How To Determine Who Has Standing to Foreclose When You Have Multiple Plaintiffs in a Foreclosure Case

Who Has Standing to Foreclose?

Due to the improper negotiation, transfer, and delivery of the mortgage loan contract throughout the securitization process foreclosure mills and mortgage loan services routinely do not represent the true holder of the note in due course with rights to enforce. If you want to uncover who the real wizard behind the curtain is (the real party of interest regarding your mortgage loan contract) join FRAUD STOPPERS PMA today and get the FACTS & EVIDENCE you need to get the legal remedy you deserve.

Multiple Choice Plaintiffs Means That Foreclosure Mills Do Not and Cannot Represent the Named Claimant

Posted by Neil Garfield 9/14/20

“the servicer is in exactly the same position as the supposed attorney. It has no operative relationship with the named plaintiff because the named plaintiff has no claim.”see https://chicagoagentmagazine.com/2020/09/08/corelogic-foreclosures-could-double-by-2022/

The most common mistake I make in litigation — and I think this is true for all trial lawyers — is assuming something to be true that is so basic that it must be true. One of those issues in foreclosure litigation is the question of how the foreclosure mill attorneys are being retained or used. It turns out that these lawyers are both a shield and a sword.
For example, I’m currently working on a case where the assumption is that Bank of New York Mellon is the plaintiff. After all they were named as the plaintiff in the lawsuit claiming Foreclosure.

When you drill down, it is obvious that it is not Bank of New York Mellon who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. It is an implied trust that is not registered anywhere.

And in many cases, the caption implies that the plaintiff is neither BONY nor the alleged trust but rather the holders of certificates issued in the name of the trust. And we now know that the certificates are sometimes referred to as “mortgage bonds”, even if they convey no interest in any debt, note or mortgage. So the holders of the certificate are merely unsecured creditors of the trust, if it actually exists, or the investment bank that was doing business as a trust.
And of course there is no identification of the certificates nor any identification of the holders of the certificates. So the complaint is asking for relief for unnamed claimants. And we already know that if they did identify the certificates, or attach a sample to the complaint, the court would easily see that the certificates do not convey any right, title or interest to any debt, note or mortgage, nor any payment or proceeds arising from any loan. Thus no claim could be made for a loss on an investment that does not exist. There is no investment in loans — directly or indirectly.

Once all that is unraveled, we are left with several very basic questions.

Who Has Standing to Foreclose?

First, how does the debtor trustee become a representative of the creditor investors? The obvious answer is that there is no such relationship and Bank of New York Mellon has proven that in litigation against the investors who sued them for losses incurred relating to the sale of securities (certificates/mortgage bonds). And you will never find an allegation or an exhibit in any litigation of this date in which the relationship between the holders of the certificates and the alleged trustee is explained or even referenced.

To put it bluntly, there is no satisfactory answer to this question. There is no representative capacity. Bank of New York Mellon does not represent the interests of investors in the certificates. Accordingly, any lawsuit that introduces bank of New York as part of the name of a plaintiff is misrepresenting facts and misleading the court.
The above style of pleading is basically a multiple-choice initiative. The lawyers for the Foreclosure mill can respond to a challenge by pivoting to one of the other names. But none of the names are true plaintiffs because none of them ever get to see one penny of proceeds from any foreclosure sale — except a distribution of fees for playing their part in a charade.

So the second question that is almost universally overlooked by everyone is, given the above, who is the client of the lawyers who are pursuing Foreclosure? The assumption of course is that they represent the named plaintiff. But as you can see from the above, the multiple-choice options of the true plaintiff only provide a menu of possible claimants, each with diametrically opposing interests, so the lawyer cannot be representing all of them.

As we have seen and as has been reported on multiple sites including this one, there is no retainer agreement between Bank of New York Mellon and the lawyers who are pursuing Foreclosure. In fact, there is no contact of any kind between Bank of New York Mellon and any lawyer in any foreclosure mill relating to the authority to pursue the case or the facts required to stake a claim in court.

And we know that not just because we have seen exchanges and admissions that have been reported in court between the attorney for the Foreclosure mill and the sitting judge. The main reason we know that to be true is that Bank of New York Mellon has no powers of administration, collection or enforcement over any debt, note or mortgage and in fact has no right to even make an inquiry as to the status of any loan.

And since we already know that neither Bank of New York Mellon nor the implied trust have ever paid value for the underlying dead, they could not possibly own the mortgage and therefore could not possibly authorize enforcement. Yes it is that simple.

So the first thing we know is that the Foreclosure mill cannot possibly have been engaged by Bank of New York Mellon to represent Bank of New York Mellon or the alleged trust as the named plaintiff in the foreclosure complaint that was drafted by the foreclosure mill.

