CA Court Site Info on Foreclosure

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Securitization: Easy To Understand But No Cigar in Courts

Our disclaimer: SECURITIZED mortgage cases..........
The site above is from Georgia. It is not re California law.
However, different STATES treat SECURITIZED issues differently.

However, not all of our visitors live or have cases in California, and the site above
is fairly clear to understand.  
One of the largest sites on predatory foreclosure is living lies by Neil Garfield, retired
attorney. [The link above is not Garfields', it is from a non profit in Georgia]
According to the Garfield site, more than 9million views, etc. Although
we have no doubt that Garfield knows what he talks about, the site is difficult to navigate
in our opinion, and appears to be a jumbled group of data and cases, plus ranting and many pleas asking for help,  but there is also the element
of $$ because they (blogger) sell services, even to attorneys.

Garfield may be correct about
securitization, but we will tell you right now, every single foreclosure is not going to come
out winning due to securitization, especially in California. In fact we think
it will be very seldom. The obvious reason is that there are far too many of these cases and if
all of them were to be filed, it would undoubtedly create chaos in the courts. It was difficult
enough for the government to even set up HBOR and the national settlement proceeds. And
who do we know that even collected from it? A very small drop in the bucket. 

And it is highly unlikely the SCOTUS
would hear a case on the subject. If a decision came out of the 9th Circuit 
against securitization, it would likely be heavily fact dependent and not necessarily usable in every case in California.

Sorry we couldn't get it to show up clear, but the link is directly above.

This is the most simplistic of any explanation on MERS. However, be FOREWARNED that in California thus far, very very few cases of MERS based defense in foreclosure --- is getting very far.  Securitization, even if proven, and the GLASKI case, are not the norm, and continue in Federal Courts, to be a crap shoot. [AND AS EVIDENCED BY THE RECENT APPEAL IN THIRD DCA CALIFORNIA, IT IS ALSO A MINORITY IN STATE COURTS AS WELL NOW!]  SEE POST OF 8/19/14, MENDOZA V JP MORGAN CHASE

 In other words, even if your securitized documents were not put into the trust or were put in after it closed, guess what,  the courts are saying well you couldn't pay anyway, so it would not affect your case... (See the snowball from Hell re Glaski on this blog...) If you had no other defenses, you would likely be out on 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or some other motion to dismiss. In State courts, you would need to show prejudice or some other cause of action or harm.

It takes thousands and thousands of $$ for attorneys to get to the bottom of the deception, and even when it is shown, the courts in California are NOT running to help litigants. Actually, they
likely never will. Maybe in some smaller jurisdictions, the litigants may have a slightly better chance. 
 In bankruptcy courts, sometimes they may have a decent chance. But if there was an unlawful detainer case that was not consolidated with the civil complaint case, the case loses a
lot of steam. And most cases are refused consolidation.

No comments:

Post a Comment