THE SHORT STORY - We needed to modify to a fixed rate loan we took out in June 2006 to get out of the risky adjustable rate after paying into it for 2 and 1/2 years - the business plan had been to have low fixed payments for three years then get the almost totally remodeled house appraised and refinance into a fixed rate loan with a better loan to value and better rate and terms. When the 2008 Global Financial Crisis hit, we applied for a loan modification that November without ever missing a payment, to secure that fixed rate loan before the 3 years was up and the rate could hike up higher. The Bank of America servicer instructed us to "suspend payments" while they processed the loan modification. Then did exactly zero.
2008 - 2012: BANK OF AMERICA SERVICER OR DEBT COLLECTORS continually wrongfully denied modifications despite PROOF OF ABILTY TO PAY AND AFFORD THE SAME OR HIGHER PAYMENT, as long as it was a fixed interest rate paying down principle plus interest! CONTINUAL DENIALS were wrongful, we could afford it, violated federal mandates and state laws --- from 2008 to 2012 when the fifth and final loan modification was denied -- all without proof of lawful reasoning for denial and despite MY proof of both business income and rental income from the house itself ALL EARMARKED BEGGING TO PAY THE MORTGAGE to Bank of America - who instead effectively said "NO - keep your money idiot -- we are aiming to take your house."
2013: in July BofA subsidiary "BANA" or Bank of America National Association transferred debt-collecting and "mortgage servicing " to a non bank servicer NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC who proceeded to send formal letters in which it contradicted the owner of the note and loan FOUR different names in a 30 day period in August 2013.
2014: We finally had to sue in a court of law to summons into the courtroom the TRUE and CURRENT and PROVEN owner of the loan to be able to settle this once and for all directly and not be forced to pay through a debt collector who any sound minded person wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, let alone contract with for the next 30 years on your family's home mortgage loan.
Since that first lawsuit in 2014, NATIONSTAR AND ITS ATTORNEY has been the only entity showing up in court claiming to represent a note-owner and loan-owner who has never proven it even exists and appears to be NON existent -- they've told lies and more lies and lies and upon lies rather than admit they are collecting for themselves without a shred of proof they OWN the loan or debt, or that they PAID to be the owner of the loan or debt.
2019: Finally after more than a decade of grappling with this beast, we decide to post FULL PAYOFF - even with crazy inflated charges and line items like "legal fees" and "property inspections" -- why am I paying their legal fees? But in spite of Nationstar's attorneys refusing to provide the full accounting and failing all tests of compliance with California Homeowner's Bill of Rights and any lawful decency as a so-called mortgage servicer, I decided its finally time to end the dispute and to obtain an expensive "hard money loan" to fund the full payoff amount Nationstar demanded of me, of just under $695,000.
September 2019: After suffering major PTSD from over one entire year of actual bullying and outright abusive practices by not only opposing counsel but the court system ---- court personnel following various protocols designed to belittle, taunt, subdue and thwart homeowner-plaintiff (I'm not alone, we have plenty of case stories) -- I finally produced the necessary written response due on Friday September 13 and filed the same - after severe writer's block and stress.
Seeking hard money lenders by phone interview in earnest starting Monday September 16, I alerted Nationtar's attorneys that full payoff was pending as soon as the lender was chosen. Nationstar attorneys ignored ALL communications from that point on -- emails and phone calls from myself and my loan brokers were of repeatedly requesting the dollar amount of full payoff be confirmed, the wiring instructions be sent to our escrow and title officer and to please remove the September 25th sale date published online since full payoff was ready to fund, as all parties had communicated to by emails. SILENCE - REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE - AND DELIBERATE OBSTRUCTION OF FULL PAYOFF FUNDS' BY WIRE TRANSFER!
But our loan brokers (two were competing for the loan) continued to work towards closing -- they'd seen "foreclosure bailouts" before and have seen mortgage servicers CANCEL THE SALE AND GET PAID TIME AND AGAIN. What else is the servicer even allowed to do? It is the "Equitable Right of Redemption." It is California Homeowners' Bill of Rights. It is the Law.
September 23 & 24: LETTER OF INTENT / LOAN APPROVAL SIGNED / ESCROW OPENED - loan brokers and I waiting to hear they would cancel the sale so we could proceed to pay them.
