New ME Scam out of Texas????

[wserra]

there's usually somebody who legitimately owns the mortgage,

Key word, "legitimately". We have yet to find one of those due to breaks in the chain of title.

You miss Arthur's point.

You determine that the Scumbag Mortgage Service employed the services of a robosigner in acquiring a client's mortgage. Congratulations, Scumbag can't foreclose on the mortgage due to a void assignment. That hardly means that your client gets to live free for the rest of his life. It means that the lawful holder of the mortgage is Scumbag's predecessor, who can then foreclose on the mortgage. Wherever the chain of unlawfulness ends, the ability to foreclose begins. Even if that process returns us to the original lender, your client still owes. After all, your client bought the house with someone else's money. He doesn't get to keep both the house and the money under any theory.

And, of course, you can't show a single verifiable success.

BTW, didn't you write, "If you have any further questions all that you need to do is simply ask"? Well, I asked quite a few - nine, to be exact. You didn't even acknowledge them, let alone answer.

[Arthur Rubin]

there's usually somebody who legitimately owns the mortgage,

Key word, "legitimately". We have yet to find one of those due to breaks in the chain of title. That would be the "Real Party in Interest", and by adverse inference they are liable for all of the violations in the mortgage, foreclosure, and securities issues of the subject mortgage. So if you can prove RPiI status step right up! Here's my bill.

Wrong. The real party of interest hasn't received the mortgage payments since the invalid transfer. Hence, the mortgagee owes that party all the back payments and interest. In theory, they could collect from the parties who have collected the mortgage since then, but it's not the real party's fault, so ..... None of them owes you or the mortgagee anything.

[wserra]

I didn't read that part of quasimodo's post as carefully as Arthur did. I think Arthur is right, though: apparently quasimodo is saying that a prior holder of a mortgage is somehow responsible for the fraud of a subsequent holder in which s/he was no way complicit, about which fraud that the prior holder likely had no way of even knowing.

Allow me to add that to my list of unanswered questions: do you have any authority for that proposition?

[notorial dissent]

(sarcasm snipped for courtesy’s sake) The absolutely very first thing someone who is running a scam does when they get called out on it is haul out the old tried and true(except of course that it isn’t) “I’m going to sue you for slander / libel / defamation etc” you can’t say nasty things about me I’ll sue rant, the very first thing.

First and foremost, no one here has made any claims about either the validity or legality of anything you are doing other than to question what it is you are doing. So maybe you should really look at that definition you worked so hard to find. In order for your claim to stand someone has to have made such a claim, no one has, they have questioned the reality of your statements, and that is perfectly within acceptable bounds.

The second thing someone running a scam comes out with is the old reliable, and to use your very own words “We have bought into and aligned our company with the nation's largest ‘yadda yadda yadda’. This group (who I am currently not at liberty to identify)...”, and yet somehow they never get around to actually saying anything. This is the magic super duper secret black box claim, that the person making the claims can never explain, because of course it is a super duper secret.

And the third, and sure fire guarantee of scaminess, “Our clients have had success with our work product ”, that they somehow never manage to provide proof of.

So far we have the three flashing red lights of scamdom going off, so is it a scam, or just a duck? We've gotten a lot of promotion, and so far no product, a disturbing pattern developing here.

I will have to go along with wserra on this question, how did your “CEO”, who is supposed to be running this so called collection of “real estate” experts, not know about the “illegal eviction issues” if that is what this company is all about?

So you are a “Texas private investigation company”, and you are going in to court how? Since none of this can really be legally resolved without doing so.

You do realize that ALL modern mortgage documents have an errors and omissions clause in them, which means that if there are problems, read defects, with the documents that the owner has the right to correct them, which means that whatever great discovery your super sleuths come up with only need to be corrected and things continue on as they were. So how is this helping any of your clients? Other than costing them money to have you generate this non event?

This isn’t even particularly original or new, it has been tried repeatedly before, under various names and aliases, and always end in the same result, clients get screwed, principals eventually end up in jail.

