established practices. These practices were not and have not been codified, so they are
major points of contention today. I will only cover a few important issues which are
being fought out in the courts today.

One of the first issues to be addressed was how MERS might foreclose on a property.
This was “solved” through an “unusual” practice.

• MERS has only 44 employees. They are all “overhead”, administrative or legal
personnel. How could they handle the load of foreclosures, Assignments, etc to be
expected of a company with their duties and obligations?When a lender, title
company, foreclosure company or other firm signed up to become a member of
MERS, one or more of their people were designated as “Corporate Officers” of
MERS and given the title of either Assistant Secretary or Vice President. These
personnel were not employed by MERS, nor received income from MERS. They
werebeen named “Officers” solely for the purpose of signing foreclosure and
other legal documents in the name of MERS. (Apparently, there are some
agreements which “authorize” these people to act in an Agency manner for
MERS.)

This “solved” the issue of not having enough personnel to conduct necessary actions. It
would be the Servicers, Trustees and Title Companies conducting the day-to-day
operations needed for MERS to function.

As well, it was thought that this would provide MERS and their “Corporate Officers”
with the “legal standing” to foreclose.

However, this brought up another issue that now needed addressing:

• When a Note is transferred, it must be endorsed and signed, in the manner of a

person signing his paycheck over to another party. Customary procedure was to
endorse it as “Pay to the Order of” and the name of the party taking the Note and
then signed by the endorsing party. With a new party holding the Note, there
would now need to be an Assignment of the Debt. This could not work if MERS
was to be the foreclosing party.
Once a name is placed into the endorsement of the Note, then that person has the
beneficial interest in the Note. Any attempt by MERS to foreclose in the MERS name
would result in a challenge to the foreclosure since the Note was owned by “ABC” and
MERS was the “Beneficiary”. MERS would not have the legal standing to foreclose,
since only the “person of interest” would have such authority. So, it was decided that the
Note would be endorsed “in blank”, which effectively made the Note a “Bearer Bond”,
and anyone holding the Note would have the “legal standing” to enforce the Note under
Uniform Commercial Code. This would also suggest that Assignments would not be
necessary.

MERS has recognized the Note Endorsement problem and on their website, stated that
they could be the foreclosing party only if the Note was endorsed in blank. If it was
endorsed to another party, then that party would be the foreclosing party.

As a result, most Notes are endorsed in blank, which purportedly allows MERS to be the
foreclosing party. However, CA Civil Code 2932.5 has a completely different say in the
matter. It requires that the Assignment of the Debt be executed.

• CA Civil Code 2932.5 – Assignment“Where a power to sell real property is

given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure
the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person
who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the
instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment
is duly acknowledged and recorded.”

As is readily apparent, the above statute would suggest that Assignment is a requirement
for enforcing foreclosure.

The question now becomes as to whether a Note Endorsed in Blank and transferred to
different entities as indicated previously does allow for foreclosure. If MERS is the
foreclosing authority but has no entitlement to payment of the money, how could they
foreclose? This is especially true if the true beneficiary is not known. Why do I raise
the question of who the true beneficiary is? Again, from the MERS website……..

• “On MERS loans, MERS will show as the beneficiary of record. Foreclosures
should be commenced in the name of MERS. To effectuate this process, MERS
has allowed each servicer to choose a select number of its own employees to act
as officers for MERS. Through this process, appropriate documents may be
executed at the servicer’s site on behalf of MERS by the same servicing employee
that signs foreclosure documents for non-MERS loans.Until the time of sale, the
foreclosure is handled in same manner as non-MERS foreclosures. At the time of
sale, if the property reverts, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale will follow a different
procedure. Since MERS acts as nominee for the true beneficiary, it is important
that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale be made in the name of the true beneficiary
and not MERS. Your title company or MERS officer can easily determine the
 true beneficiary. Title companies have indicated that they will insure subsequent
title when these procedures are followed.”

There, you have it. Direct from the MERS website. They admit that they name people to
sign documents in the name of MERS. Often, these are Title Company employees or
others that have no knowledge of the actual loan and whether it is in default or not.

There, you have it. Direct from the MERS website. They admit that they name people to
sign documents in the name of MERS. Often, these are Title Company employees or
others that have no knowledge of the actual loan and whether it is in default or not.

Even worse, MERS admits that they are not the true beneficiary of the loan. In fact, it is
likely that MERS has no knowledge of the true beneficiary of the loan for whom they are
representing in an “Agency” relationship. They admit to this when they say “Your title
company or MERS officer can easily determine the true beneficiary.