SILENCE FROM NATIONSTAR for over 5 calendar days when we had been mandated by the court and by common sense decency --- until the morning of the trustee sale when attorneys for Nationstar was instructed to email my loan broker, my escrow title officer, myself and their colleague attorneys that Nationstar would not accept full payoff and would proceed to trustee sale instead of wait now-only 5 days, since my lenders had continued their work to close -- having seen dozens of times before that servicers always cancel the sale in favor of being paid every dime from homeowner - once a Loan Approval letter is signed and emailed and a reputable broker says the funds are coming in 5 - 10 days.
October 23, 2019
After our offer to buy back the lien purchased by the "winning bidder" company was rejected; we were then served with a 3-day Notice to voluntarily vacate the house; which is not going to happen. The next step is a case filed against homeowner in "unlawful detainer court," which was filed apparently; no service has been made to myself; and we await further instructions from our Helpers.
Our communications and legal position is laid bare -- transparency and consistency has always been on our side. We are hopeful for an infusion of reason and reasonableness towards a just resolution to this debilitating and damaging ordeal.`
UPDATES on Home Page.
As we have updated on Case Updates home page -- as of April 9, 2019 we have uncovered the cleared path to resolution and right-making in this decade-long story.
The Ramos-Yamagishi family remains in possession and continues to claim our lawful right to dwelling in this humble home which has been in our family since 1965; and which our parents were greatly helped in purchasing by our good family friends I consider as much an aunt and uncle as any, the Stevensons, who owned it prior essentially gifting our family the chance to live and own this home with no down payment. Neither my parents' nor I would be who we became as mature adults if not for the Stevenson's helping our family into this little house in Berkeley over 50 years ago. I would have been raised in a very different community during the tumult of the 1960s and 1970s.
This humble 1910 quick-and-dirty built bungalow post 1906 earthquake and fire, situated on "the wrong side of the railroad tracks back in the day" has undergone major and sorely-needed renovations several times over by our family and friends' blood sweat and tears since that time and even til today. We continue seeking relief through the judicial system and earnestly seek equitable relief in a court of our Constitutional Republic, knowing that this one family's controversy (and hopefully soon-resolution) is witnessed by sentient beings everywhere, who are interested in these matters amongst humanity.
This audio is from two years ago, and is the first audio telling the background of our story and introduced this website which was created as a one-page site with a few audios and paper trail. At the time of this audio we had the threat of a foreclosure sale for just after the new year January 2017. Even though some of what I express here as strategy or focus has shifted, it is a snapshot into the launch of this site and spoken word expression, shared again here.
Note: in the audio my narrative refers to an "attorney who betrayed me and my case" without disclosing his name. I am NOT forever biased against all lawyers and legal professionals -- there are good and bad individuals in any profession. Disclosing here in summary of what happened: In filing the initial complaint pro per, I used a template and legal theory suggested by author and retired attorney Robert M Janes (see post) because I agreed that I was "NOT in default" until and unless the proven injured party appears when summoned into a court of law, proves its standing and then duly declares me to be "in default."
It made perfect sense and was lawful that until THAT true injured party appears and proves standing I am merely in "payment-stoppage" calling far and wide to meet my true creditor in the courtroom! Because prior to suing, the debt-collector servicers REFUSED FOR YEARS to either disclose or prove the identify and even existence of a proven injured party who supposedly owned my note and loan -- attacking to take my home in foreclosure while refusing loan modifications repeatedly with a baffling vengeance when I proved repeatedly I could afford one -- attacking NON-judicially, without a shred of proof of standing for themselves nor for who they supposedly collect for!
Self-represented in state court then, I had pled and won the TRO (temporary restraining order) based on this theory; then I hired this attorney to write my First Amended Complaint. I chose and hired him precisely because he and another "expert" friend of his, name-dropped Bob Janes declaring "Oh, of course Bob and I are of the same mind, we've done panel workshops together -- I agree with this theory, sure." He then ADMITTED I WAS "IN DEFAULT " in the FAC, even stating "... that there is no entity on the face of the earth that has any lien whatsoever, no matter the default nor the degree of default."
This attorney, who appeared by phone only even though my court is a one-hour plane flight away, got my last name totally wrong twice, had no idea of certain key dates and when asked by the frowning judge to explain the strange statement above, managed only to repeat himself louder and louder and LOUDER with a fatal circular logic, until the judge put a halt to the spectacle. Inside of 9 minutes of this sickening exchange, the judge dissolved my TRO and denied injunction.
