Local Activist Speaks Out Against US Loan Auditors

[Steve]

Signs

What did the flatbed trailer sign read? I could only see customer and lawsuit. Glad to see you guys are still out there.

[ExContractor]

Law Suite

A Class Action Law Suite has been Filed against USLA And Us Legal...

http://static.cbslocal.com/station/kovr/docs/2010/7/foreclosuresuit.PDF

Former Customers File Class Action Lawsuit, And Claim False Advertising
Read Entire Class Action Complaint .pdf

http://cbs13.com/local/call.kurtis.us.2.1833285.html

[oaktown1]

Looking for fellow victims of USLA.

We were featured on a local tv station consumer help segment about usla. I need to find others that still have lawsuits pending against gmac that origniated with greenpoint. I am trying to get a class action case going. I will be in contact again with the attorney that filed one against usla, since they kind of go together. My case will have merit since JS didn't even include anything in the orginal case. I fired the attorney assigned to me by usla since he never checked the court house before the ud was filed and would have discovered Indymac bank is still listed as the lein holder and never filed a Notice of Lis Pendens or even a temporary restraining order, money for nothing I guess the 5 months I did pay for the so called legal service not to mention what both Jason Barnriter and Gabe Thomas said I will never forget "why throw away good money on a bad loan" and "don't pay your mortgage instead pay us to fight for you", the only one fighting here is my husband and I. Of course we won't let them get the best of us!!

[AyatollahGondola]

I have been looking into general cases that have been brought before the court on matters related to causes of action that have been suggested by USLA during their sales pitches and audits. My conclusion is that the judges are not having any of it. Case after case works its' way through the system and the plaintiff's causes have been religiously shot down before they even reach a trail date Here are examples of todays rulings, but you can find one's like these nearly every day:

2010-00080731-CU-OR
Francisco M. Magdaleno vs. Deutsche Bank National Trust Comp
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Abdallah, Mitchell L.
Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction is denied.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants wrongfully foreclosed on their home after
promising a loan modification. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, unfair
competition, predatory lending, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs'
complaint is unverified.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from reselling or
displacing plaintiffs from the subject property. Plaintiffs' request is denied as it is not
supported by any evidence. The only declaration in support of the motion is counsel's
declaration stating that he served the moving papers.
"A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a
verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in
the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor." CCP 527(a).
In the absence of any evidence to support the requested relief, plaintiffs have
not met their burden to establish any of the grounds for injunctive relief set forth in
CCP 526.
Plaintiffs' Reply argues that defendants' opposition fails to prove that plaintiffs
did not pay monies owed to defendants. However, the burden of proof is on the
Plaintiffs, not defendants.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC
Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required