To further reinforce that MERS is not the true beneficiary of the loan, one need only look
at the following Nevada Bankruptcy case, Hawkins, Case No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR
(Bankr.Nev. 3/31/2009) (Bankr.Nev., 2009) – “A “beneficiary” is defined as “one
designated to benefit from an appointment, disposition, or assignment . . . or to
receive something as a result of a legal arrangement or instrument.” BLACK’S
LAW DICTIONARY 165 (8th ed. 2004). But it is obvious from the MERS’ “Terms
and Conditions” that MERS is not a beneficiary as it has no rights whatsoever to
any payments, to any servicing rights, or to any of the properties secured by the
loans. To reverse an old adage, if it doesn’t walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and
quack like a duck, then it’s not a duck.”

If one accepts the above ruling, which MERS does not agree with, MERS would not have
the ability to foreclose on a property for lack of being a true Beneficiary. This leads us
back to the MERS as “Nominee for the Beneficiary” and foreclosing as Agent for the
Beneficiary. There may be pitfalls with this argument.

• When the initial Deed of Trust is made out in the name of MERS as Nominee for
the Beneficiary and the Note is made to AB Lender, there should be no issues
with MERS acting as an Agent for AB Lender. Hawkins even recognizes this as
fact.
• The issue does arise when the Note transfers possession. Though the Deed of
Trust states “beneficiary and/or successors”, the question can arise as to who the
successor is, and whether Agency is any longer in effect. MERS makes the
argument that the successor Trustee is a MERS member and therefore Agency is
still effective, and there does appear to be merit to the argument on the face of
it.The original Note Holder, AB Lender, no longer holds the note, nor is entitled
to payment. Therefore, that Agency relationship is terminated. However, the Note
is endorsed in blank, and no Assignment has been made to any other entity, so
who is the true beneficiary? And without the Assignment of the Note, is the
Agency relationship intact?
Uniform Commercial Code may address this issue, however, it can be argued in the
negative:

Uniform Commercial Code§ 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE

INSTRUMENT.

“Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a
non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person
not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to
Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument
even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession
of the instrument.

Are you confused yet? I am. Most attorneys are. And most courts are…….

Separation of the Note and the Deed

There is one more issue that I will now address. That is the separation of the Note and the
Deed of Trust. Again, case law is confused on this.

In the case of MERS, the Note and the Deed of Trust are held by separate entities. This
can pose a unique problem dependent upon the court. There are many court rulings based
upon the following:

“The Deed of Trust is a mere incident of the debt it secures and an assignment of the
debt carries with it the security instrument. Therefore, a Deed Of Trust is
inseparable from the debt and always abides with the debt. It has no market or
ascertainable value apart from the obligation it secures.

A Deed of Trust has no assignable quality independent of the debt, it may not be
assigned or transferred apart from the debt, and an attempt to assign the Deed Of
Trust without a transfer of the debt is without effect. “

This very “simple” statement poses major issues. To easily understand, if the Deed of
Trust and the Note are not together with the same entity, then there can be no
enforcement of the Note. The Deed of Trust enforces the Note. It provides the capability
for the lender to foreclose on a property. If the Deed is separate from the Note, then
enforcement, i.e. foreclosure cannot occur. The following ruling summarizes this nicely.

In Saxon vs Hillery, CA, Dec 2008, Contra Costa County Superior Court, an action by
Saxon to foreclose on a property by lawsuit was dismissed due to lack of legal standing.
This was because the Note and the Deed of Trust were “owned” by separate entities. The
Court ruled that when the Note and Deed of Trust were separated, the enforceability of
the Note was negated until rejoined. ( Note: LFI did the audit for this loan.)
All Saxon could do on this loan would be to rescind the foreclosure, reunite the Deed and
the Note by Assignment and then foreclose again.

Other examples of this is that in the past month, LFI has done audits whereby it was
determined that Notary Fraud was present with regard to the signing of the Deed of Trust.
This immediately made the Deed of Trust void, and as a result, the Note was then
“Unsecured Debt”, and the property was unable to be foreclosed upon. There is even
question as to if the Note is void as well.

As I have attempted to show, the whole concept of MERS is fraught with controversy and
questions. Certainly, at the very least, MERS actions pose legal issues that are still being
addressed each and every day. As to where these actions will ultimate lead, it is
anybody’s guess. With some courts, the court sides with the lender, and others side with
the homeowner. However, there does appear to be a trend developing that suggests, at
least in Bankruptcy Courts, MERS is losing support.

I would like to again make note of the fact that this is simply a basic primer on MERS
and the issues surrounding it. To fully cover MERS, I could easily write 100 pages,
quoting statutes, case law and legal theories regarding how to defend against MERS..
However, I will save that for the attorneys, and someday, when I have time to write a
book on the battles occurring daily in the courts.