WHY DIDN'T I CATCH THIS AND PROTEST? Because this same attorney waited until about 20 minutes before the deadline to e-file it into the court -- and I had for travel to his office in southern California, standing there proofing it one page at a time as fast as I could as he stood there, "Hurry, hurry we're going to miss the deadline!" And his secretary fax-filing it one page at a time. IT WAS FATALLY DEFECTIVE AND A COMPLETE 180 DEGREE wrong, total deliberate betrayal -- I was headed into a trustee sale auction a couple of weeks away. BofA Corp was one of the defendants who wanted nothing to do with my complaint, though their hand was in it from the very "pretender-lender" and throughout all servicing. The court did NOT docket it, but i have it. The next day by phone this attorney got ugly with me because I wouldn't agree that it was "the judges' fault." Two friends of mine were with me listening to that call as well. It's quite sad and disgusting here to even recall this spectacle, but I refuse to be toxified by the likes of this, or by any of this fight, and it is my belief system and faith that keeps my inner peace totally free from the toxicity that would want to destroy my Joy.
I then substituted myself back in, wrote and filed a 200+ page "proposed second amended complaint," which was mostly exhibits of paper trail proof, and immediately dismissed the case without prejudice because I was forced into bankruptcy with its protective "stay," as I learned the law so as to never be betrayed like that again.
A couple of additional audios are linked on blog posts from
And the most recent at the top of this page above: huge news and the tide-changer in California's nonjudicial foreclosure defense study and strategy.
See "Case Updates" page for latest news.
Summary of the history of Mathews Street house controversy starts around November 2008 when financial hardship in our family prompted us to make that payment, apply for a loan modification and also educate ourselves on "predatory loans" so our new one would be sound. Therefore, prior to any "missed payment" we instead filed for our first of four loan modification applications with the "mortgage-servicer" named Wilshire Credit Corporation. A bullet-point chronology with documents along a timeline is in order and pending here spanning November 2008 to about April 2014, which could be called "Loan Mod Debacles and Denials & Attempt at Reasonable Resolution" phase of this long battle.
We made our first good-faith attempt application in November 2008 for a modified loan in those Obama-era federal programs supposedly funded by bailout monies.
This followed by the subsequent three and half more YEARS of trauma and distress under almost constant threat of foreclosure: exhibits of correspondence, faxes, letters and documentation from that point forward during which time servicing switched from
Wilshire to BAC Home Loan Servicing LP (Countrywide repackaged), and then to Bank of America N.A. (partner by acquisition to Countrywide) -- in which three more loan modification dramas took place -- all denied by BofA entities DESPITE PROOF OF OUR ABILITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS INCLUDING RESTORING ALL MISSED PAYMENTS AND RESUMING THE EXACT SAME PAYMENTS AS BEFORE -- because we had recovered from our temporary setback.
Bank of America, N.A. finally transferred "servicing" to the non-bank entity Nationstar Mortgage LLC in July 2013. We are still being attacked by Nationstar now for over five years -- but these have been years in which we have learned to seek judicial review of a dire controversy and sued in court using applicable governing law, logic, and we pray, of judicious reasoning. Years later, now, we do realize we are to help educate our judges and help demystify much clever word-magic and deliberate confusion in the foreclosure litigation arena.
Why have we not ever applied for a loan modification with the current entity Nationstar? The best way to answer that question is to start with the BofA mortgage-servicing history (2009-2012) exhibited in the "proposed Second Amended Complaint" from December 2014 HERE, "LMDD # 1-4 "Loan Mod Debacles and Denials" pp. 26 cont.
Amended Causes of Action to the above "proposed second amended complaint." (Entire SAC dismissed without prejudice, voluntarily by plaintiff/homeowner in order to protect against imminent trustee sale - forced into bankruptcy Chap. 13
One would then want to take a good look at Nationstar's own penned writings - formal answers to my Qualified Written Request "Q.W.R." inquiries in which mortgage-servicer is compelled by law to provide homeowner with the identity and name of the current Owner of the Loan and "injured party" who is wanting for mortgage payments AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME OF THE DATE OF THE ANSWER TO Q.W.R.
My November 2013 letter to Nationstar in response to their three Q.W.R. answers mailed to me, plus a puzzling Assignment of Deed of Trust that BofA recorded into my county clerk's office naming Nationstar as the debt owner precisely during the time Nationstar wrote me that they were NOT themselves the debt-owner ... HERE.
NOTE: A complete timeline-narrative with links to all documents is forthcoming on one page. Nationstar's representations in writing and emails with their attorneys; along with the "trustee of the trust" making formal response in writing is found linked on this site, part-way down the page here.