2010-00071458-CU-OR
Sergey Manuylov vs. Bridge Real Estate Company, Inc.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Hearing on Demurrer
Pingel, John P.
Defendants Bank of America, BAC Home Loans Servicing LP; and ReconTrust
Company, N.A.s' Demurrer to the Complaint is ruled on as follows:
Plaintiffs allege that they obtained a loan from First Magnus that he could not
afford to repay. Plaintiffs allege the closing statement included an unearned and and
excessive Yield Spread Premium, and that the interest rate was higher than
previously represented to them. Defendant Bridge was the mortgage broker and First
Magnus was the original lender. Plaintiffs allege that Bridge did not verify the
plaintiffs' ability to repay the loan. Demurring parties were not the original lender or
mortgage broker but the alleged successor in interest. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs allege that the foreclosure statutes have not been complied
with regarding notice of the sale by the substituted trustee
1st cause of action Fraud, and 2nd cause of action Misrepresentation:
Sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action. The current allegations are insufficient to support equitable tolling of the
statute of limitations. Moreover, fraud must be pleaded with specificity. Plaintiff fails to
allege, specifically or generally, "how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the
representations were tendered," as well as the purported agent's authority to speak on
behalf of defendants (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645), or how
defendants are liable for the fraud of the original lender.
3rd cause of action Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Sustained without leave to
amend for failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action There is no
fiduciary duty between lender and borrower. See e.g. Oaks Management Corp. v
Superior Court (2007) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466. Moreover, plaintiffs do not allege
that moving parties are the successor in interest to Bridge.
4th cause of action Civil Code 2923.5: Sustained with leave to amend for
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendants' moving
papers contend that no private right of action exists. The Reply cites the recent Mabry
case, conceding that a cause of action is stated, but only to enjoin the sale. The
remedy under 2923.5 does not include money damages. Mabry v Superior Court
(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208, 214. However, the claim is defective in that plaintiffs
have not alleged which defendant has the duty to contact the borrower in an effort to
avoid the foreclosure.
5th cause of action Violation of Business & Professions Code section
17200: Sustained with leave to amend, as the underlying fraud is not adequately set
forth.
6th cause of action Unconscionability: Sustained without leave to amend for
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This is a defense, not a
cause of action.
7th cause of action Unjust Enrichment: Sustained with leave to amend for
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
8th cause of action Accounting: Sustained with leave to amend for failure to
state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs have not alleged a statutory
or contractual right to an accounting.
9th cause of action Quiet Title: Sustained with leave to amend for failure to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiffs have not alleged that
they have tendered the amount due, which is a requirement to maintain a quiet title
action against a mortgagee.
10th cause of action Declaratory Relief: Sustained with leave to amend for
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
11th cause of action Injunctive Relief: Sustained with leave to amend for
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
12th cause of action Violation of Civil Code 2934(e) and (d): Overruled.
The fact that the foreclosure sale has not yet occurred does not obviate the
requirement of the successor trustee to comply with these sections requiring that a
new notice of sale be issued before any foreclosure sale takes place.
13th cause of action Promissory Estoppel: Sustained with leave to amend
for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The underlying fraud
allegations are insufficiently pleaded.
14th cause of action Unconscionability: Sustained without leave to amend
for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This is a defense, not
a cause of action.
15th cause of action Cancellation of Void Instrument: Sustained without
leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
16th cause of action Slander of Title: Sustained with leave to amend for
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The claim is time-barred.
Moreover, plaintiffs admit that they received a loan, therefore, the recordation of a
deed of trust is not "erroneous." The opposition indicates that the claim is based on
"notices" rather than deeds of trust.
Plaintiffs may file and serve an Amended Complaint on or before August 23,
2010. Response to be filed and served within 20 days of service of the amended
complaint, 25 days if served by mail.
The minute order is effective immediately.

[AyatollahGondola]

and once more:

