Faces Of Foreclosure

Yesterday I heard a loan modification person say she didn’t think homelessness had reached crises proportions. Really?

Numbers.

Type “America’s tent cities” into google: 7,720,000 items and 2,550,000 images (many of them duplicates, thank God). One blog sarcastically noted that “banks can’t (or won’t) finance the purchase of them (the tents).”

Equally sad is that the tent cities in America are not controlled or set up “properly” for the most part. If people have to live in them, then please treat this as the national disaster that it is and provide services such as you would after a flood or earthquake.

Instead, authorities (those that live in homes) destroy the tent villages; one group of officials cut up the tents of the homeless people so that they become tentless on top of being homeless.

Yes, there are chronic homeless individuals and that has been a problem in major cities for decades; however, we have a new class of homeless . . . people who in the last couple of years were working and paying their mortgage or rent to stay in “acceptable” housing. These people can be counted among the taxpayers of America. I promise you that you will find people living in those tents that are holding down jobs, getting to work every day, hiding their shame and embarrassment at their situation, and continuing to pay taxes.

Tent cities in some refugee camps around the world are established by various UN entities and while tent dwelling isn’t the average American’s ideal living situation, when tent camps are sent up properly, they are at least orderly and have appropriate facilities. After San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake, members of my family lived in tent villages in Golden Gate Park. That was a state of emergency, and it seems that we are now in another state of emergency.

Some nations, such as Tibet and Turkey (images right) have taken tent living to a fine art and it has been necessary in some areas. “People of the Wind,” filmed in 1976, is a documentary of the Bakhtiari tribe of Southern Iran and depicts their annual 200 mile trek from the high summer pastures through a 12,000 foot pass in the Zagros Mountains (with tents, of course). The migration is to maintain their flocks of sheep and is mandatory for survival. Narrated by James Mason. Music by G.T. Moore (guitar) and Shusha (vocals) is haunting. (A 14-page pdf about this movie: People of the Wind).

In America, mortgage lenders have displaced more than 10 million people; wars in “third world” countries are not currently displacing that many men, women and children, yet we consider wars despicable and send troops to defend those families.

Why aren’t we sending troops to defend America’s working families? Again, I am truly curious? What IS the breaking point. When does someone decide that displacement of 10 million people is against our civil rights?

America’s working men, women — and often children — shaped this country into the great place that it is (was?). Why aren’t we being protected? How did we become “the enemy” and “inconvenient?” We are being “internally displaced” (meaning having to move within our own country) and our displacement rivals or exceeds international numbers:

2009, Sri Lanka: 300,000 war-displaced Tamils forced into camps;
2009, Yemen: 150,000 people fled fighting;
2009, Sudan: 250,000 displaced;
2009, Georgians: 192,000 displaced (Moscow, Reuters)
2008, Columbia: 380,000 forced off their farms by guerillas, paramilitaries or drug traffickers;
2008, World: 4.6 million from armed conflicts;
2008, World: 20 million displaced because of natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes and storms.

When is the last time you read the America’s Declaration of Independence? It’s on line at the National Archives.

I still haven’t gotten around to asking a bookie or an actuary what the odds are of 10 million people defaulting on their loans without some type of “outside assistance” from the lending industry. And I still haven’t gotten around to finding out if lenders are totally covered no matter what they do to individuals, i.e. do they all have insurance and/or government (taxpayer) dollars to cover them so there is no loss no matter what?

Large migrating groups of lemmings mindlessly jump off cliffs into the ocean and swim beyond exhaustion and into death. While it is not intentional suicide, the effect is the same, and I can’t help but liken our current foreclosure nightmare to the lemmings.

A new “plan” is presented to “save” us from foreclosure every few months; thousands of us rush in that direction to no avail.

Along with those other families, I’ve been rushing hither and yon for one year only to be told “no” to loan modification by Wells Fargo – who does not hold the note in any case – they are servicers and have no right to decide anything.

(A word of caution here: If/when your lender offers a temporary modification indicating that you might be approved for permanent modification at the end of a three-month trial period, QUESTION THAT and get it in writing if you intend to go along with it. If your lender is merely the servicer of the loan (which is true in thousands of instances), they have no authority to offer any type of modification plan; that must come from the investor — many loans have been sold in batches to investors. Odds are good that your original lender does NOT own your note. If you are fortunate, they will have lost the note and, technically, no one owns your home but you.)

