Dead Letter Department

I am writing to confirm the amazing things I heard on our phone call today, and what I read upon returning to the office tonight.  Let’s start with the documents you sent first, because, frankly, they are beyond my wildest imagination.  Here’s what we have:

1. On September 24, 2008, Wells Fargo (whom you call your client) appoints various lawyers from your firm (including SK and JM) as power of attorney over Wells Fargo.
2. On May 26, 2009, JM, a LAWYER IN YOUR FIRM, uses that power of attorney to appoint YOUR FIRM as the Successor Trustee in this case.
3. On June 4, 2009 (Which, you will notice, is AFTER your appointment as Successor Trustee), SK, a LAWYER IN YOUR FIRM, assigns the mortgage to Wells Fargo from MERS and claims that she is an ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF MERS! 

In this transaction, your firm is a) the lender; b) the lawyer for the lender; c) the seller and d) the trustee.

What part of this incredible transaction does not scream “straw man”? What part of this gives you ANY ability to perform your duties with any degree of integrity?

And you are going to stop this sale?

Now to the phone call. I requested the ability to look at the original note, you indicated to me that you have done nothing to investigate whether your supposed client, as you referred to them, Wells Fargo, actually has ever held such a document. You do not even have the original in your file. You cannot determine if this was a MERS note or not. And yet you are attempting to foreclose on my client's home at the end of this week. In addition, you referred to this process as the "chain of custody". It is referred to as the chain of title, Mr. F. I asked you what you have done to determine if you, as the fiduciary of both parties, have any rights to foreclose on this property, and you indicated that you have done nothing. You have just simply taken it as a referral from your client, Wells Fargo.

This is the entire problem with this process, Mr. F. You and I both know that that mortgage is not held by Wells Fargo. It is held by a REMIC trust, and you must supply us with its name. It is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to not do so.

This sale should be stopped immediately. This is not a request to postpone it for 30 days. This is a request to cease and desist all attempts to foreclose on this property. You have no right to do so, and if you continue to do so this will only be added to the laundry list of complaints that we already have on your firm and this entire process.

Finally, Mr. F, you asked me one question today which gave me pause.  You asked me why shouldn’t you foreclose.  Well, in two letters, I have given you your answer.  This is as clear a conflict of interest as I have ever seen in over twelve years of practicing law.  It is completely beyond the pale.  If you haven’t realized that your firm can’t act in the same transaction as:

1. Attorney for Wells Fargo
2. Wells Fargo Itself via Power of Attorney
3. An officer of MERS and
4. Successor Trustee (with duties to both sides)

I hope that I have now convinced you of this fact.  If I haven’t, well, at least I tried.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience whether or not you will do the right thing.

Sincerely,

Dale Wiley

New Website

In the midst of all of this amazing information coming out about foreclosures, I have started a blog telling my story of my involvement in the case.  This thing is unfolding like a Grisham novel.  Thought I'd take a shot at writing it for him.

http://www.chainoftitle.tv

Progress in the Battle

 We are getting very close to filing a number of lawsuits against lenders and trustees in Missouri.  Some of these will be done in the county where the mortgage was made, and some of them may be filed in St. Louis County, where the "trustees" (I realize how lightly I'm using that term) reside.

The last lawsuit I filed in a mortgage case was 41 pages with attachments.  These suits will be significantly longer.

We need your story too.  ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. I would love to talk to you about your case.  Post your info over to the right, or call us at 877-945-3952.

Already foreclosed? Are you sure?

The Ibanez decision in Massachusetts last week stands for the proposition that the banks had to do all of the paperwork and get it correct PRIOR to foreclosing on your home.  These banks were so incredibly smug that THEY were the ones who actually filed the case.  Think of that:  They knew they didn't have their paperwork, and they asked the court to give them title!

The Ibanez case actually covers US Bank and Wells Fargo, and two different homes.  Think these were the only two homes that were wrongly foreclosed on?  You got it.

So what's going to happen when everyone comes back understanding that the banks didn't give them good title?  Did they kick you out of your home without ANY RIGHT to do so?

Call us at 877-945-3952 or send us a contact form.  We would love to talk to you.

Our Approach

Our firm has been successful on numerous injunctions and other pre-foreclosure lawsuits, and we continue to use these as one way to fight these horrible procedures.

But depending on where you are in your case, we may use other approaches, including:

- Suing far enough ahead of a foreclosure date to try to win the first round without having to post a big bond;
- Suing AFTER the foreclosure to set it aside; or
- Suing people and companies other than the bank who were involved, such as trustees and successor trustees, who were supposed to owe BOTH SIDES a duty of fairness.  Most of time they blew threw that trust like Hunter S. Thompson on a trip to Las Vegas.

We can also adapt our approach to your situation.  We have helped people:

- Reaffirm mortgages;
- Discover that the bank likely had NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in their property;
- Stay off foreclosure proceedings long enough to pay off the mortgagee and keep their house;
- Keep "excess" judgments away from co-signers when they didn't want to attempt to save the home.

CALL US TODAY at (877)945-3952 and tell us your story.

The Trustee

What about the foreclosure trustee?

In this entire mess, that is the one item that has been wholly overlooked.  The trustee in a non-judicial foreclosure has been set up as the "middle man" to stand between the lender and the borrower, and make sure everything is done correctly if the property has to be sold.

So what information should the trustee gather?  One would think that he or she would at least want to see that the purported mortgage holder can actually foreclose.  But I know for a fact that many corporate trustees have fallen down in this area, just as the banks have.

I think trustee liability is going to be a buzz word in 2011.

IF YOU THINK YOUR MORTGAGE WAS OR IS BEING IMPROPERLY FORECLOSED, CONTACT US!  YOUR TRUSTEE MAY HAVE LIABILITY TOO!

Important New Legal Case

This week the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a very important case.  US Bank v. Ibanez stands for the proposition that we plaintiffs lawyers who have been looking at these cases have thought all along:  That the assignment of a mortgage is only as good as the paper trail that precedes it.

Ibanez is going to give the foreclosure industry fits, because it is likely to be cited and used in other states.  I know I'm going to use it.  It cites the "utter carelessness" by the mortgage industry which brought us to this point.

It also stands for the proposition that Robo-Signers or not, the banks do have to comply with common sense and American law to be able to foreclose.  Of all the foreclosures I have dealt with since 2005 instituted by a big bank, that has only happened once, and in that case, the mortgage for some reason was held by the bank and never assigned.  However, they were still using the wrong name on documents and we still stopped the foreclosure for long enough to be able to get that sorted out.

IT IS TIME TO BRING THESE CASES TO COURT!  LET US KNOW ABOUT YOURS TODAY!