So the assumption that bank of New York Mellon is the Client of the Foreclosure mill is erroneous. And that means that the use of the name of Bank of New York Mellon might be authorized in an agreement with an investment bank to use the BONY name as part of a license agreement, but such an agreement violates existing law by naming a party as plaintiff who has no claim. Since that is an agreement to violate the law, the authorization is a legal nullity. And that obviously means that the Foreclosure bill did not have any real authority or any contract under which it was authorized to file a foreclosure complaint that be have a bank of New York Mellon, or any trust or any investors.

And if you ask the question to a lawyer for the Foreclosure mill, as I have done, about the identity of their client, they will often say that their client is a “servicer” who represents Bank of New York Mellon as trustee for the applied trust on behalf of the certificate holders, which we’ve already seen is a meaningless combination of words intended to provide a vehicle for pivoting off of knotty questions.

It may be true that payments to the Foreclosure mill for their services come from a servicer, like Ocwen Loan Servicing in West Palm Beach, Florida. There might even be a retainer agreement between the foreclosure mill and the servicer. But such agreements are only vehicles designed to allow all participants to hide behind the umbrella of litigation immunity possessed by the lawyer who may advocate questionable facts as long as he/she does not absolutely know they are untrue.

In turn, Ocwen (or whoever the servicer is claimed to be) has no contact with the multiple choice plaintiffs, none of whom have paid value for the debt, none of whom own the mortgage or possess any right to enforce and none of whom has satisfied the condition precedent of Article 9 §203 of the UCC as adopted into state law in all U.S. jurisdictions.
So the servicer is in exactly the same position as the supposed attorney. It has no operative relationship with the named plaintiff because the named plaintiff has no claim.

All of this brings us full circle back to a question I raised back in 2006. With whom does the lawyer maintain an attorney client relationship? I think this is an appropriate question to ask because it would affect the extent to which attorney-client privilege could be involved to bar inquiries into communications between the locker room and the foreclosure players.

So it turns out that the assignment of a case to a Foreclosure bill occurs as a result of a desktop application that is run by third parties who are never mentioned in the litigation. For example take a look at this from Wells Fargo:
“As of June 6, 2011, all new referrals will be sent through Desktop instead of VendorScape. Desktop referrals can be identified by the K33 step, REFERRED IN DESKTOP on the FOR3 screen in MSP. You will still have loans that were previously referred through VendorScape that should continue being processed during this time.

Reports You will receive several daily, weekly, and monthly reports to assist you in effectively monitoring and
processing of your portfolio. The reports will be listed within the appropriate section of the manual. Effective February 15, 2012, for attorneys, the reports will be uploaded to your DTS mailbox. First, refer to your Transmission Confirmation Document. Then, access your Prod URL. Finally, key in your Universal ID/LogonID. For liaisons, the reports will be in the DS_FC_AttorneyRpts folder on the shared drive. Reports are to be considered either “reference” or “action required.” Reference reports are meant to give a status of the portfolio.

Action required reports alert you of a task that needs to be performed. The following reports are meant to give you a general overview of the status of your portfolio.”

Learn Who Has Standing to Foreclose?

If you want to discover Who Has Standing to Foreclose join FRAUD STOPPERS PMA by clicking here

Foreclosure NEWS

Here are more foreclosure news and stories to read:

Eviction After Foreclosure: Holdovers Still Saying “You Can’t Catch Me
Law.com
Foreclosing plaintiffs, after all, only need encounter whatever this is all about if the foreclosure actually arrives at its ultimate conclusion (obviously many …

Financial woes from pandemic force Oshkosh outlet mall into foreclosure; judge appoints receiver …
The Oshkosh Northwestern
Winnebago County Circuit Judge Barbara Key appointed the receiver in late August in connection to a foreclosure lawsuit brought by Wilmington Trust, …

Bank affiliate in line to take control of former Cocoa Expo after foreclosure sale
Florida Today
Florida Today. The former Cocoa Expo Sports Center has gone through a foreclosure sale. As a result, an affiliate of the bank that was its lender could …

COVID-19 Evictions and Foreclosures Update: Massachusetts – 9/8/2020
The National Law Review
Legislation to extend foreclosure protections and a residential (not commercial) eviction moratorium beyond October 17 has been introduced in both …

CoreLogic: Foreclosures could double by 2022
Chicago Agent magazine
Home loans that are in serious delinquency — those that are 90 days or more past due or in foreclosure — could double by 2022 from levels seen this …
Delinquency Rate Could Double Without More Federal Support – Mortgage News Daily
Full Coverage

Florida Court Reverses Dismissal in Foreclosure Case
DSNews.com
… Engle concluding the lower court erred when it held the bank failed to establish a prima facie case for foreclosure and reformation of the mortgage.