How efficient are these lenders? On November 27, 2009 — after almost one year of “negotiations” with Wells Fargo, they declined any loan modification by stating that the investor does not want to modify the loan. On December 3, 2009, I received a “Making Home Affordable” piece of paper from Wells Fargo offering to discuss modification programs to help me stay in my home. On December 8, I received an automated call from Wells saying that more paperwork is due in order to consider modification. After a call to Crystal at Wells, I learned that I’m still in some loop; they are resubmitted some type of modification request to whomever the lender might be. Foreclosure has not been activated. I have somewhere between 30 and 90 days or something . . .

I’m starting to feel insane.

And I can’t help but wonder what they did with the investors that already indicated that they don’t want to modify the loan? Perhaps they threw them off the cliff with the lemmings.

Which brings up another question: Why aren’t the investors suing the banks that sold them these loans? My loan was sold by Wells Fargo to HSBC AFTER I filed for bankruptcy. Doesn’t HSBC have some say in this? Actually, now that I think of this, I’m going to call HSBC and ASK THEM JUST THAT!

We are collectively heading for another endless chasm with our current directions and I am SO tired of this game. I would like to be Lead Lemming, and here’s my proposal:

Get mortgage lenders out of this picture. The lenders have clearly proven they are inept and perhaps unethical; why does the charade continue?

Spend those federal billions on establishing a fund that will buy about-to-be-foreclosed homes from lenders and sell them BACK to the current owners? What is the point of weakening our communities by displacing millions of people?

No one will win this current battle by continuing the established course . . . we will tread water until we reach exhaustion and expire from exertion.

By JAMES R. HAGERTY

Fannie Mae announced a program aimed at helping ordinary home buyers compete with investors for foreclosed homes.

Under the program, dubbed First Look, Fannie plans to consider offers only from potential owner-occupants and certain public-housing entities during the first 15 days in which a foreclosed home is on the market.

Fannie and its main rival, Freddie Mac, are government-controlled companies that buy or guarantee home mortgages. They are among the biggest owners of foreclosed homes. As of Sept. 30, Fannie said it had 72,275 single-family foreclosed homes on its books. Freddie had 41,133 as of that date.

Many investors can move faster on home purchases because they are able to pay cash and don’t have to wait to qualify for a loan and get an appraisal. Investors often turn the homes into rental units or flip them to other buyers for a quick profit. People seeking to take advantage of the drop in housing prices to buy their first homes have been grousing that they often lose bidding wars to investors.

Fannie said it also would help owner-occupants acquire homes by reducing deposit requirements to as little as $500 and giving them a chance to renegotiate offers after appraisals. Such buyers also are to be allowed as many as 45 days to complete the transaction, up from the usual 30 days.

A Freddie spokesman said the company has similar pilot programs and is helping owner-occupants pay closing costs.

Fannie announced Tuesday that 4.72% of the single-family home loans it owns or guarantees were 90 days or more overdue in September, up from 4.45% in August and 1.72% in September 2008.

From Nick Adams
EzineArticles
November 2009

One of the defenses against foreclosure that is becoming more widespread is the so-called “produce the note” strategy. Numerous cases have been thrown out once the bank has been unable to provide the note to prove that it owns the loan. Without having possession of the original note and being able to produce it for the homeowners’ inspection, a foreclosure may be declared invalid.

For homeowners to use this defense, however, it is important that you put together all of the information needed and do the required amount of research. Not every court will look kindly upon borrowers raising this defense if there is no legitimate basis for it. Homeowners defending themselves are already viewed as more of an annoyance than anything, so they should do their best to prepare for this type of defense.

The first question homeowners may want to ask is if a copy of the mortgage or note is already attached to the complaint. This can be a good starting point to determine if the bank has access to the original note, although a copy is not definitive proof of owning the note. Banks may attach a copy obtained from a previous owner of the loan but not have actual possession of the original.

Borrowers also may want to research if a copy of the mortgage or note is required in their state. Civil rules of court procedure would be the place to find this information, and can save homeowners a great deal of time if the state does not require the copy to be attached.