While I am not disputing, and in fact I don’t think anyone here is disputing that there aren’t major problems in the mortgage industry currently, but all that aside, someone somewhere actually owns the mortgage, and under your scenario that will be whoever is on the other side of the void assignment. Big whoop, all they have to do since at that point they are the legal holder in due course is say, “Gee, I haven’t been paid at all since.... for this mortgage and I am foreclosing, and if your clients are actually behind as they most probably are or they wouldn’t be coming to you in the first place, they lose anyway as that holder has a valid title interest and can foreclose. Net effect to your clients, they lose twice, once in paying you, and twice when they lose their homes.

So tell me again, just what are you really doing for the money you are charging, and just what really are you accomplishing other than fattening your bank account? Pray enlighten me in my ignorance.

[Arthur Rubin]

there's usually somebody who legitimately owns the mortgage,

Key word, "legitimately". We have yet to find one of those due to breaks in the chain of title. That would be the "Real Party in Interest", and by adverse inference they are liable for all of the violations in the mortgage, foreclosure, and securities issues of the subject mortgage. So if you can prove RPiI status step right up! Here's my bill.

That's not a correct usage of the term "adverse inference". I didn't notice that before. "Adverse inference" is a legal concept, but it doesn't apply here. If party A sells something to party B which is required to be properly registered, and party B doesn't register it, then party A still owns it. "Adverse inference" could be used to indicate that party A still owns it, if B cannot produce that registration. However, A isn't responsible for the registration.

[Cathulhu]

Arthur, Wes, you keep saying his Magic Answer is false! Don't you know he cannot accept your vile logic and reason?

[Arthur Rubin]

There are circumstances where A can be responsible for the bad actions of B. But the only examples I can think of are vicarious liability (where B is considered an agent of A) and negligent entrustment, in which A knew or had reason to know that B would do bad things, and A also made it possible. (And there's always the Tarasoff theory, which, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't require B to be insane.) [We haven't gotten to third-party responsibility in my Contracts" course, yet.] I suppose, in quasi's theory, one of those might actually be the case. It still wouldn't let the homeowner off the hook, but it might make B, and possibly even A, liable for some damages, in equity.

[JamesVincent]

There are circumstances where A can be responsible for the bad actions of B. But the only examples I can think of are vicarious liability (where B is considered an agent of A) and negligent entrustment, in which A knew or had reason to know that B would do bad things, and A also made it possible. (And there's always the Tarasoff theory, which, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't require B to be insane.) [We haven't gotten to third-party responsibility in my Contracts" course, yet.] I suppose, in quasi's theory, one of those might actually be the case. It still wouldn't let the homeowner off the hook, but it might make B, and possibly even A, liable for some damages, in equity.

But since there is still a contract involved there would still be a payment due, no? Or would that invalidate the whole thing and party A would be the owners again.

[wserra]

As I previously wrote: a prior holder is not liable for a subsequent holder's actions, absent some sort of complicity in them. Vicarious liability, negligent entrustment, Tarasoff, whatever - absent involvement, no liability. So, even if these guys manage to find some flaw in the current holder's assignment, sooner or later their "clients" will come up against someone with the power to throw them out.

Just as has already happened to the company's principals.

[Prof]

Two points you must remember;

1. Mortgages and deeds of trust are just methods of collateralizing a loan; even if there is clear evidence of the mortgage, an enforceable debt requires a note, or evidence of the debt. Otherwise, the mortgage is just a cloud on title and there are a number of ways to cancel such a mortgage

Other than the MERS system, which is authorized by statute in Texas for some purposes, the person who holds the lien (or is the beneficiary of of the deed of trust) is always going to be in the deed records. If there has not been a proper assignment to the current beneficiary, or secured party, to use another term, that can almost always be cured and a proper foreclosure can be conducted.

It is the missing note -- the debt instrument secured by the lien -- that is crucial. A note which is not bearer paper can only be transferred by endorsement. If the current holder of the "order paper" does not have evidence of transfer sufficient to meet the terms of Art. 3 of the UCC, he, she or it cannot enforce the note. Until he she or it can come up with the requisite endorsements, it cannot enforce the note. If one of the persons in the chain of title has disappeared, and many have, the holder of the note will never be able to enforce the note, and, yes Virginia, someone gets a free house.