2010-00072372-CU-OR
INES CABALLERO VS. DREAMCASA, INC.
Hearing on Demurrer
Defendant Bank of America, N.A., as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank,
FSB’s demurrer to Plaintiff Ines Caballero’s complaint is ruled upon as follows.
Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges numerous causes of action arising out of a non-judicial
foreclosure proceeding
First and Second Causes of Action (Fraud and Misrepresentation)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff has not alleged fraud with the required specificity.
Plaintiff fails to allege the content of any misrepresentation by Defendant or its agents,
or even the specific nondisclosure attributed to Defendant. Also, given this cause of
action is alleged against Defendant, a corporate defendant, Plaintiff was required to
allege “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent
misrepresentations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or
wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
(1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.) Plaintiff essentially concedes she has not alleged this
level of specificity but argues discovery will uncover the information. However, as
currently pled, there are no allegations which would indicate that Plaintiff cannot at
least attempt to plead fraud against a corporate defendant with the required specificity
nor is any convincing argument provided as to why she should not have to make the
allegations. To the extent Plaintiff bases these causes of action on her allegation that
Defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act, her claim is insufficient as any TILA claim
must be filed one year after the alleged violation. (15 USC § 1640(e).) However, here,
Plaintiff entered the loan agreement in November 2007 and did not file the action until
2010.
Third Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant owed her a
fiduciary duty of that Defendant breached any duty, instead she alleged that a
mortgage broker owes fiduciary duties. (Comp. ¶ 61.) Plaintiff did not allege
Defendant was a broker, instead she alleged Defendant was her lender. (Comp. ¶¶ 4,
63.) Yet lenders in residential loan transactions do not owe borrowers fiduciary duties.
(Bastajian v. Brown (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 910, 915.) Further she alleged codefendant
Dreamcasa breached a fiduciary duty, but did not allege any facts
attributable to Defendant. (Comp. ¶¶ 64, 65.)
Fourth Cause of Action (Unconscionability)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. Unconscionability is an affirmative defense, not a cause
of action. (Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 758,
794.) Plaintiff fails to address this point in her opposition.
Fifth Cause of Action (Negligence)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. Financial institutions do not owe borrowers a duty of care
when the lender’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its
normal role as a lender of money. (Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass’n (1991)
231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096.) Plaintiff’s allegations involve a conventional loan
transaction. Plaintiff does not discuss this authority in her opposition.
Sixth Cause of Action (B&P § 17200)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient toconstitute a cause of action. The Court disagrees that Plaintiff failed to allege loss of
property or money to show standing under B&P § 17200 given she alleged her loan
payments were increased as a result of Dreamcasa’s and Defendant’s acts. (Comp. ¶
86.) However, her claim fails to state facts showing any wrongful conduct by
Defendant given it is based on her deficient allegations in her previous causes of
action and also upon allegations that Defendant violated RESPA, the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act and TILA, yet her allegations are insufficient to demonstrate any
violation. As pled, any RESPA claim is time barred given a RESPA claim must be
brought within one year of the alleged violation and the complaint was filed more than
two years after the loan was made. (12 USC § 2614.) The ECOA claim fails because
Plaintiff did not allege she was discriminated against regarding any credit transaction
based on her membership in a protected class. The TILA claim fails as discussed
above in connection with the fraud claims.
Seventh Cause of Action (Unjust Enrichment)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff has not alleged in this cause of action any facts
showing Defendant was unjustly enriched. Instead, she simply alleges that
“Defendants have been unjustly enriched…by wrongfully collecting money to which
Defendants, in equity, are not entitled. Defendants have unjustly retained the amounts
wrongfully collected.” (Comp. ¶ 92.) She also refers to a yield spread premium that
Defendant paid to Dreamcasa. (Comp. ¶ 96.) Again, however, no facts in this cause
of action demonstrate that this premium is improper, or even that Defendant retained
the premium. Nor is there any allegation as to what fees Defendant has kept which
are unearned. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to show what this Defendant
wrongfully collected or retained any money.
Eighth Cause of Action (Accounting)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. An accounting is only appropriate when “the accounts are
so complicated that an ordinary legal action demanding a fixed sum is
impracticable.” (Civic W. Corp. v. Zila Indus., Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, 14.)
Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish that the amount due under her loan is not readily
ascertainable, the means of which are within the knowledge of this Defendant.
Ninth Cause of Action (Quiet Title)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. A borrower cannot maintain a quite title action against the
mortgagee without paying the secured debt. (Miller v. Provost (1994) Cal.App.4th
1703, 1707.) This is true even where the debt is unenforceable. (Mix v. Sodd (1981)
126 Cal.App.3d 386, 390.) Here, Plaintiff has not alleged tender.
Tenth Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that her note “was assigned to a trust
pool through [a] securitization process,” that “necessarily entail[ed] separation of the
Note and Deed of Trust,” thereby negating the enforceability of the note. (Comp. ¶¶
108-107.) She seeks a declaration pursuant to Civil Code § 2932.5 that the power ofsale in the deed of trust is void. § 2932.5 provides that the “power of sale may be
exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.”
Plaintiff alleges no facts showing such violation. Further, to the extent this cause of
action is based upon the theory that Defendant does not have possession of the
original note, no authority is provided to support the theory.
Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action (Cancellation of Void Instrument and
Rescission)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. These causes of action rely upon the allegations in
Plaintiff’s previous causes of action that the loan documents were procured by fraud,
and were unconscionable. Given the underlying allegations are inadequately pled as
discussed above, the instant causes of action are deficient for the same reasons.
Thirteenth Cause of Action (Slander of Title)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. While Defendant argues slander of title claims are
subject to the one year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure § 340(c), case
law suggests it is subject to a two year statute of limitations. (Guess, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 473, 477.) The cause of action is based upon the
recording of the deed of trust, yet the deed of trust was recorded in November 2007.
Here, since the action was filed on March 2010, this cause of action as pled is barred
by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff does not address this point. In any event, Plaintiff
fails to allege facts demonstrating that the recorded deed of trust was false. While she
alleged the deed of trust purports to “establish a debt that was never owed” this is not
sufficient because there are no facts to demonstrate why the debt was never owed.
To the extent, the allegation is based on her claims regarding the purported invalidity
of the loan (e.g., fraud) it is insufficient because those allegations are insufficient.
Plaintiff also failed to allege that any publication was without privilege or justification.
(Howard v. Schaniel (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 256, 263-264.)
Fourteenth Cause of Action (Injunctive Relief)
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. Injunctive relief is a remedy not a cause of action and
must be tethered to an underlying cause of action. Given Defendant’s demurrers to
every other causes of action has been sustained, the demurrer to this cause of action
is sustained for the same reasons.
Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than August 16, 2010.