Also, homeowners should look in the foreclosure complaint for any affidavits from the lender relating to the original note. For instance, the mortgage company may include an affidavit stating that the copies of the note are true and accurate representations of the original. Another affidavit may state that the bank is in possession of the original note and mortgage. If these are present, the homeowners may wish to request that the original note be produced for their inspection.

Finally, homeowners should look into requesting the original mortgage and note to be included in the lawsuit paperwork for their inspection. This can usually be done through the discovery process, where homeowners are requesting other relevant documents and attempting to get straight answers out of the bank regarding the mortgage and foreclosure process. As other documents are requested (like payment histories), the original note can be requested to be produced.

If the bank fails to produce the original note for the homeowners’ inspection, the case may be dismissed on this basis alone. Of course, borrowers should consult with competent legal counsel, but this new strategy to defend foreclosure is being used with more regularity due to the inability of banks to keep accurate records of the original note.

Steps to get you through this insane process include:

1. Contact your lender and inform them that you are not able to make the mortgage payments. Tell your story and provide the requested documentation. You do not have to continue calling them; they will call you. You have to know when to talk and when not to talk.
2. Start keeping records of every phone call: Date, time, phone number called, who you talked to and notes about who said what to whom. This may well be your strongest defense down the road. (I have 6 pages typed, single lines with my mortgage lender.) Keep everything in a binder in chronological order. This will help save your sanity also and it will be quite effective when a judge notes that the letters from your lender are unsigned do not have anyone’s name (which is the case with Wells Fargo and probably others). It will also be worthy to note that contradictory letters will come from your lending institution within days of each other. The lenders are shockingly sloppy.
3. Tell your friends and relatives. The more people know about your situation, the more chances you will have to get “lucky.”
4. NEVER walk away from your home. The foreclosure process can be a short one or a long one, depending on your actions. You are in control, believe it or not.
5. Stop paying your credit cards. I hate saying this because in my own case, the credit card agencies were wonderful to work with, whereas the mortgage company has been a nightmare. However, your credit card debt is generally unsecured . . . except for your car . . . I lost mine to reposession. But the house is your first priority.
6. Do not pay for help. Call some of the counseling services just to see what they offer. Most counseling services, unfortunately, offer little. The largest groups that seem to get some positive results are NACA (NACA.org) and Acorn. I strongly recommend working with a professional group . . . one that does NOT request payment as nothing can be guaranteed. Also, It is now illegal in the State of California to charge legal fees for services relating to loan modification
7. After the first three months the bank can initiate a legal action. They can send you collection letters. This is the time to request forbearance agreement. Sometimes it is free but usually your lender requests partial payments.
8. Do not rely on Home Affordable Programs out of Washington, D.C.. Sadly, it was not structured to help the homeowners. Trying this avenue is like hitting your head against wall.
9. An “option” is to request a short sale. I hate this “solution” as you do lose your home and while it does not hurt your credit as much as bankruptcy and/or foreclosure, it still hurts. I would go in this direction ONLY if there is no other choice.
10. How long you have until foreclosure is up to you and how much work you put into saving your home: It can be three months or it can be three years.
11. You may be your own best resource. There are ways to delay the process and stay in your home mortgage free while you save enough to move if you must . . . or figure out a way to earn the money to get back on track, which is not easy, but it is possible.

If you decide to dig further yourself, we just found a couple of guides at Amazon.com which are far more reasonably priced than the offers we’ve seen on the internet. We do not have copies and cannot attest to their effectiveness; they are here for information and as options if you, like some of us, are at your wit’s end. Anti-Fraud Risk and Control Workbook by Peter Goldman (Wiley; $42.00). Peter D. Goldmann is founder and President of White-Collar Crime 101 LLC, the parent company of FraudAware and publisher of the monthly newsletter, White-Collar Crime Fighter. He has been the Publisher and Editor of White-Collar Crime Fighter for over twelve years and is recognized as a leading expert in the areas of fraud detection, prevention, investigation, and training. His book includes "basic fraud detection tools and techniques." Forensic Mortgage Loan Audit Software by Forensics Plus ($78.00 new) This sofware purports to audit mortgage loans and uncover violations instantly and supports the findings with laws quoted directly from TILA and RESPA. Hopea vioalations uncovered, APR tests high fee violations all covered by the software. The guide shows you how to conduct a forensic audit with each step is outlined and written. Included with the package are: * Forensic Loan Audit Software-Unlimited Use * Forensic Loan Audit Guide * Forensic Loan Audit Manual * Legal Forms Database If you wish to receive updates on Faces of Foreclosure, please fill in the form below. We will keep you apprised of anything that works (and anything that does not work). Please rest assured that this is confidential; we neither  share nor sell information. * Email First Name Last Name City State   * = Required Field

