Apparently the law offices of Steven J. Baum became very proficient at their ability to process Chase Bank foreclosure cases, averaging as many as 45 to 48 cases a day.
The thin line between Narcissism and Heightened Empathy Skills.
-
A link to an article that examines possible connections between Narcissism
Tendencies and Heightened Empath Skills.
8 months ago
3 comments:
SUBJECT: GOLDMAN SACHS EMBEZZLEMENT SCHEME - SECRET SECONDS
THE LATEST SCAM – ALERT!!! DO NOT WAIT FOR THE FORECLOUSRE MILLS, SERVICERS OR LENDERS TO GIVE YOU FORECLOSURE DOCUMENTS OR ASSIGNMENTS - THEY ARE NOT GIVING YOU EVERYTHING - ORDER A TITLE SEARCH OR GO TO YOUR COUNTY RECORDER TO SEE WHATS BEEN RECORDED ON YOUR PROPERTY – WE DID AND THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND:
In May 2005 we deposited and invested $200,000 in Real Property, where we recently found out that $118,800 was embezzled out of our property from Mortgage Lenders and Trust Brokerage Companies, namely Goldman Sachs through an escrow Transaction. The $118,800 in funds was paid to these embezzlers from the Investors unbeknownst that the securitization happened by encumbering our property and making up a fraudulent fake Promissory Note and Deed of Trust.
See the link for further information: https://fdaaccount.box.net/shared/a1pjz9sz5c
Hi Leslie, I am going to respond as someone who is UNTRAINED AND UNQUALIFIED to offer any kind of legal or financial advice or advice that could be used anywhere other than here, as it is just my opinion and observation.
I actually did look at the PDF documents you provided.
I noticed the judge in your case focused in on what your monthly payment was (over $6,000 dollars) and how long it had last been since the plaintiff had made a payment, (apparently April of 2008, the case was heard in late March of 2009, so I am guessing a year had gone by with no payments?)
-------------------
One of the arguments made by the plaintiff was that the plaintiff had a prior foreclosure and that it was hidden by the loan originator to make sure the loan went through, and therefore the loan broker committed fraud by not allowing that information into the loan. Isn't that a "Watch where I'm going" type of defense?
Did not the hiding of this prior foreclosure information actually favor the plaintiffs loan and perhaps even give the plaintiff a lower interest rate as a result. If I were a judge, I would rarely give the "Watch where I'm going" type of defense any credibility.
It seems to me that two things might have been done to help your case.
A. show a comparative loan to another homeowner for a similar amount for a similar property relatively nearby, but with much much better terms.
A 6,000 dollar mortgage with a 500,000 balloon payment at the end seems rather excessive for a home valued around a million dollars, so, prove it by showing the judge that someone else got a loan for a similar home nearby for a more affordable monthly mortgage amount, thereby possibly proving predatory lending.
Then, in my opinion, one could use the example of a more reasonable mortgage amount and put that amount in an escrow account every month and show it to the judge. "Look your honor, we have been putting money into an escrow account every month that matches what the loan should have been for."
I don't know how the judge would react to that, but it probably would be more favorable than not making any payments for a year.
As for the plaintiff allegations of embezzling, I am wondering if the alleged holders of the note are simply figuring out a way, legal or not, to draw off funds the equity of the property to offset the lack of mortgage payments.
If that is what they were doing, then they did lie in court when they said the plaintiff was living in the home for free for the past year.
The issue of the loan companies and holder of the note not responding to the plaintiff do not necessarily mean the homeowner can simply not make any payments at all.
Even a reduced amount, paid every month, probably would be looked upon more favorably by the judge than no payments at all.
I am worried that your attorney might, and I say might because I am not an authority and it is just my opinion...have focused you on what the other side did wrong, rather than what you could have done to be more in the right.
I hope whatever down payment you made isn't lost due to foreclosure and at the very least keeps you in your home for an extended period of time as a form of "rent", this is an area of discourse that nobody seems to argue in court.
If you feel my comments above somehow damage your case, please let me know and I will delete your comment and mine as well.
It is my opinion that these foreclosurre cases are more winnable if the lawyers can stick to the guts, the money aspect of the cases. Prove the home loan was a crap loan, prove that the original down payment and built up equity should be made available to the plaintiff to either extend their stay in the home before it is foreclosed on, or should be given to the plaintiff as part of an exit strategy from the home, as a way to prevent crap loans from being written in the future.
If the loan originators write a crap loan, and it is provable in court that it is a crap loan, and the loan originators lose the down payment back to the plaintiff as a result, the loan originators might be less likely to make crap loans in the future.
Post a Comment