2. There may be issues which a borrower can raise against the enforcement of a debt when the actions were taken by the original lender. The loan closing documents may not meet the requirements of the Truth in Lending act. The closing statement may not be correct. The documents may not have been properly executed or notarized or, in the case of the lien documents, properly filed. All of those mistakes will "infect" the ability to enforce at a later date, although the remedies are often limited (including rescission, which should require unwinding the transaction).

[quasimodo]

My CEO would like to thank the individual who pulled up the illegal eviction issues he is currently dealing with.

Tell him he's welcome. Please ask him a couple of questions: (1) How did the "CEO" of this whiz-bang bunch of real estate experts manage to get himself evicted twice in the last three years? It couldn't be that he was trying out his theories and found himself on the street as a result, could it? That would be inauspicious for the prospects of potential clients. (2) Those are not just evictions, they're judgments. Where was he when his former landlords were obtaining them? Taking his dog for a long, long walk?

I cannot speak to his case.

There is a case pending now in this regard in where he is Plaintiff.

Better late than never, I suppose. Court? Docket number?

Again, I cannot speak to his case at this time. Once I have more to say in regard to this matter I will respond accordingly.

We have bought into and aligned our company with the nation's largest legal group.

While I know what a law firm is, I have no idea what a "legal group" is. The opposite of an illegal group?

Please note I misspoke in my original post.
edit:

We have aligned our company with one of the nation's largest legal groups. This group (whom I am currently not at liberty to identify)

If you would be so kind as to amend your quote It would be greatly appreciated.

Our clients have had success with our work product though wserra seems to think I am making all of this up. As I said in another forum, time will tell so I will not have to.

The poster is referring to the exchange between him and me in this thread on Sui Juris. He posted two documents which we discuss there, neither one of which proves a thing. Rather than post any actual proof, he told me I would soon "eat crow". And I never said he was "making all of this up"; I said he hadn't proven anything. He still hasn't.

I meant that crow remark lightheartedly. No offense intended.
You are a fine researcher. You dug up all kinds of goodies on my CEO and myself. You reference documents which bear case numbers. Do your research.

Some of you want to know the "secret". There is no secret. Here is how this process works.

So you look for paperwork errors/frauds in the title of the entity seeking to foreclose. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you do manage to call a certain mortgage transfer into question, that doesn't void the original mortgage - you're not at all likely to be able to do that - it simply means that an earlier entity is the lawful holder. Do you explain that, or do you imply that your clients will reap an unearned windfall? And how much do you charge for these services? What you do is not difficult, and a homeowner is likely to be able to do much of it for himself, with a little effort. If you fail, do you refund the client's money? How about linking to (or posting) a copy of the agreement you present to potential clients for signature?
----------------------------------------
However, if you do manage to call a certain mortgage transfer into question, that doesn't void the original mortgage Correct, but it does prove that the party foreclosing has no authority do do so.
lawful holder Don't be so sure of that.
Do you explain that, or do you imply that your clients will reap an unearned windfall? Your accusations, and insinuations are completely ludicrous and based upon blind speculation, so there is nothing on your list thus far to have to divulge to our clients. We urge our clients to seek competent counsel. Counsel can tell the client what their chances are. In regard to the 'reap an unearned windfall' comment, do you mean like the banks do? No. Settlements can be reached, and there is nothing granted to the client that is not due him as a matter of law.
And how much do you charge for these services?
Single mortgage: $3695.00
Double mortgage $5195.00
Package includes; PI Report/PI's affidavit, Audit results (mortgage/foreclosure process/securities), auditor's resume and certification, sample: motion, affidavit, finding of facts & conclusions, supporting case law, copy of all documents filed into the county records, and provided for auditing, letter to representative counsel, and consultation with representative counsel.
a homeowner is likely to be able to do much of it for himself, with a little effort. I differ. Do you mean to tell me that Sally Socker Mom has access to run FBI background checks from her iphone and is licensed to do so? Do you mean to tell me that she also has access to Bloomgerg? Do you mean to tell me that she has years of experience in the mortgage lending industry? Has she been trained and certified by a recognized entity for the purpose of auditing? I suppose she can also take the stand to testify in the capacity of an expert witness to her own case too. If it were that easy everyone would have already done it.
If you fail, do you refund the client's money? Other than taking someone's money and never giving them what they paid for how can we fail? Our PI's are simply finders of facts where there facts to be found. If you hire someone to find oil in your back yard and he looks and tells you there is no oil to be found do you owe him for looking? Yes you do. Our PI's and auditors do not get paid for what they find they get paid for looking. If they got paid for what they found they would have a vested interest in the outcome of the audit, and that would prejudice the clients evidence. We will not do that. When we started this company we thought that we could reasonably expect to find 1/3 to 1/2 of the mortgage audits come back showing that everything was done in lawful compliance and that the mortgage was enforceable. Three years later we are still waiting to see that one.
How about linking to (or posting) a copy of the agreement you present to potential clients for signature? If you seriously intend on being a client I will send "YOU" one. Beyond that, no dice.