A Forensic Audit may provide sufficient legal ammunition for your negotiators to turn the tables on a predatory lender. When presented with the legal facts, lenders are more likely to be open to negotiations that are favorable to you versus pursuing their legal options. We started looking at forensic audits a few weeks back when we realized that our lender does not want to negotiate (this revelation comes after one year of “negotiating.)

Ultimately, it may lead to reluctant servicers finding a reason to work with you, a more favorable loan modification, or in some cases it may even provide a basis to support principal reductions.

We love NACA and now they are providing FREE Forensic Audits for NACA Members. The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (“NACA”) is one of the nation’s largest non-profits with over 30 offices nationwide. It deals exclusively in community advocacy and homeownership issues.

NACA is one of–if not “the– most effective organizations in helping struggling homeowners obtain loan modifications as they have special “loan restructure” agreements in place with many of the top mortgage servicing companies. If they are unable to come to an agreement with your mortgage servicer, then they are given the opportunity to go directly to the investor who holds the loan.

As a NACA Member, you are entitled to a FREE Forensic Audit on your mortgage loan. This is one of the many benefits that NACA extends to its Members.

What is the Purpose of a Forensic Audit?
The purpose of the Forensic Mortgage Audit is to provide the reader with an in depth third party forensic investigation of the loan attributes, sequence of events, business and compliance practices followed throughout your Mortgage loan transaction.

The Forensic Mortgage Audit Report will identify potential deficiencies, discrepancies, errors and statutory violations of consumer protection statutes that may present opportunities for negotiation, litigation or settlement within your mortgage loan such as TILA, RESPA, ECOA, HOEPA, FCRA, & State UDAP. The audit may also reveal the presence of TILA violations as grounds for you to exercise the extended (three year) right to rescind the mortgage loan.

CMAC’s proprietary Violation Assessment Model (VAM) is easy to read and articulates the specific statute violations revealed during the course of the examination, their cause, applicable regulation and/or case law and possible remedies available.
In addition to the review of documents, you will be interviewed to find your perspective on the events leading up to the loan closing, and later to events leading up to default and foreclosure – if this stage has been reached.

If you are having trouble paying your mortgage and/or are already in default, consider working with NACA. All services are free. Visit their website and find out about their process: Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. It seems that no other entity is having the success rate of NACA. They do not seem to accept roadblocks . . . founder Bruce Marks finds a way around. Their three-day visit to San Francisco to meet directly with people needing assistance turned lives around (and brought tears to my eyes throughout the day).

More information on NACA and a few photos of their event that was held in San Francisco in October.

I’m personally to the point where I think NACA is my only hope.

• I recently heard that a 60+ year old gentleman will shoot himself the day they take his house (which he has lived in for 37 years; he does own a gun). His home is in in foreclosure under questionable circumstances. A feisty Marin group got the issue into Federal Court and all is hanging by a thread.
• Warren Buffett, in discussing the mortgage crises during a recent interview said, “This is war.”
• This site — FacesOfForeclosure.com — is the fastest growing website I’ve built in 20+ years of building websites.

You hired Randy Shilts to cover gays a couple of decades ago when that was a hot topic.

Millions of hard-working people are being displaced . . . the very people who were your subscribers through the decades.

What about hiring or consulting with someone who has been in the midst of the mortgage mess?

Covering this from reality, instead of inane quotes from self-interested lenders, could increase your readership. Type in “Wells Fargo Mortgage complaints.” Result: 33,800 items; Type in “Bank of America Mortgage complaints.” THREE. Yes. THREE.

Of course, you COULD just be practical and focus on that bottom line since many of us WILL lose our homes. Perhaps Tom Stienstra could do a story on just what gear you will need to live under one of the Bay Area’s freeways. Advertisers: REI, LL Bean, North Face, Kaplan’s (are they still around?)