Wolf warns of ‘eviction cliff’
Pittsburgh Business Times
Wolf twice issued executive orders that paused evictions and foreclosures, but the second one ended Aug. 31 after Wolf received legal advice that he …

Gov. Wolf calls on General Assembly to protect renters and homeowners from eviction and …
YourErie
Gov. Wolf calls on General Assembly to protect renters and homeowners from eviction and foreclosure. Local News. Posted: Sep 8, 2020 / 10:11 AM …

Extend moratorium on evictions, foreclosures
Bradford Era
Extend moratorium on evictions, foreclosures. Sep 8 … condemned the governor for asking them to extend the eviction and foreclosure moratorium.

‘Groundbreaking’ US housing data hailed as new tool to target COVID-19 aid
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – About five million Americans lose their homes every year due to eviction or foreclosure, researchers …

‘Groundbreaking’ US housing data hailed as new tool to target COVID-19 aid
Thomson Reuters Foundation
WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – About five million Americans lose their homes every year due to eviction or foreclosure, …

Foreclosure Rescue Scam Alert

The following information and viewpoint is a personal opinion and deeply held religious belief of the author; and is shared with the sole intent to help homeowners & borrowers who may be facing foreclosure or who are currently experiencing financial hardship or difficulty with a mortgage avoid foreclosure traps, pitfalls, and swindles. 

Avoid Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners At All Cost

Leading industry sources report that Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners and other get rich quick scam websites has been discovered to be the biggest conman and scam artist scamming innocent homeowners by selling a worthless appraisal fraud audit, for as much as $7500, that cannot be used in a court of law. Sources say that Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners is a known charlatan scam Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners and that he has been caught red handed pretending to be a lawyer.

Storm Bradford has spread lies and rumors about FRAUD STOPPERS stating that FRAUD STOPPERS is scamming homeowners with lies and disinformation, and this is the reason FRAUD STOPPERS is forced to respond to this known scammer and his smear campaign.

Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners has been reported to the Rip-off Report and to the Virginia Bar Association and the Virginia Attorney Generals office for perpetrating this ongoing fraud to scam homeowners. If you live in or you have a Foreclosure do not risk losing your home and your money by getting scammed by Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners.

Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners is a known banking shill who makes money buying and selling securitized mortgages and reverse mortgages to and from the too-big-to-fail-banks that have defrauded millions of American homeowners out of their live savings and the properties, while he simultaneously spread lies and misinformation about companies trying to help homeowners fight to save their homes from foreclosure.

Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners have been caught racketeering and blackmailing competitors for money in exchange to stop spreading lies and rumors about them. Storm (Norman) Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners not only bad mouths all of his competitors, and spreads lies and disinformation about them, but even more disturbing is that he then tries to blackmail them for money to stop his hate campaign.

Storm Bradford and the Mortgage Fraud Examiners are not the only scams to avoid, however they are among the most expensive foreclosure rescue scams to avoid.

Storming Scamming Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners is scamming homeowners with lies and disinformation, while profiteering from buying and selling securitized mortgages and reverse mortgages to and from the too-big-to-fail-banks. His side business appears to be peddling a mortgage transaction analysis to unsuspecting homeowners. FRAUD STOPPERS and other leading industry experts recommend that you avoid this suspected scam artist at all cost. If you are currently experiencing difficultly with a mortgage or foreclosure we FRAUD STOPPERS recommends that you get the help of a local competent attorney, and you invest the time to get formal legal education to protect yourself from scammers like Storm Bradford of the Mortgage Fraud Examiners.

To get instant access to an affordable local attorney click here 

THIS SITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. FRAUD STOPPERS is a Private Members Association PMA. FRAUD STOPPERS PMA is NOT a law firm, non-profit organization, or government agency.  FRAUD STOPPERS PMA does not operate in the public sector. Although this website is visible to the public  FRAUD STOPPERS PMA does not intend for any information contained in this website to be considered as legal advise.

The information about Foreclosure law and other legal information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.  This website contains links to other third-party websites.  Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; FRAUD STOPPERS and its members do not recommend or endorse the contents of the third-party sites.

Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.  No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.  Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation.  Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers. This site provides “information” about the law and is only designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal information is not the same as legal advice — the application of law to an individual’s specific circumstances.

The views expressed at, or through, this site are those of the individual authors writing in their individual capacities only – not those of their respective employers, FRAUD STOPPERS, or committee/task force as a whole.  All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this site are hereby expressly disclaimed.  The content on this posting is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.

For instant access to an affordable local competent attorney click here