"Foreclosure Machine." Meet the man who coined the phrase: plain speaking attorney Robert M Janes
Updated: Apr 30, 2019
Ringing in the new year with more good enlightening analysis from a mentor of mine for over five years, Robert M. Janes, attorney retired.
California homeowners especially but any homeowners throughout the country have a true hero and guide in the author of book Fighting the Foreclosure Machine . [The former website appears to be down but the book has been circulating for a solid six years now, applicable in any State.]
The recent e-book new 4th edition is titled "CALIFORNIA’S NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE TWO-STEP SHOULD BE DANCED TO THE RIGHT TUNE."
A more in-depth discussion of the contents of this article is found on the home page "Case Updates" and in more recent blogpost.
Plainspeak in 2013 as an invitee to a Townhall Meeting of concerned community members.
"It is reasonable to demand proof that the person wanting payments is actually owed a debt secured by the house. Most businesses have no problem with this concept, but the foreclosure machine does. Its routine is to insinuate rather than prove alleged rights in the debt. No reputable business would balk at giving proof of an invoiced amount, so the common antics of the foreclosure machine are reasonably questioned.
Until the person demanding payments under the loan proves its authority to enforce the debt under the fact-intensive provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (§ 1101 Com., et seq., the “UCC”), that person is not owed the debt. *
* The debt instrument of a routine residential loan (the “Note”) is acknowledged as a negotiable instrument. See, Yvanova, at 927-928. Division 3 of the UCC is California’s law of negotiable instruments and it defines the rights and duties respecting the Note. The right to enforce the Note is a cause of action that requires the person claiming that right to prove with admissible evidence its entitlement to enforce the Note pursuant to § 3301 CA Comm. Code.
No such proof means no right to enforce and a homeowner who refuses to honor a demand for payment by a person who has not proven its right is not an event that dishonors the Note or creates a default. § 3501(b)(3). [emphasis added]
Payment to a person not entitled to enforce the Note leaves the homeowner liable to the person who is actually entitled to enforce the Note, if such person still exists.
Finding a way to make the attacking person prove its alleged rights is necessary to good legal health. Managing the California nonjudicial foreclosure two-step is the best way to make certain that the homeowner does not lose money or the house to a person not entitled to either."
"Being behind on mortgage payments does not mean that the homeowner’s debt is owed to just whoever demands payment, even when (the one making demand) knows that (the particular homeowner's) mortgage payments are not current. A homeowner’s payment history is available to many who serve the foreclosure machine (industry) so the fact that a person is familiar with payment history cannot be construed as conclusive evidence that that person is or represents the person actually owed the debt by law.
California’s Supreme Court knows that demands and threats are made by persons with no right to do so:
"Banks are neither private attorneys general nor bounty hunters, armed with a roving commission to seek out defaulting homeowners and take away their homes in satisfaction of some other bank's deed of trust.” Yvanova v. New CenturyMortgage Corporation, 62 Cal.4th 919, 938 (2016)."