[AyatollahGondola]

All these are from one day here in Sac

2008-00025850-CU-BC
Walter Broussard vs. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Hearing on Demurrer
Bauer, Bruce T.
Defendant American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. ("AHMSI") and Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company's Demurrer to the 2nd amended complaint is ruled on
as follows:
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted.
Plaintiff alleges wrongful foreclosure of his home at 3216 Groveland Way in Elk
Grove. Plaintiff alleges that defendants foreclosed on a void security interest and that
they did not have possession of the note, that they increased the amount of the debt to
include amounts not permitted by law or contract, and used unfair means to collect the
debt. Plaintiff alleges that he and AHMSI agreed on a loan modification on September
7, 2008 after plaintiff's default. The modification agreement was that he would pay
$16,000 at that time, and that the monthly payments would increase to $4,992.69, and
the foreclosure sale would be postponed. He alleges that in consideration of AHMSI's
forbearance agreement, he agreed to waive any right to notice of a future foreclosure
sale. Plaintiff alleges that although he made the $16,000 payment, defendants
breached the loan modification agreement and foreclosed on the property without
giving him notice.
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted.
1st cause of action Rosenthal Act: Sustained with leave to amend for failure
to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Both parties rely on
unpublished federal court decisions that come to different conclusions on the issue of
whether a lender/servicer is acting as a debt collector in attempting to collect amounts
due under the deed of trust. Plaintiff contends defendants violated sections Civil
Code 1788.11, 1788.13, and 1788.14. However, there are no facts in the pleading to
support violations of these sections.
2nd cause of action Breach of Contract: Overruled. Plaintiff states a cause
of action for breach of the loan modification agreement. Plaintiff alleges consideration
was paid in the amount of $16,000 but that defendants proceeded with the foreclosure
despite a forbearance agreement.
3rd cause of action Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing:
Overruled. The lack of a tort remedy for this claim does not defeat a claim based on
the contract.
4th cause of action Business & Professions Code 17200: Overruled.
Plaintiff alleges a practice of inducing payments under a loan modification with the
intent to foreclose on the property without notice to the borrower, and without refunding
the consideration that was paid to obtain the loan modification. This is sufficient to
state a cause of action for unfair or deceptive acts.
5th cause of action Breach of Statutory Duties CC 2923.5: Sustained
without leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action. The notice provisions of Civil Code section 2923.5upon which plaintiff relies
became operative on September 6, 2008. The alleged non-complying declaration
would have attached to the Notice of Foreclosure, was recorded on August 14, 2008,
before the operative date. Plaintiff does not address this argument in the opposition.
The Court agrees that if this statute applied here, it would provide a private right
of action for for enjoining the foreclosure sale; however it does not provide for
damages. The remedy under 2923.5 is to enjoin the foreclosure sale until the statute
is complied with. There is no damages remedy. Mabry v Superior Court (4th Dist) 6-02-
10, No. G042911
6th cause of action Breach of Consumer Legal Remedies Act: Sustained
without leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action. On the face of the complaint, the actions of defendants do not constitute the
sale of consumer "goods or services." The modification agreement is a loan. A loan
on real property secured by a deed of trust is not a sale or lease of goods or services.
See McKell v Washington Mutual (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Bank's actions were
undertaken in a transaction related to the sale of real property, not the sale or lease of
goods or services.)
7th cause of action for "One Action Rule" CCP 726: Sustained without leave
to amend for failure to state a cause of action. The application of the $16,000 payment
on the loan is not a "set-off" that would violate the one action rule. The reliance on
Security Pacific National Bank v Wozab (1990) 51 Cal.3d 991, is inapposite, as that
case involved the seizing of money in the borrower's deposit accounts. Here, the
plaintiff voluntarily paid the money to defendants.
Where leave to amend is granted, plaintiff may file and serve a 3rd amended
complaint on or before August 22, 2010. Response to be filed and served within 20
days of service of the amended complaint, 25 days if served by mail.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC
Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[Steve]