Update:
As I wrote this article, a case pending on appeal in Kansas was finally decided. This case,
Landmark vs Kesler, Milliennia, MERS, Sovereign Bank and others was finally decided.
It offered some interesting conclusions, and reinforces what I had written about in the
above article.

I must stress that this case is a guide only. It was in Kansas, and draws from case law in
many different states. What is important is that with any Court, case law within the
jurisdiction of the Court must be considered first in arguments. If such case law for
arguments does not exist, then case law from other jurisdictions can be used to support
the arguments.

What this case does do is provide guidelines for arguing in other venues. I do find the
case very interesting in that it does highlight the general issues that I addressed above. It
supports Haskins very nicely.

It should be noted that various articles have already been written, some of which promote
the idea that it will mean free homes for millions of people. This is not likely for various
reasons. However, it does offer interesting possibilities regarding certain lawsuits that I
am currently assisting with. Of course, LFI has anticipated this occurring and is currently
assisting attorneys in refining the argument.
This case is about a foreclosure that had occurred. The lender is trying to overturn a
default judgement in favor of another lender. MERS has sided with that lender. As such,
the differences in this case could weigh heavy in future rulings. I will just cite relevant
portions without going into great detail, which would take a day to write. My comments
follow each quote from the ruling.

“While this is a matter of first impression in Kansas, other jurisdictions have issued
opinions on similar and related issues, and, while we do not consider those opinions
binding in the current litigation, we find them to be useful guideposts in our analysis of
the issues before us.”

This supports my contention that this is only useful in other jurisdictions to argue, but
jurisdictional case law takes precedence in each area. Therefore, arguments must be made
that can overturn such case law.

“Black’s Law Dictionary defines a nominee as “[a] person designated to act in place of
another, usu. in a very limited way” and as “[a] party who holds bare legal title for the
benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others.” Black’s
Law Dictionary 1076 (8th ed. 2004). This definition suggests that a nominee possesses
few or no legally enforceable rights beyond those of a principal whom the nominee
serves……..The legal status of a nominee, then, depends on the context of the
relationship of the nominee to its principal. Various courts have interpreted the
relationship of MERS and the lender as an agency relationship.”

This is the essence of the Agency Relationship that I presented above.

“LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Lamy, 2006 WL 2251721, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. 2006)
(unpublished opinion) (”A nominee of the owner of a note and mortgage may not
effectively assign the note and mortgage to another for want of an ownership interest in
said note and mortgage by the nominee.”)”

This case, if used and upheld in California, could portend great consequences for all
homeowners.

The law generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from a lender: a
mortgagee is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage creditor, or lender.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 1034 (8th ed. 2004). By statute, assignment of the mortgage
carries with it the assignment of the debt. K.S.A. 58-2323. Although MERS asserts that,
under some situations, the mortgage document purports to give it the same rights as the
lender, the document consistently refers only to rights of the lender, including rights to
receive notice of litigation, to collect payments, and to enforce the debt obligation. The
document consistently limits MERS to acting “solely” as the nominee of the lender.

Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the
deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may
become unenforceable.
“The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it
impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is
the agent of the holder of the note. [Citation omitted.] Without the agency relationship,
the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The
person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the
holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. [Citation omitted.]
The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed
of trust.” Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Mo. App. 2009).

“MERS never held the promissory note, thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen
separate from the note had no force.” 284 S.W.3d at 624; see also In re Wilhelm, 407
B.R. 392 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009) (standard mortgage note language does not expressly
or implicitly authorize MERS to transfer the note); In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 517
(Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) (”[I]f FHM has transferred the note, MERS is no longer an
authorized agent of the holder unless it has a separate agency contract with the new
undisclosed principal. MERS presents no evidence as to who owns the note, or of any
authorization to act on behalf of the present owner.”); Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. v.
Hillery, 2008 WL 5170180 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (”[F]or there to be a
valid assignment, there must be more than just assignment of the deed alone; the note
must also be assigned. . . . MERS purportedly assigned both the deed of trust and the
promissory note. . . . However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that MERS
either held the promissory note or was given the authority . . . to assign the note.”).

This identifies the real issue, as I mentioned previously. The Note and the Deed were
separated, so without Assignments uniting them, there can be no foreclosure.

What stake in the outcome of an independent action for foreclosure could MERS have? It
did not lend the money to Kesler or to anyone else involved in this case. Neither Kesler
nor anyone else involved in the case was required by statute or contract to pay money to
MERS on the mortgage. See Sheridan, ___ B.R. at ___ (”MERS is not an economic
‘beneficiary’ under the Deed of Trust. It is owed and will collect no money from Debtors
under the Note, nor will it realize the value of the Property through foreclosure of the
Deed of Trust in the event the Note is not paid.”). If MERS is only the mortgagee, without
ownership of the mortgage instrument, it does not have an enforceable right. See Vargas,
396 B.R. 517 (”[w]hile the note is ‘essential,’ the mortgage is only ‘an incident’ to the
note” [quoting Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 275, 21 L. Ed 313
(1872)]).