Of course, we on Main Street have battle scars to prove we have wrangled with the beast to learn what we have paid dearly for by experience. Many of us recognize our responsibility to help our judges see what we know and benefit from our plain-speak demystifications. WE HOPE OUR JUDGES WILL HEED OUR KNOWLEDGE and arrive at more well-reasoned decisions; in keeping with governing law and solemn oaths. We will write more about how American homeowners and interested parties must help illuminate and cooperate with our courts and our judges; and how we can increase reasonableness and care towards productive negotiations and settlements.
Finally in April 2014 the first lawsuit filed into state court was a Verified Complaint for Quiet Title, which summoned into the courtroom the actual party who owned the debt to prove its ownership and its injury so that we could negotiate DIRECTLY WITH WHOMEEVER WAS OWED THE DEBT and thereby enter negotiated settlement with a certain and not ambiguous entity! Nationstar had presented only absolute contradiction on just WHO owned our debt! We were at risk of paying the wrong party if forced to go through this debt-collector Nationstar! And our first lawsuit was entirely in keeping with our rights under Uniform Commercial Code Article 3 (UCC 3), governing our promissory note which is a "negotiable instrument." Such an entity, an owner and injured party, did not appear in that suit nor in any summons into any court of law to date - even now almost five years later! No court, of three courts receiving our complaints, has thus EVER reached subject matter jurisdiction, according to Law. See this blog post for an analysis.
Renee S. Ramos Yamagishi is entirely self-taught, non-lawyer, 2018 litigation, a Complaint for Violations of California Homeowners' Bill of Rights, is the fourth lawsuit filed since April 2014 -- for various reasons the prior three could not accomplish our final aims, though they formed effective thwarting of unlawful and fraudulent dispossession of our family home of over 50 years, by these unjust order-following racketeers and their hired lawyers. [See "LITIGATION 2018" page]
An "adversarial complaint" filed into bankruptcy court in November 2016 is not counted amongst these precisely because the chief judge of Oakland's BK Courts declared in open court "I probably won't hear it --- you're welcome to take it State Court (during which an imminent trustee sale loomed with no protective stay,) so I did take it to State Court, filing in March 2017. Skipping over details in this summary (to appear in full timeline narrative pending on the site) is the exit Declaration of December 2017.)
The three cases have all taken turns off track before actual trial or discovery before such time as subject matter jurisdiction and proof of injured party standing has even had a chance to be tried. This is counterintuitive, one would think, for a valid debt-owner to balk at providing paper proof of its injury by indebtedness! But this is routine for our accusers! While we simply summons into court the unambiguous identity by appearance and proof of standing for the party making claim, this party who threatens our four generations with irreparable harm by homelessness and financial and material ruination through dispossession of current primary residence dwelling and primary income from leased premises rents. This has been stable and we thought the "bank" would love seeing the stable income and approve the loan mod .... Nope, once again. "What on earth happened in my country?!" many of us had the anguished cry. Surely, heaven knew but we were nothing but baffled.
We have always extended good faith negotiation - it has always been refused when made voluntary. For most homeowners who would rely on paying dearly for legal counsel this appears the unfair advantage for our attackers; but for many of us who have been forced to learn and apply the law and navigate the courts, we simply continue on. We are obligated to do so, for a host of reasons.
There is then, a full decade's worth of paperwork, communications both in and out of court, formal letters, answers, emails and transcripts that make up the Mathews Street story - iconic and indicative of a greater picture taking place throughout California and the nation in the arena of mortgage lending and retention of primary residence dwelling post 2008 global financial breakdown.
Updates on "Case Updates" page.
A thriving healing practice became a casualty of this war, and we are eager to resume creative entrepreneurial pursuits to benefit others -- all of our legal pleadings and formal letters have repeatedly stressed that verifiable income would increase as soon as the "lender'" would approve a modified loan because the part and almost full-time job of "guerrilla lawyering" could cease; and I could do what I loved again. "Nope. We don't want your hard earned money you clueless borrower! We're in the home-stealing business."
"Clearly you are. Unacceptable.
Not on my watch. "
We are currently as of the New Year 2019 in between litigation - but it appears only suing as plaintiff rather than obtaining an agreement to negotiate in good faith - is our best and only defense, because our adversaries simply appear unwilling to negotiate or discuss with reason, unless compelled to do so by litigation. Surely Nationstar may not relish more attorney fees but it appears they have only outside lawyers deciding for or against negotiation.