American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. is dba American Brokers Conduit

I had the same lender and discovered through the Department of Corporations that AMHSI and "American Brokers Conduit" are the same. AHMSI will make claim that they are the loan service r when it is discovered they are also the loan originator as American Brokers Conduit which is no longer in business. I was unaware of limitations on TILA and RESPA, since I was told there is no limitation on fraud ( my focus). I couldn't get a loan mod. and I requested originating documents looking for a copy of the Form 1003-"Universal Residential Loan Application" which had been removed from my closing documents. Going back to the brokers office to retain a copy, it does not have my signature on the form and the income was increased by a lot. I was told the title company, both corporate and local offices, should have copies of originals but they don't. Department of Real estate says originating lender would have the copy but they are no longer or as I pointed AMHSI is the originator. I got as far as challenging Duetsche bank in the unlawful detainer asking for an investigation but still lost my home. Their lawyer didn't even have the deed of title from the auction but the judge could careless and didn't look at what I had to present. I'm still working with the Department of Corps, but the Dept. of Real Estate is trying to get rid of me with lame excuses, my local D.A. has said she wont forget me. It's been six months now not a word, and the FBI hasn't returned my call. Any suggestions?

[AyatollahGondola]

I had the same lender and discovered through the Department of Corporations that AMHSI and "American Brokers Conduit" are the same. AHMSI will make claim that they are the loan service r when it is discovered they are also the loan originator as American Brokers Conduit which is no longer in business. I was unaware of limitations on TILA and RESPA, since I was told there is no limitation on fraud ( my focus). I couldn't get a loan mod. and I requested originating documents looking for a copy of the Form 1003-"Universal Residential Loan Application" which had been removed from my closing documents. Going back to the brokers office to retain a copy, it does not have my signature on the form and the income was increased by a lot. I was told the title company, both corporate and local offices, should have copies of originals but they don't. Department of Real estate says originating lender would have the copy but they are no longer or as I pointed AMHSI is the originator. I got as far as challenging Duetsche bank in the unlawful detainer asking for an investigation but still lost my home. Their lawyer didn't even have the deed of title from the auction but the judge could careless and didn't look at what I had to present. I'm still working with the Department of Corps, but the Dept. of Real Estate is trying to get rid of me with lame excuses, my local D.A. has said she wont forget me. It's been six months now not a word, and the FBI hasn't returned my call. Any suggestions?

When you say DA, which County are you in?
Isn't it just wonderful to have all those state agencies with a zillion people on the payroll, appointed political hacks at the top of them, and then do nothing but give you the damn runaround just like you get from the problem you're reporting in the first place?
And yes, it looks like most of these big mortgage/loan/holding companies that were bailed out basically oversaw and encouraged the initial fraud that broke the damn system in the first place. Those same companies are also holding back renegotiating the loans for people who might actually pay more than if they sold the property at fire sale prices on the courthouse steps. They actually want people out of the homes. Why? I'm not sure yet, but I'd bet my wallet that there's another sinister plot that escapes a general look into the situation. It could be a tax benefit for them that either is now, or will be in the near future, or maybe related to the bailout funds they got that required the losses to be real and not predicted. One thing for certain is the courts are part and parcel to it, as are the agencies you are trying to get help from. This is how corrupt things are for us right now
I've also been tracking the code enforcement cases locally, as there are a zillion empty homes with overgrowth and vandalism. The neighbors call and the CE people board it up, have someone cut the weeds and then they lein the property as well as the last recorded owner. The bank or whatever lender is supposed to be in possession is not putting the property in their name, even as much as two years after the debtor has been booted out or left on their own after forclosure. That way they have less liability, less to maintain, less fees, water bills etc, and probably some big write down off their tax bill. the new buyer inherits all the leins.