This reinforces the Hawkins argument that without a “Beneficial Interest”, there is no
ability to enforce the note.

This ruling in Kansas comes down to several basic issues. These are that:

• MERS had no Beneficial Interest in the Note, therefore, they could not be a Party
of Interest and had no authority in the case.
 • MERS and the Agency Relationship did not exist with the Assignment of the
Note without a new Agency Agreement.
• The Note and the Deed of Trust were separated, therefore, the Note could not be
enforced by the Deed of Trust.
• MERS did not have a power to assign the Note.

This ruling, along with Hawkins, can offer the attorney a practical roadmap on how to
attack MERS. It should not be taken for granted that this will apply in all states
immediately, nor that this will be easy. Jurisdictional Case Law will certainly have to be
fought out and overcome. Additionally, I do expect further appeals of this case, especially
with other parties joining in to side with MERS because of the practical implications of
this ruling.

About the Author

Patrick Pulatie is the CEO for Loan Fraud Investigations (LFI). LFI is a
Forensic/Predatory Lending Audit company in Antioch CA, and has been doing
homeowner audits since Nov 07. LFI works daily with Attorneys throughout California,
assisting homeowners in the fight to save their homes. He and Attorneys are constantly
developing new strategies to counter foreclosure efforts by lenders.

→ No CommentsTags:Case No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR (Bankr.Nev.

3/31/2009)·Hawkins·LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Lamy·loan fraud investigations·matt
weidner·MERS·patrick pulatie·Saxon vs Hillery

Assignments of Mortgage and the Equitable

Transfer/Liar’s Transfer- JP Morgan v. New
Millenial
March 1st, 2010 · Foreclosure

701.02 Assignment not effectual against creditors unless

recorded and indicated in title of document; applicability.–

(1) An assignment of a mortgage upon real property or of any interest

therein, is not good or effectual in law or equity, against creditors or
subsequent purchasers, for a valuable consideration, and without
notice, unless the assignment is contained in a document that, in its
title, indicates an assignment of mortgage and is recorded according to
law.

(2) This section also applies to assignments of mortgages resulting

from transfers of all or any part or parts of the debt, note or notes
secured by mortgage, and none of same is effectual in law or in equity
against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable
consideration without notice, unless a duly executed assignment be
recorded according to law.

(3) Any assignment of a mortgage, duly executed and recorded

according to law, purporting to assign the principal of the mortgage
debt or the unpaid balance of such principal, shall, as against
subsequent purchasers and creditors for value and without notice, be
held and deemed to assign any and all accrued and unpaid interest
secured by such mortgage, unless such interest is specifically and
affirmatively reserved in such an assignment by the assignor, and a
reservation of such interest or any part thereof may not be implied.

The foregoing was quoted directly from Florida Statutes, found here.
Pinellas Judge Douglas Baird had a case in front of him earlier last year
called JP MORGAN CHASE v New Millenneal which is a must read case
for anyone interested in foreclosure. In JP a title company did a title
search and discovered two mortgages against the property that were
recorded in the name of AMsouth Bank. The title company contacted
Amsouth to find out how much was required to pay the mortgages off
and received back written confirmation that said, “pd Off”. Great,
mortgages cleared…ready to close….only not so fast.
Turns out the mortgages had been assigned to a secondary purchaser, JP Morgan…
Amsouth was paid off, but the JP Morgan was still owed the mortgages. If JP Morgan
had recorded assignments of mortgage the title company could have figured that out and
gotten the payoff, but JP violated the statute and failed to record the assignment…they
violated Florida Statutes 701.02 so their penalty is they lose right? Judge Baird correctly
though so, but he was reversed by the Second DCA. In a tortured decision, the Appellate
Court reasoned that the subsequent purchasers…even though they relied upon the
documents that were recorded in public records, could not rely on Florida’s Notice
Recording Statute.

JP Morgan was a watershed case, but unfortunately the Second DCA opinion sent it in
the wrong direction. Given the tortured reasoning and the lack of consideration for the
practical realities and functioning of closing/title operations, the decision in my mind just
represents the recognition on the court’s part that if they strictly enforced the law, the
Baird’s correct initial decision would have been a catastrophe for real estate/lenders and
title companies and the whole MERS system.