Steve Skidmore CCO

Are you the "Steven Skidmore" who has had his own Texas legal problems, including an eviction, a bankruptcy and state tax liens?

I do have a case pending that I will not discuss in a public forum, and that BK is better than 20 years old. Oh, and there has been no eviction.

[quasimodo]

First, most of what you say only applies in judicial foreclosure states (IIRC).

Our first client to go through this process was here in Travis County, Texas. He set precedence here in Texas. Texas is a "non-judicial" foreclosure state.

Second, as has already been pointed out, you are trawling through paperwork trying to do what?

That's been answered.

You aren't looking for the genuine owner of the mortgage,

Yes.

you appear to be looking for errors so that your clients can avoid paying their mortgages.

That might result.

How happy will your clients be when you find the rightful owner of their mortgage who now says "thank you very much and he's a bill for the fees and interest you haven't paid for x years"?

Good the client's bill is bigger. Much bigger.

[quasimodo]

Welocome to Quatloos Quasimodo.

Well thanks, I don't feel too welcome. I have spent the last 6 years of my life trying like hell to make a difference in my beloved country, and it seems everywhere I turned I get kicked in the teeth, and I have to somehow defend what it is I do. That doesn't really matter anymore because what we are doing is what the courts want done. We have had confirmation on that, and again I cannot offer proof of telephone conversations so I guess you bunch are going assume I am lying, and even if I could produce a recording of some of the conversations I have been part of, here I would probably be accused of fabricating it.

You do realize that you wandered onto a website made and used for the specific purpose of unveiling scams in any shape and form, be they MLM/ pyramid, TP/TD, Internet, Nigerian, what have you and is also populated by a good number of practicing attorneys and a good number of people who, although are not attorneys per se make the attorneys sometimes look foolish, that really do not look kindly upon just words and platitudes and are going to want quotations of statutes, codes and case and docket numbers. Anything else is going to have you sent to scammer central since you will not be able to prove anything without it.

Well don't send me off just yet. Our personal battles should not reflect on what we do as a company other than in the fact that we are fighters, and we stand behind what we say. We do not operate under the motherly principle of do as I say not as I do. Unlike the likes of Sam Kennedy, and Tim Turner we test our stuff out on ourselves first. Not really. We run everything we do by counsel before we offer it to clients.

And as you are in Texas there are several members that practice in Texas and will know most rikki tik if you are full of mularkey. Just come out, say what you have to say and be done with it. If your company is legit, operates above the board and has found a way to legitimately help people, this board is a great SEO site as it gets some ungodly hits. If you are a sham, will, this board is a great SEO site, it gets some ungodly hits.

Well thanks again. Yeah, we had a problem a while back with namu. Seems a few of our clients went on some internet complaint boards and mentioned our company, and theirs. Though the posts were very positive the negative effect of the appearance on these sites blocked several ip addresses around the nation. They were not happy. Nothing we could do about it. We cannot control what others do.