I’ve nothing better to do until Wells Fargo decides whether or not I have a home. As we are more than 330 days into that, I’m avoiding holding my breath. I have been trying for a remod since December 2008 with that lender. The word “inept” is paramount, immediately followed by “white collar crooks.”

Wells Fargo’s definition of “helping,” must mean “corresponding without resolution.” Wells Fargo’s new campaign: “We are here for you.” Really? Define “here.”

I have five typed pages, single spaced, 12 pt. Calibri of who said what to whom on what date. Haven’t yet talked with the same person twice. One week a letter arrives indicating “we can help,” followed a couple weeks later by a request for more paperwork (’cause they lost earlier submissions), followed by a rep saying “Uh, well, no, the note holders do not want to negotiate” followed by a letter or call that indicates they are “considering my request.” Initially I deemed Wells execs crooked. Now I think they are staggeringly inept on top of being larcenous. There is no indication that Wells knows what they are doing. And they sure as hell are “not here for you” or me or anyone. I’m trying to not “hate” them because it is such a negative emotion and causes “dis-ease.” However, I think I am losing that battle.

Check www.MarinFamilyAction.com. They just might feret out Marin’s white collar thieves in this mortgage mess and have just filed a report with the District Attorney on one questionable group. “Insider trading” seems to have a lot as to who gets what.
Want a duplex in Tiburon worth about $2.5 million for less than $1 million? Might be on the market soon due to lies and subterfuge. I’m serious. This all sounds nuts. Actually, it is nuts. But it is also true.

Hello to everybody. I miss The Chronicle every day and hope you are all well.

Oh, one more thing . . . this from the National Association of Realtors to Realtors:

“You help to stabilize the community, and without homeownership, there can be no stability in communities,” Stevens said. “Together, we must never let overexuberance overtake the housing market again, and interrupt the housing market and the lives of untold millions of Americans. Our goal must be nothing less than to craft a solid, sustainable housing market, a market with a secure foundation for the future.”

Is this before or after writing off the current millions of men, women, children, dogs, cats, etc. who are about to lose their homes? Just asking.

This is not intended to help you get your house for free. The primary goal is to delay the foreclosure notification and eviction process and to put pressure on the lenders to negotiate with you. Despite all the hype about lenders wanting to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, most borrowers have a different experience.

Too many homeowners face lenders that resist all efforts to work out a payment structure to keep them in their homes. Many homeowners just want these lenders to give them reasonable terms on their mortgages, and help them work through economic hardships.

The following is from LoanSafe.org:

From what I’ve been reading, a COPY of the note is not going to be good enough for the court for the plaintiff to prove that they have the right to foreclose on the borrower. It has to be the ORIGINAL blue ink copy–no electronic copies; it has to be the original and the original only.

This strategy does not require an attorney. All you have to do is fill out the form and file it with the court clerk in your county and they will serve it on the plaintiff’s attorney.

“Produce the Note” is not a technicality that should be treated lightly by the lender or by the Court. When a lender can’t “produce the note,” allowing a foreclosure to proceed puts the homeowner at risk of owing that debt again to another party.

Let’s start with the basics. If a lender wants to foreclose on a property, it has to be able to show that it is, in fact, the appropriate person to whom the money is owed. That right to foreclose belongs ONLY to the person who has legitimate POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE – not a copy, not an electronic entry, but the original note itself with the signature of the person who allegedly owes the money.

So if you are faced with a foreclosure, you have every right to demand that the person trying to take your property, first, prove to the Court that it has possession of the original promissory note.

What often happens, however, is that the lender claims it doesn’t have the original note, because that note has been lost or destroyed. What does the law require the lender to prove?

The “Uniform Commercial Code” is a set of laws governing commercial transactions that many states, such as Florida, have adopted. It contains a specific provision on this subject (Section 3-309) which states that a person can enforce a promissory note without having the original, BUT only under certain limited circumstances. All of the following must be proven:

1. The person has to claim that it no longer has the original note;
2. The person has to prove that it was properly in possession of the note and entitled to enforce it WHEN it lost possession of the note;
3. The person has to prove it didn’t “lose” possession simply because it transferred the note to someone else (i.e., it’s not really lost); and
4. The person has to prove that it cannot produce the original note, because the instrument was destroyed, or its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it was stolen by someone who had no right to it.