The catastrophe is still coming and Judge Baird’s decision will be cited when the larger
catastrophe finally comes, but for the short term, the MERS fiction and secrets behind the
curtain continue to function. It is important to know and cite this opinion, because it
shows our judge’s exactly what is going wrong with this MERS shadow system…and
will help them understand problems with decisions they are issuing now.
One questions on “equitable transfers” of mortgages…

Why aren’t the county tax collectors figuring out a way to collect tax on “equitable
transfers” of mortgages? I mean if courts now find that equitable transfers have the same
effect as honest transfers, shouldn’t the recording tax be collected on the liar’s transfer?

→ No CommentsTags:701.02·assignemnt of mortage·douglas baird·Florida Statute

701.01·Jp morgan v. new millennieal·matt weidner

MERS is Cracking
March 1st, 2010 · Foreclosure

From the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. website comes the following
announcement that I first read about on Foreclosure Hamlet:
POLICY BULLETIN – Number 2010-1
To: All MERS Members February 17, 2010
Starting April 19, 2010, all new Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)
Certifying
Officers will be required to complete a certification process before being authorized to
execute
documents as a MERS Certifying Officer.
The MERS Project Manager for each Member will be responsible for overseeing the
completion of
this process for each proposed Certifying Officer, and no Corporate Resolution will be
approved
until this process has been completed by every proposed Certifying Officer.
Members who already have a MERS Corporate Resolution in place will be contacted in
phases to
begin the certification process for the Certifying Officers listed on their Corporate
Resolution. This
transition will begin in April, and continue until all Members have completed their
certification. If
you request an update to your Corporate Resolution or Certifying Officers list during this
time, you
will need to complete the certification process to effect the update.
During the transition, existing Corporate Resolutions will remain in effect with no lapse
in signing
authority. We will provide more details about this transition closer to the implementation
date.
If you have any questions about the new process, please contact
merscertifyingofficer@mersinc.org.
I suspect that a big portion of the compliance process will be making sure they don’t tell
the truth in a deposition like Cheryl Sammons did (No I don’t read documents before I
sign them.) Clearly MERS is feeling concern about the way their business has been
conducted in the past. This also suggests there are deficiencies in the MERS process all
the way until April 19, 2010 that must be examined and shared with judges. Every
MERS assignment is a questionable one!

→ No CommentsTags:assignment fraud·assingment fraud·foreclosure

hamlet·MERS·mers policy bulletin number 2010-1

The Anti-MERS Mortgage Manifesto

February 28th, 2010 · Foreclosure

Greg Clark is a brilliant Clearwater, Florida attorney who has been a practicing title
attorney for 30 years. For hundreds of years, a title attorney’s job was to examine all of
the records that related to a property and then issue an attorney’s opinion of title or title
insurance policy confirming that if his client purchased the property or lent money
against the property, they were doing so free of any claims by another other person or
party who might claim an interest in the property. I say that the job “used to be” because
after the development of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System or MERS, no
attorney can tell you what other party might claim an interest in the property because that
information is locked away deep inside a private company…MERS. A mortgage is
recorded in the county public records, but who owns it and who may have any rights to
that mortgage is a closely held secret.

Kessler, Azize, New Millennial, BAC Funding The Cases That Crack MERS

A good example of what goes wrong in the secret system is a case called JP Morgan v.
New Millennial, a Pinellas County case that was decided correctly by Judge Douglas
Baird, who was unfortunately reversed by the Second District Court of Appeal. I’m
going to write a full post on this case later, but it is an important case to know and
understand so I post the entire case here. Support for Greg’s important argument is found
in a Kansas Supreme Court case, Kessler v. Landmark, which is found here. A
fascinating thing about the Kessler opinion out of way far away Kansas is that it cites
another Pinellas County Case, Azize v. MERS, found here. Now here’s what’s
fascinating about the Azize opinion. MERS “won” that case…the Second DCA found
that they could proceed with the foreclosure cases they had filed, but even though they
“won” the case, neither MERS nor lenders cite that case or want courts to pay attention to
that case. The reason why is found in footnote number 2:

Although the complaint does not allege how or why MERS came to be the owner
and holder of the note, the trial court’s dismissal wasnot based on this deficit.Since
the trial court did not base its ruling on this issue,we offer no opinion as to whether
the complaint fails to
properly plead a cause of action without this information being alleged.

By now everyone’s read the BAC Funding case, so I won’t waste time with the opinion,
what I will share is the appellate brief that most people haven’t read. The brief answers
many of the questions that are not adequately explained in the Order, and the brief is the
important, “secret” information…the “secret” brief can be found here. This brief should
be provided to every judge who hears foreclosure cases to help them apply the BAC
opinion to cases in their courtroom that match the facts described in the BAC brief.

What do we know about secrets when they relate to public policy? What place do
secrets have in our of public court systems?