Rest assured that we are a ligit company, and we are well aware that there are companies who out there who have given us hurdles to overcome, but all of the adversity we have had to go through has made us what we are today.

[quasimodo]

Pre-Paid Legal?

No. I will tell all when I can. At this time I am not at liberty to disclose that. Please let me make clear, in regard to my use of the term, "bought into", I was mistaken. I misinterpreted something that was told to me. If possible please reflect that in your quotes. Thanks.

[quasimodo]

You miss Arthur's point.

You determine that the Scumbag Mortgage Service employed the services of a robosigner in acquiring a client's mortgage. Congratulations, Scumbag can't foreclose on the mortgage due to a void assignment. Or the complete lack thereof That hardly means that your client gets to live free for the rest of his life. It means that the lawful holder there ya go again, assuming there is a "lawful holder" of the mortgage is Scumbag's predecessor, who can then foreclose on the mortgage. Using what instruments to do so? The same ones that have been in essence voided by decree? To enter such documents in as evidence would equate fraud upon the court. Wherever the chain of unlawfulness ends, the ability to foreclose begins. Not on documents and/or instruments (note, deed of trust & riders) that are void ab initio. Even if that process returns us to the original lender, your client still owes. US v THROCKMORTON 98 U. S. 61 (1878) "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments" I assume you are aware that it is also a state felony to file fraudulent documents into the public record. After all, your client bought the house with someone else's money. He doesn't get to keep both the house and the money under any theory. Agreed. Key word, theory. In lawful reality the homeowner's damages once brought in a declaratory action usually far exceeds the amount allegedly owed. It would be plenty to at least 0 the balance. I would be a fool to guarantee such an outcome, but that seems to be the direction it's going. Once the lien instrument(s) are declared invalid there is no more debt.

And, of course, you can't show a single verifiable success. Again, you are far too good a researcher to be continually throwing this up here. I will say again, you have referenced documents in this forum which have a case number. You are obviously not through with your research.

BTW, didn't you write, "If you have any further questions all that you need to do is simply ask"? Well, I asked quite a few - nine, to be exact. You didn't even acknowledge them, let alone answer. I'm really sorry. I tell ya what I'll do. I'll reschedule my life so that I can devote it all to monitoring this thread so as to better satisfy you. How's that? Go finish your research.

[ArthurWankspittle]

First, most of what you say only applies in judicial foreclosure states (IIRC).

Our first client to go through this process was here in Travis County, Texas. He set precedence here in Texas. Texas is a "non-judicial" foreclosure state.

Texas is both (judicial and non-judicial). Case number?

Second, as has already been pointed out, you are trawling through paperwork trying to do what?

That's been answered.

Sorry but I can't see the answer. I'll phrase the question differently: What is the client expecting to get from paying you for your service?

You aren't looking for the genuine owner of the mortgage,

Yes.

Is that "yes" you aren't looking or "yes" you are?

you appear to be looking for errors so that your clients can avoid paying their mortgages.

That might result.

Will you be selling your services with that as a benefit?

How happy will your clients be when you find the rightful owner of their mortgage who now says "thank you very much and he's a bill for the fees and interest you haven't paid for x years"?

Good the client's bill is bigger. Much bigger.

I'm confused. Your service involves charging customers money to track down who actually holds their mortgage so that they can pay their mortgage? Surely if the mortgage servicer/processor disappears you would do something like go to a lawyer and say "this is what I'm doing" and here's my mortgage payment please put it in an escrow account or similar so that when someone comes along who takes over the mortgage I can pay them. (and not go spending the mortgage money on Pergraniteel Classic Mustangs hoping no-one comes for the money).

[Prof]

ArthurWankspittle wrote:

Texas is both (judicial and non-judicial). Case number?