All of these matters have to be proven by the person trying to foreclose on the property. It is not the obligation of the borrower to prove or disprove any of this.

It is up to the Court to determine whether the lender has satisfactorily explained why it no longer can produce the original note. The Court also has to be satisfied that when the original note was lost, the person trying to foreclose on the property had possession of the note at the time it was lost. Until the Court has been satisfied of all of this, the foreclosure cannot proceed; if it does, the borrower is still at risk.

Why? Because incredibly, even if a Court has found that the original note is lost and the foreclosure sale is finalized, if someone later turns up with the original note and proves that it is the proper holder of the note, and not the person who foreclosed on the property, the original borrower is STILL LIABLE.

And one more . . .

WHO OWNS THE NOTE? Your goal is to make certain the institution suing you is, in fact, the owner of the note (see steps to follow below). There is only one original note for your mortgage that has your signature on it. This is the document that proves you owe the debt.

During the lending boom, most mortgages were flipped and sold to another lender or servicer or sliced up and sold to investors as securitized packages on Wall Street. In the rush to turn these over as fast as possible to make the most money, many of the new lenders did not get the proper paperwork to show they own the note and mortgage. This is the key to the produce the note strategy. Now, many lenders are moving to foreclose on homeowners, resulting in part from problems they created, and don’t have the proper paperwork to prove they have a right to foreclose.

THE HARM: If you don’t challenge your lender, the court will simply allow the foreclosure to proceed. It’s important to hold lenders accountable for their carelessness. This is the biggest asset in your life. It’s just a piece of paper to them, and one they likely either lost or destroyed.

When you get a copy of the foreclosure suit, many lenders now automatically include a count to re-establish the note. It often reads something like: “ . . . the Mortgage note has either been lost or destroyed and the Plaintiff is unable to state the manner in which this occurred.” In other words, they are admitting they don’t have the note that proves they have a right to foreclose.

If the lender is allowed to proceed without that proof, there is a possibility another institution, which may have bought your note along the way, will also try to collect the same debt from you again.

October 22, 2009
LEGAL ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Lawyers Resign Over Mortgage Scam
By Don J. DeBenedictis
Daily Journal Staff Writer

SANTA ANA – The State Bar announced Wednesday that four Southern California lawyers accused of cheating homeowners seeking mortgage modifications have given up their bar licenses, while three more lawyers are close to losing theirs.

The bar made the announcement in its fourth press release in as many months about its efforts to protect consumers from lawyers who take money from homeowners in trouble but then do little or nothing to help stave off foreclosures.

In a highly unusual move criticized by defense attorneys, the bar last month named 16 lawyers it has under investigation for loan-modification scams. Usually, the bar only can identify lawyers in trouble after it has filed formal charges.

In response to the huge number of consumer complaints, the State Bar set up a special task force of five lawyers and eight investigators in its Los Angeles office to look into mortgage modification scams, according to its chief, Suzan Anderson. The task force currently is looking into 738 complaints involving about 200 lawyers, according to Wednesday’s press statement.

Those lawyers who resigned recently are Cameron Edwards, 29, of the Alliance Law Center in San Diego; Ronald Rodis, 45, of Rodis Law Group and America’s Law Group in Newport Beach; and Jeffrey Nemerofsky, 51, of U.S. Advocacy Law Group and U.S. Financial Products, in Laguna Niguel.

The fourth lawyer, James Parsa, 44, “has advertised heavily throughout California for the past several months, offering to help homeowners facing foreclosure,” according to the bar. But Parsa resigned when the bar discovered that he had not reported to the bar his two misdemeanors convictions for sex with an underage girl in 2001.
Other lawyers identified in the bar’s latest news release include Christopher L. Diener, 41, of the Diener Law Group and Home Relief Services in Irvine. The State Bar put Diener on inactive status involuntarily on Oct. 9. He is also being sued by the state attorney general’s office in Orange County Superior Court for allegedly bilking thousands of homeowners out of thousands of dollars each. People v. Home Relief Services, 30-2009-00125949-CU-MC-CJC (Orange Super., filed July 13, 2009)

The bar said it also is seeking to force two more lawyers into inactive status, Paul Lucas, 48, of Lucas Law Center in Aliso Viejo, and Sean Rutledge, 34, of United Law Group in Irvine.