Secrets are bad news in almost every context, but they’re especially bad when it comes to
matters of public policy and our court systems. So anyway, Greg Clark makes a brilliant
argument that the MERS system is a total violation of real property laws that have existed
for literally hundreds of years and that the consequences of this system that violates the
law are going to be catastrophic. Greg posted a comment to my recent questions about
the MERS system….I struggled with his argument at first, but as he explains below, the
problem is not all that complex and the fundamental violations of law are pretty clear:

Let me give you the short answer to your question of “why the MERS assignments”, if
Johns Gillian and its progeny applies: IT DOESN’T and the higher ups, who didn’t want
to spend $10.50 (to our clerks of court) to do just one extra assignment, know it.

You see, the original introduction of MERS was post closing, that is, the note and
mortgage were, at inception, put into the name of the original lender so you had
compliance with the rule of common law, of unity of title of the note and mortgage into
one holder. It was after that that the unenforceable attempt at splitting the note from the
mortgage, by assignment, occurred, which assignment Florida law holds as a nullity (see
Vance, Sobel, etc.).

So the assignment being invalid simply means that you go back “revert’ to the original
transaction which was clean and unified in one holder, thus John/Gillian would have
applied.

But now it doesn’t because of that extra $10.50 the lenders and mers wanted to pocket.
Almost immediately after they started the post closing assignments lenders saw that
$10.50 expense and decided to instead split the note and mortgage at the closing, AT
INCEPTION, and, in essence, keep the money for themselves (ah, multiplied by 50 or 60
million loans that works out to 5 or 6 billion dollars if my math is right). Problem is that
Florida law, which follows the common law of almost every state in the union states that
bifurcation of the mortgage from the note renders the mortgage unenforceable, a nullity,
was ignored.

This basic principal against note/mortgage splitting was reiterated in the U.S. Supreme
court in the Carpenter case a long time ago, even before Johns/Gillian. To date their
exists no statutory or case law abrogating this fundamental concept of property law,
which we inherited from English common law, unmodified.

MERS and the foreclosing lender proxies simply hoped (and still hope) they can
moonwalk away from the scene of this title failure with these invalid assignments hoping
no one notices the fact that an assignment can rise no higher in dignity that the failure of
title upon which it is based.

Whats more, even poetic, is that the “MERS mortgage” (even if the court wants to ignore
this fundamental failure of title at inception) contains no right, in the grant of the
mortgage, allowing MERS to assign its duties as NOMINEE or to transfer or otherwise
assign the mortgage.

They have painted themselves into a legal corner.

I’ve been practicing dirt law for some 30 years, writing title, crafting grant language, and
chaining ownership, etc. and I understand that most if not all judges were former
litigators who simply have no knowledge beyond their law school years in this
subcategory of transactional practice and procedure, other than rubber stamping SJs
presuming the plaintiffs bar will not lead them into error. (see and read the recent BAC
Funding case out of our 2d DCA)

Its the same reason most people sit down and sign closing papers without thinking or
reading them: because we have (or had) a solid and fair system or real property law in
place for nearly a thousand years behind it each and every one of those deals.

It is now in great doubt whether it is fair or solid or even legal, with the disabling
injection of the MERS mortgage and invisible lender lien holder now clouding our record
titles.

Anyhow, what mystifies me most is why they took such a big chance. You would have
thought that they would have at least tried to adopt nationwide recording/title law
changes to allow the MERS mortgage splitting concept. I mean, they undertook the UCC
article 9 changes which passed the 50 states to allow the securitization of debt, but they
forgot to include the MERS configuration into the changes. They just assumed the real
estate mortgage would simply tag along like a caboose into article nine. They rolled the
bones that they could circumvent each states legislature and do a private deal with
MERS. They likely feared the states would object to the degradation of their record title
statutes and the evisceration of their public recording systems, not to mention the loss of
recording fee revenue.

MERS, by the way is a privately owned company funded and financed by the big box
lenders and, guess who else? The major title insurance companies and ALTA (American
Land Title Association). This conflict of interest relationship does not allow for the
independent accounting or transparency the public should have when it comes to the
biggest investment of our lives. A guy like me who wants to investigate title to make sure
my client gets a clean and clear deed or new mortgage can’t determine by relying on the
public title records who owns the old mortgage loan that needs to be paid off. We simply
run into the MERS strawman and have to hope they give us true and accurate info – if
they give us any info at all – as to who to payoff to free title.
MERS is not a government agency looking out for the interests of the public. MERS is a
profit driven closely held corporation. They openly seek to privatize all of our public
records as they relate to real estate mortgages. Absolute power through control of
information.

Absolute power, vested in the hands of private corporate interests.