This is misleading. In a Deed of Trust state, like Texas, the trustee is authorized to post the property for foreclosure upon default under specific provisions of the Deed of Trust and Texas State Law. No court is involved. Notices of default and accelaration are sent. Then, the notice of foreclosure is sent specifying the first Tuesday of the next month following a minimum notice of 21 days. The statute allows a notice time of either 10 am or 2 pm, I think. The successful bidder must tender cash/cashier's check/wire transfer or other arrangement satisfactory to the trustee, within 1 hour, I think. Usually, though certainly not always, there is a credit bid by the lender and no one else bids.

The only way to stop a non-judicial foreclosure absent consent is by getting an injunction (usually, a TRO ex parte).

Like any other state, Texas provides for judicial foreclosure but judicial foreclosure is only rarely used in lieu of non-judicial foreclosure where a Deed of Trust is involved because of the expense and delay. It would be rare to conduct such a judicial foreclosure, but I have a fact situation in which the first lien is under a deed of trust and the second, held by the same party, is a mechanic's lien now reduced to judgment. If we want to foreclose on both the second (M&M) and the deed of trust first, we have to go thru judcial foreclosure. That is to say, if we want to credit bid the first and secondliens, judicial foreclosure will be required. Judicial foreclosure requires actual litigation of the debt followed by litigation over the right to foreclose on property in satisfaction of the debt. Judicial foreclosure is usually used to satisfy mechanic's liens, tax liens and judgments creating an enforceable debt obligation, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise.

[AndyK]

As has become blatantly obvious, Quasimodo's "Service" consists of charging people significant fees for a castle in the clouds. Despite all his blather, once a legitimate mortgage has been established, the borower owes money to the lender.

Until the mortgage is either paid in full or forgiven, the borrower has an obligation to pay.

If the chain of title is messed up, documents are missing, etc; the ownership of the note reverts to the last documented holder. The borrower owes the money to that holder.

Quasimodo's service is very closely related to the "service" Will Rogers once mentioned when he was discussing the relationship of a bull to a cow.

[Prof]

As has become blatantly obvious, Quasimodo's "Service" consists of charging people significant fees for a castle in the clouds. Despite all his blather, once a legitimate mortgage has been established, the borower owes money to the lender.Until the mortgage is either paid in full or forgiven, the borrower has an obligation to pay.

While I agree about "Q," your legal analysis is deeply flawed; I'll put it another way: you're wrong. You wrote:

Until the mortgage is either paid in full or forgiven, the borrower has an obligation to pay.

The correct statement would be:
Until the NOTE is paid in full or forgiven TO A HOLDER OR TRANSFEREE, the mortgage continues to secure the debt.

You also wrote:

If the chain of title is messed up, documents are missing, etc; the ownership of the note reverts to the last documented holder. The borrower owes the money to that holder.

[/quote][/quote]

This is just simply absolutely wrong. See generally Art. 3 of the UCC, which only allows a note to be enforced by a holder or transferee; prior holders who transfer to third parties retain no right of reversion -- and could not, since the obligation to that prior holder was satisfied when it transferred the note to the new holder.

Further comments:

Establishing the existence a mortgage lien is usually easy. It is a recorded document. Assuming that the proper steps are taken under state law to foreclose, foreclosure should be easy.

However, a properly recorded mortgage is absolutely not evidence that there is a debt secured by the mortgage. If the debt is paid or cannot be proven, the lien should be released. State law provides provisions for the release of liens which do not secure a provable debt.

In order for a real estate mortgage to be valid, the foreclosing lender must be able to show that it is the holder or transferee of the note secured by the mortgage. In a non-judicial foreclosure state like Texas, a foreclosure must be challenged by the debtor -- he must initial judicial process to challenge the foreclosure and force the lender to show that it owns the debt and that the mortgage (Deed of Trust) is valid and that the requirments of notice of default, etc., have been met.

In a judicial foreclosure state like Florida, the lender must sue, and must allege and be prepared to show that it is the holder or transferee of the note. Unless the lender can make that showing to a judge's satisfaction, there can be no foreclosure.

[webhick]

I'm still hung up on the claim that they're licensed to run FBI criminal background checks, because...you know...I'm weird. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the process, but this company is not a state agency and they're not on the approved channeler's list. Can someone clarify?