So you ask what to do? Most folks aren't up to the torches and pitchforks method, and that's pretty much the only way to get a handle on corruption when it hits this magnitude. That's on the grander government scale anyway. As far as these pissants at USLA, I'd keep organizing and making them as miserable as you were. The more people out in front of their office, the more they will be feeling your pain.

[Steve]

Mortgage Insurance

The District Attorney I went to prior to foreclosure was in Lompoc, Santa Barbara County. She was the one verifying no signature on the loan application. She was the one I thought would show up to court and assist. She did not. She was the one who said she'd look into it but when I called she said my loan originating loan copies could be stored anywhere in California. Dept. of Corps said your loan papers are with California Insurance Commission. Dept. of insurance said, "Yes, "Stewart Title" is under us but we need a claim in order to investigate." I stopped there because I'm still playing letter tag between my lender and Dept. of Corps as middle control. The money in foreclosures I believe is in the insurance. A woman from "Triad" called me prior to foreclosure stating the lender took out a mortgage default insurance policy on me and wanted to verify if my foreclosure was true. Not only does the lender know the incomes were fraud. They consider the homeowners dead beats getting rid of them taking back the house and having the FDIC make some of the losses, and then on top of that they collect the insurance.

[AyatollahGondola]

Ah! This is why it's good for us to pool up on forums ang roups like this. I never thought of that before, but here it is:

http://triad.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2007/12/03/story1.html

United Guaranty, like the two Winston-Salem-based mortgage insurers -- Triad Guaranty and Republic Mortgage Insurance Co. -- insure the mortgages of borrowers who are unable to put at least 20 percent of the cost of their home down. Lenders believe that borrowers with little or none of their own money in a house are more likely to default on a loan.

The borrower pays the mortgage insurance company a premium, and if that borrower defaults, the mortgage insurance company steps in to make good on the loan for the lender

[anothervictimofusla]

My sales person was Roland Sison. I have no idea who did the audit/ fraud investigator.

[oaktown1]

Still fighting

I need help with the following I once again received a notice to vacate today 8/3/10.

Relief of Stay Writ of Attachment

Ex Parte Application

The 2 issues are Stein did not put up a defense FOR THE UD. He did not request to have a Judge instead of a commissioner and Calif law 2932.5 was not assiged to gmac just indymac since July 2006 . So like I said how can they take something that didn't belong to them? Is that not STEALING??


HELP HELP HELP HELP I NEED HELP HELP HELP

[AyatollahGondola]

I need help with the following I once again received a notice to vacate today 8/3/10.

Relief of Stay Writ of Attachment

Ex Parte Application

The 2 issues are Stein did not put up a defense FOR THE UD. He did not request to have a Judge instead of a commissioner and Calif law 2932.5 was not assiged to gmac just indymac since July 2006 . So like I said how can they take something that didn't belong to them? Is that not STEALING??


HELP HELP HELP HELP I NEED HELP HELP HELP

When were you served the ex parte, and when is the court date?

[oaktown1]

I need to have it completed by someone at filed by friday

[AyatollahGondola]

I need to have it completed by someone at filed by friday

So do you have any points of law that you can use to oppose it that you know of?
I'm not sure what has transpired previous, but you mentioned a UD, and those have a short fuse and can be difficult to overcome. Judges are generally inclined to allow whomever owns the property to get it back, and by owns I mean legal title. I seriously doubt they would worry about who is in possession of the paper, which big lender is responsible, etc.