Hardly egalitarian in a free democracy and open economy.

And this is why note/mortgage splitting, something that is already in derogation of our
common law, should not be allowed.

Its just bad business.

JEDTI

G.

http://www.gregorydclarklaw,com

→ 4 CommentsTags:azize v. MERS·bac funding v. us bank·douglas baird·foreclosure

fraud·greg clark·jp morgan v. new millenial·kessler v. landmark·matt
weidner·MERS·Mortgage Electronic Registration System·pinellas foreclosure

Judge’s Order Cancelling Foreclosure Sale- What if

This Wasn’t Caught? What if The Sale Went
Through?
February 27th, 2010 · Foreclosure

I attach here a copy of an Order signed by Judge Charles Roberts in Sarasota on February
26, 2010. Please take time to read it carefully. In it, the judge makes specific findings of
fact that the Plaintiff:

1. Failed to show it was entitled to foreclose;

2. Failed to show it was the holder of the note and mortgage;

3. Failed to establish any admissible evidence to show that it validly held the note
and mortgage.

Caught one Stinking Fish….How Many Got Away?

The fact that these major issues were caught is good. The problem is, how many tens of
thousands? tens of hundreds of thousands? millions? of judgments of foreclosure have
been signed across the country when the Plaintiff:1. Failed to show it was entitled to
foreclose 2. Failed to show it was the holder of the note and mortgage 3. Failed to
establish any admissible evidence to show that it validly held the note and mortgage.

I believe there are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of judgments entered
across the state (millions across the country?) where this is the case. I believe depositions
of key employees at document preparation mills and foreclosure mills is going to reveal
assembly line document fabrication which purports to give Plaintiffs a basis for
forecloure, when no proper evidentiary basis exists. At some point in time in the
foreclosure files that the mills have rushed through are going to be carefully examined..if
not by defense attorneys what about junior lienholders, certificate holders, bondholders,
investment firms….when that happens now we’re talking major problems.

What happens when the assignments of mortgage were improper/fraudulent on their

face?

What happens when the note and mortgage and allegations contained within the
pleadings are all inconsistent, yet Final Judgment was entered based on “facts” that are of
record that do not support that judgment?

And now my final question of the post….WHY ARE PLAINTIFF’S

FIRMS/LENDERS BOTHERING TO GET ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGES
AT ALL? If Johns v. Gillian and the law as it exists is that lenders do not need an
assignment of mortgage, why bother with word processing hundreds of thousands of
assignments of mortgages in law firms and document mills all across the country? In
many cases, lenders are coming to the table with original notes. Ignore for the moment
how they got them and what entity purports to hold them. Ignore for the moment that the
endorsements/allonges are sloppy/inconsistent/questionable on their face. Even if a
proper lender couldn’t come up with a note, they could still re-establish the note through
a copy and there would be no need whatsoever (if the whole “mortgage is but an incident
to the debt” argument remains valid) to have an assignment of mortgage.

Why are document mills and foreclosure mills working weekends and around the
clock to spit out assignments that purport to transfer mortgages out of MERS and
other lenders/entities and into other entities that we no nothing about?

How are we allowing tens of hundreds of millions of dollars to be transferred into

things like “The IXIS 2006 Certificateholder, Asset Backed Trust”?

Do judges/courts have any idea who these entities are? (I’ll answer that one, the
answer is no.)

Why are courts across the country transferring bajillions of dollars into alphabet
soup entities that no one has any idea who controls or where they are located or
what rules apply?
Why Are Courts in Florida Continuing to Rely on Legal Reasoning That Existed in
1938?

Remember that the Johns v. Gillian “mortgage is but an incident to the debt” reasoning
applied in tiny little town where parol documentation and other evidence existed that
supported the foreclosing lender’s claim to ownership of both the note and the mortgage.
Remember Johns v. Gillian is a 1938 case! The judge probably knew everyone in his
courtroom (he probably knew the lawyers since they were snot nosed kids running
around town kicking cans. He probably walked past or rode a horse past the property in
question each day. And remember the Johns reasoning applied decades before MERS
was even conceived of….Johns simply cannot stand true in the MERS environment…
here is Greg Clark’s splitting/Kessler v. Landmark reasoning….Johns only applies when
the mortgage and note were not separated right from the very beginning.…How can the
Johns reasoning apply in the MERS environment?

Consider all the cases, including WM Specialty v. Saloman and Chemical Residential v.
Rector….assignments were of record in those cases and other evidence existed to support
claims of ownership. There is almost no additional evidence of ownership or interest in
the cases that are being shoved through courts other than a few questionable
documents…..but again the burning question….

Why The Assignments of Mortgage?