Rutledge is scheduled for a hearing in the State Bar Court in Los Angeles on Friday, but he was recently injured in a serious motorcycle accident, according a colleague and a State Bar prosecutor.
None of the lawyers named in the bar’s release could be reached Wednesday.

However, Rodis on Wednesday referred questions to an attorney, Nancy C. Eng of Darling & Risbrough in Los Angeles, who represents Rodis in a suit by the FTC. Eng would not discuss her client or ongoing litigation.

Paul J. Lucas of Aliso Viejo, did speak earlier in the week.
Besides action from the State Bar, Lucas, 48, founder of Lucas Law Center, is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission. In interviews Monday and Tuesday, Lucas said that his company obtained mortgage modifications for close to 500 homeowners.

Accusations against him are “heavy-handed and politically motivated,” Lucas said. “You can’t beat them,” he added about the FTC.

Above and Below: Triple Investment Offices 2300 Bridgeway, Sausalito, California Photographer, D.A. Levy November 2009

We’re curious about a firm named Triple Investments, 2300 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965. Triple Investments was mentioned in conjunction with a Marin County foreclosure in the Marin Independent Journal on November 7, 2009 and they seem to have a couple of others on the books.

Principals are purportedly Scott Dixon, John Lundy and Joe Giraudo (with Georgina Giraudo listed to receive services) and Peter Kerman.

The only person licensed as a broker or realtor as of 11/12/2009, per State of California DRE, is Joseph John Giraudo who was doing business as Charter Properties active from 11/15/1971 to 07/01/1985 (noted as cancelled); no current DBAs, no current branches, no current affiliated corporations, one salesperson. The company has no website and no short sale listings (per the woman who answered the phone).

As of October 29, 2009, Joe Giraudo is listed as a member of the San Francisco Association of Realtors at Giraudo Realty, 2300 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965. 415.339.2222, along with Mark Jason Giraudo (as a salesperson out of Tiburon, License 01182248 expired 12/29/07); both are noted as part of Giraudo Realty in Sausalito. We did not find any indication of Giraudo Realty with the California Department of Real Estate.

If you have worked with them . . . or if they purchased/sold your house through foreclosure, please leave a message here and if you would like to remain confidential, please indicate so; messages are not automatically posted. They need to be approved and will not be posted if you want to remain behind the scenes.

We are merely curious. I’m fascinated by the paths of foreclosures and am following a few to see who said what to whom and, of course, to see who actually holds the note, does that really make a difference (and one hopes that it does), AND to see “who wins.”

What seems to be happening in general is that some banks are suggesting that a client intentionally defaults before they will consider modification. Once that happens, they refuse to negotiate and sell the house out from under the client they instructed to default in the first place.

Dennis’ foreclosure

This is going from dreadful to insane starting with a request for loan modification from Wachovia/Wells Fargo in Octoaber 2007. From the November 7, 2009 Marin Independent Journal story: “A medical supply salesman who works at home, Temple said he was never told why the bank refused his regular $2,633 payments after his October 2007 modification request . . . Asked to explain why the bank refused Temple’s payments when no modification was done, Hammond responded in an e-mail that “monthly payments not equal to the amounts specified in the original contract (partial payments) would not be accepted. Bank officials would not confirm whether Temple’s rejected payments were partial amounts.”

The Sausalito company trying to take Dennis’ home has also recently foreclosed on two other Marin County residents with questionable methods/ethics.

On November 4, 2009, the Sausalito investors said Dennis could have 20 days to sell his house and/or move. Within 48 hours, the investors–who purchased Dennis’ home for $387,860–put it on the market for $199,888 through a real estate auction house. (The term “money laundering” is being bandied about in connection with the Sausalito firm).

The investment group also got Dennis to sign an agreement to NOT sue them (I’m not clear where this yet fits in).

It may be time for Dennis to ask for the note . . . if he has not already done so.

This just in:

If you would like to see a current, somewhat notorious application of produce-the-note, I direct you, this very day, to the Federal Bankruptcy Court in San Jose. Over the past few months the judge has issued repeated injunctions against foreclosure on the Peninsula home in question. The lenders have been unable (or unwilling) to produce original documentation. Today, I understand, it’s put up or shut up. If lenders can’t/won’t produce the note, the judge is likely to issue a permanent injunction. Check it out!