Mar
16

The Jack Booted Thugs Coming to Break Into a Home Near You!

Last week, I was a speaker at the National Bankruptcy Institute.  During my presentation, I was describing how the banks were literally driving around this country, breaking into homes and doing whatever they damn well pleased….with no consequence and no penalties whatsoever.  A woman in the front row became angrily indignant.  She directly challenged me and all but called me a liar….in front of an audience of about a hundred attorneys.
I didn’t lay into her as directly as I could have, but she certainly got 100% of my attention.  I was more than happy to rattle off to the crowd all the very specific cases that I am directly involved in. And then other members of the audience jumped in and started sharing their experiences…..she was literally shouted down.  Needless to say this woman was put in her place.
And just this morning, I received the following email.  I want everyone to read it carefully.  Think about the larger picture and the bigger policy implications…..
I received a letter from Chase Home Finance threatening to break into my home, change the locks for “our protection and your own”.
According to Chase, my home is vacant and unoccupied, though apparently the lights being on, the car in the driveway, and my wife was weeding our property at the time they drove by or their agent drove by didn’t convince them of this fact.
On several occasions, Chase has sent people who refused to identify themselves by name, to enter the home, or have walked around the property freely photographing the front and back of the property even though they were told to leave as they were trespassing. In one instance, one of their workers tried to pop the Medico lock up front, and I had to warn the guy I would shoot through the door if he did not leave the property at once.
Like your client, the Sheriff’s Office refused to respond to the call until I told them I would shoot the intruder, no matter who it is. Citing the “Stand Your Ground Law”. That got them out.
I suspect that the reasons for Chase’s actions are simple. My home was once worth $310,000 and it has now been assessed by the property appraiser at somewhere between $97,000 and $127,000.
Though I have paid well over $100,000 on the purchase price, this does not affect Chase’s insecurity complex. At least 1/2 of the homes in the neighborhood have suffered a foreclosure, and today low class tenants occupy the “hood”. What was once a wonderful neighborhood full of cops, firefighters and paramedics, ATF, and DEA agents is now a jungle.
So I suppose I should begin by saying I never asked Chase to finance my purchase. That was World Savings Bank. My original commitment letter stated 4.84 percent APR, but they strung me out, or should I say the mortgage broker did, and on the date of closing, the last day to close, with a sizable deposit, Chase appeared with a “take it or leave it” 5.99 percent APR loan. World Savings Bank was nowhere in sight.
In other words, I was forced to accept Chase as my lender at closing. When I contacted World Savings Bank and complained, they claimed that they had no idea that Chase got the loan, and blamed the mortgage broker who, apparently, sold my loan for a higher origination fee or simply got bribed to switch me into a more expensive loan.
Immediately after closing, Chase threatened a foreclosure because according to them I would not insure the entire amount of the loan, rather than replacement value of the building.
They wanted the building and land insured. I tried to explain to them that you can’t just insure for the entire loan amount, as its illegal to do that and insurers were not going to do that.
This cat and mouse game, including extremely expensive $14k a year insurance premiums continued through 2009 and part of 2010. Of course now they are claiming the same.
Last Saturday I received a letter, again from Chase threatening to break in, change locks and “winterize” my property to protect it.
I find it ironic since its not Winter, and more specifically why change existing locks if the property is occupied and adequately protected?
I fear that there are two laws. One for the common man and one for the too-big-to-fail banks. Somehow I feel the situation is inequitable.
Tweet this!Tweet this! Share and Enjoy: Print Digg del.icio.us Facebook Google Bookmarks email FriendFeed Identi.ca LinkedIn Live MySpace PDF Ping.fm RSS StumbleUpon Technorati Tumblr Yahoo! Buzz Posterous Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks

Scridb filter
Feb
01

Important Florida Case – one way to get a foreclosure dismissed

There is a recent decision out of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in FL (Pinellas County) that I believe warrants focus and analysis for homeowners and their attorneys. In Wachovia Mortgage v. Matacchiero, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) the case through her attorney. The basic premise of the MTD was that the Plaintiff lacked the “capacity to sue” the Defendant for foreclosure under Fla. Civ. Pro., Rule 1.120(a).

Most foreclosure attorneys are used to hearing (and arguing) the legal issue of “standing” and while standing is a very valid issue that should be questioned in every foreclosure case, the “capacity to sue”  is different. ‘Capacity to sue’ is an absence or legal disability which would deprive a party of the right to come into court.” Judge Rondolino, the presiding judge who signed the order granting the Defendant’s MTD, made the distinction right in his order.

In this case, the Plaintiff was, “Wachovia Mortgage FSB, F/K/A World Savings Bank.” The argument was simply that the Plaintiff failed to properly identify itself in the pleadings (complaint) and therefore the Defendant was deprived of knowing exactly who to answer or frame her responsive pleading to.

The Defendant’s argument: “Because the Plaintiff failed to “plead or specify in what capacity the Plaintiff brings suit and by failing to define or identify in any way the nature of its legal entity the Plaintiff has not plead that it has the capacity to maintain suit before this court.”

Notice point 4 of the Judge’s order where he specifically compares capacity to standing and note the differences.

The attorney in this case did a great job really analyzing the Defendant’s case and he obviously has a firm grasp on and working knowledge of the rules of civil procedure. He successfully attacked the legal deficiencies in this case and won on the merits of his well plead argument.

The majority of foreclosure cases are fraught with legal deficiencies. The problem I see is that few are truly analyzing the complaint, pleadings and allegations made by these institutional fraudsters to find these deficiencies and use them against the Plaintiffs. You know the old saying, “the devil is in the details.”

Hopefully, you’ll read the judge’s order and dive into the rules of civil procedure in your state and really learn something as to how “we should think” about foreclosure cases. The lesson here is to learn how to “frame” our thinking regarding foreclosure cases and to learn to look at the details. Look at what these Plaintiffs are truly alleging. The words they are using are not accidental and often we will find conflicting statements, inconsistencies and the like.

Use the rules of civil procedure as the guide and attack the missteps of these institutions. The rules define how the game is played. If a party fails to follow the rules they have a problem and if you have a rogue judge who doesn’t care about ensuring the rules are followed, these things need to be identifed, recorded and quantified so that you can set a case up for an appeal. The Appellate courts are in a position where they have to hold the parties (and judges) to following the well-established rules of civil procedure.

Now, what you are waiting for? If you need legal representation in a foreclosure matter (or even think you might), call Houk Law today to speak with us about all the reasons why you should consider retaining us to represent you… and why it makes complete economic sense as well!

We can be reached at 1-877-508-4848 ext. 0