Getting to Heart of the Problem of Fraudulent ForeclosuresPosted on January 22, 2015 by arnierosner
On Jan 22, 2015, at 2:38 AM, priv.publicPolicyadvocatechris Chris wrote:
——– Original Message ——–Under FRCP RuELs of Evidence: How can Humpty Dumpty put VapoRAted Chains back to gather A-Gain or dispatch the dark murky quirky Clouds swirling like Mysteries since their IS no UNbroken integrity to some cyber pHA-AN-tAH-m from some place UNknown pHAr pHAr away in another CyBAR space in time WHO hit the MA-G-Ic key stroke to send DieGIT-Ized or LIES to thru WHO Knows where through HOW many N S A F B I. DHS/S S super secret spy photo-Chop-Shops forever DIS-troying the madated accuRAcy voRAcity credulity security or integrity To the E-vAH-Dentiary chains leaving them fatally defective mere hearsay or HeRAdsy?
Subject: [New post] Title After Wrongful Foreclosure: Martha Coakley Getting to Heart of the Problem of Fraudulent Foreclosures
From: Livinglies’s Weblog
|New post on Livinglies’s Weblog|
|Title After Wrongful Foreclosure: Martha Coakley Getting to Heart of the Problem of Fraudulent Foreclosuresby Neil Garfield|
see Massachusetts Settlement: Fine PLUS Curing Title Defects
Martha Coakley gets it. She is the attorney general of Massachusetts. And she alone has enforced the law the way it should be enforced. When a bank or anyone else files a fraudulent foreclosure action they should pay for it AND the title should be corrected. If the foreclosure was false then the title is defective as shown in the county records. All previous national and state settlements were for money only. In this case four banks have agreed that they will pay a fine AND take all necessary steps to cure title. The four banks are the usual suspects — Bank of America (BOA), Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo.
Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo were accused of violating Massachusetts foreclosure laws and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by foreclosing on properties in the Commonwealth when they did not hold the rights to the mortgages, and therefore did not legally have the right to foreclose….
The Massachusetts AG office alleges in the amended complaint that the four banks ignored a fundamental legal mandate established in the Supreme Judicial Court’s Ibanez decision in January 2011 that mortgagees must strictly comply with the Commonwealth’s foreclosure laws. The Massachusetts foreclosure law states that a mortgage is void if whoever initiates the foreclosure does not hold the mortgage through valid assignment or is not the mortgagee of record at the time the foreclosure notice is published.
The complaint further alleges that the four banks did not obtain a valid assignment of the mortgage prior to publishing foreclosure notices on the properties and therefore the foreclosures should be invalidated. Also according to the complaint, the banks’ actions adversely affected the marketability and insurability of titles to numerous properties in the Commonwealth.
As part of the settlement, the banks will be required to assist consumers who claim the title to his or her residence is void from an unlawful foreclosure.
Thanks to: http://scannedretina.com