Breaking News for California Homeowners: Article plus audio-reading
Updated: Apr 30, 2019
Below is a NEW 4TH EDITION of the article and audio version.
California homeowners either before or after a trustee sale and summons into "UD Court" must take heed and wrangle this beast, armed with the right words, definitions and language needed.
"California's Non Judicial Two-Step Should be Danced to the Right Tune", article by Robert M. Janes (PDF) Latest 4th Edition now linked here
Audio Reading of 4th and latest edition of the article
Decided to do the audio above since I learn best when I can hear as well as read. Excited for us Californians in these trenches: having only just recently fully ascertained the significance of the education and information contained in the below by trusted and diligent retired attorney and friend-to--California-homeowners Bob Janes, author of the book "Fighting the Foreclosure Machine," and the topic of a few blog posts on this site (http://www.esprouts.com/ebud-store.php)
(Referencing documents viewable at the bottom of "Who Is The Injured Party?" page.)
"Our Story" page has brief history of first five years of repeated denials of loan modification applications for which we were well-qualified and wrongly denied by Bank of America entities; followed by five years of active litigation to summons into court and settle directly with the debt-owner and note-owner who never appeared and still has not appeared.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Referencing the above audio, "investors who bought Certificates of Residential-Mortgage-Backed-Securties (RMBS)" from Wall Street firms, were NOT sold rights to the Note NOR to the actual real estate securing performance on a Note. The "animal" of RMBS was morphed in such a way by purveyors of those securities as to completely disconnect the original Note-Maker (i.e. "borrower/homeowner) from any connection whatsoever to investors. This then allowed intermediaries (read "interloper entities) armed with merely the knowledge that the borrower has fallen behind on payments, to then enter the fray claiming to collect for the owner of the Note; when no such identifiable intact "owner of the Note" exists any longer.
FOLLOW THE MONEY: The proceeds of selling the real property after a 2924 trustee sale are paid to the servicer, NOT the supposed owner they work for. In fact there has been no proof or discovery that the "Rent-a-Bank name as Trustee of the Trust (REMIC trust)" touted as the debt-owner EVER gets the funds. Neither do any prior "investors" or "certificate-holders" see a dime of it -- they are not identifiable parties at this point in the deplorable 2924 scheme. Nope - its the mortgage-servicers laughing all the way to the bank -- surely certain participating entities must get their royalties (Rent-a-Bank name as trustee, the self-authenticated 'substituted trustees' and the FMLF attorneys (Foreclosure Mill Law Firms.) It appears the purse strings of this lucre which leaves families homeless out on the curbs of Main Street - are purse strings tight in the grip of mortgage-servicers and their hidden partners. Further research can be found at (https://livinglies.me) and (msfraud.org)
YES, some yea many investors were left hurting in financial loss BUT they had no legal contract to recoup losses through any rights to the property itself! Our position on the investor's plight -- particularly the working people pensioners' looted retirement accounts or the smaller mom-and-pop investors in RBMS. Local Pensioners' Resilience (proposed solution to make a point) pp. 46 -48 . pages on proposal that borrowers repeatedly denied loan modifications by 3rd parties bent on taking their homes instead, devise an alternative cure ratified by new legislation and the courts that borrower payments get funneled into an account by County or Region to reimburse local pensioners of looted funds (firefighters, teachers, municipal workers, county hospital and first responders etc) who served a lifetime in that County community.
To cure any ambiguity that she is paying the right party or would be losing her property to the right person who is owed the debt opposite her on the Note she signed, the Note-Maker has the right, pursuant to UCC 3, to summon and call forth the Note-Owner to make "Presentment" pursuant to UCC 3-501, and prove it's standing as the Person Entitled To Enforce the NOTE (PETE). At the Presentment event, the PETE and Note-owner can formally declare "default" against Note-Maker if there has been non-payment.
4/18/2019 Further Analysis of the article titled "California's Nonjudicial Foreclosure Two-Step Should Be Danced to the Right Tune," by retired attorney Robert M. Janes. If you haven't read it, recommended to do so - there's also a link to an audio reading of the same article just under the link to the PDF.
After taking in the quite revelatory analysis by Janes, this is the blogger's audio after mulling it over for another ten days or so. The audio mixes narrative specific to this particular homeowner's case and controversy, and is illustrative as well. This analysis and audio here is BASED on the speaker's study of Robert Janes' well-researched article.
Most recent four blog posts are updated to include this revelatory analysis. Additionally due consideration should be given to the ancient maxim of law " "Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet." (updated 4/28/19 )