→ 2 CommentsTags:april charney·bac funding v. us bank·bank of america·florida

foreclosure·foreclosure fraud·greg clark·hamp·johns v. gillian·kessler v. landmark·matt
weidner·MERS·Mortgage Electronic Registration System·The Florida Consumer
Protection and Homeowner Credit Rehabilitation Act

Dismissals of Cases Based on Fl.R.Civ.P. 1.070(j)

February 26th, 2010 · Foreclosure

Across the State of Florida, foreclosure cases are filed and then for a variety of reasons,
those cases are not actively pursued by the Plaintiff or the attorneys that filed the case.
There are any number of reasons why a Plaintiff may choose not to pursue a case, or not
be able to pursue a case, like when a pesky borrower or defense attorney or judge asks the
Plaintiff to produce some shred of evidence that they have the right to file the lawsuit in
the first place or the parties may have reached a settlement and agreed not to proceed
with the case.

Whatever the case may be, our courts need a mechanism to ensure these “stale” cases
don’t go just languishing around with nobody doing anything. That mechanism is a nifty
little rule called Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.070. Now anytime you want to
check out a Rule of Civil Procedure for Florida Courts, don’t mess around with a
book,check out the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Online. It’s a nifty site because it has
not only the Rules, but cases and Orders both from appellate and circuit courts. So back
our issue with Rule 1.070…copied from our nifty new site is the text of the rule:

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

1.070 Process
(j) Summons; Time Limit. If service of the initial process and initial pleading is not
made upon a defendant within 120 days after filing of the initial pleading directed to that
defendant the court, on its own initiative after notice or on motion, shall 1)direct that
service be effected within a specified time or shall 2)dismiss the action without
prejudice or 3)drop that defendant as a party; (emphasis added) provided that if the
plaintiff shows good cause or excusable neglect for the failure, the court shall extend the
time for service for an appropriate period. When a motion for leave to amend with the
attached proposed amended complaint is filed, the 120-day period for service of amended
complaints on the new party or parties shall begin upon the entry of an order granting
leave to amend. A dismissal under this subdivision shall not be considered a voluntary
dismissal or operate as an adjudication on the merits under rule 1.420(a)(1).

So if a Plaintiff chooses not to pursue a case,the court sends out a letter to the Plaintiff
and says, “Hey Plaintiff, if you don’t do something here, we’re going to dismiss your
case.” All the Plaintiff needs to do is file something, any old something, to prevent the
court from dismissing the case. If the Plaintiff doesn’t file something, the Rule provides
the court with three options….as indicated above.

Attached here is a Motion where I describe clearly the three options that are available to
the court and the case law that supports each option. Give the motion a read, and the
cases to understand how the rule works in why.

Dropping Defendants, a Bad Decision for Courts To Make

Now in a foreclosure case, the third option, dropping the defendant as a party, is a
dangerous business because the court risks making a determination that no tenants exist
when tenants might in fact be living in the property. If the tenants are dropped and the
home is sold in foreclosure, their only notice the tenant might get would be the Writ of
Possession posted on the door or the lender kicking down the door and throwing their
property out on the street. This might not be such a risk were it not for the widespread
phenomena of “Sewer Service” or other improper conduct on the part of lenders and their
attorneys, but given the widespread knowledge of this practice, the proper option for the
court to select, (and the option that is clearly indicated on those Orders when the rule is
invoked) is to Order that the case is dismissed.

No harm, no foul, no risk of irreparable harm to innocent tenants, no violation of

their fundamental rights as is the case when the lender and their jack booted thugs
kicks down the tenants door and says, “Sorry you paid your rent to your landlord,
but he didn’t pay his mortgage and now you’re out on the street.”

Pages
o About
o Chapters 658 and 660 Florida Statutes and Foreclosures in Florida
o Foreclosure inPinellas- Short Sale Steals and Interesting Deals
o Mortgage Modification Madness- The Futility of Trying
o Mortgage Modification- HAMP is the Answer!
Archives
o March 2010 (7)
o February 2010 (38)
o January 2010 (45)
o December 2009 (39)
o November 2009 (23)
o October 2009 (16)
o September 2009 (8)
o August 2009 (15)
o July 2009 (13)
Recent Posts
o Warrant Issued For Arrest of Matthew Weidner In a Foreclosure Case
o Another Order Dismissing Foreclosure- Judge Jirotka 6th Circuit Pinellas
County
o A Crystal Clear Explaination of Foreclosure Fraud- Schenider v. Deutsche
Bank Class Action
o Florida Second DCA Reverses Summary Judgment in Foreclosure
o Fantastic Explanation of MERS- More Judicial Cracks Appear!
o Assignments of Mortgage and the Equitable Transfer/Liar’s Transfer- JP
Morgan v. New Millenial