• Renee Ramos Yamagishi

11-year controversy: Team UOTP "Unwavering Offer to Pay" vs. "Who Even Does This?

Updated: Jun 9


What does it look like when you have repeatedly proven IN WRITTEN PROOF AND HARD EVIDENCE your unwavering offer to pay WHICH YOU PROVE YOU CAN AFFORD so you can redeem your family home since 1965 from foreclosure BY PAYING to CURE the injury suffered by the party suffering it, by paying directly to the person or company who owns your debt to make sure you don't pay the wrong party; but your attackers (debt-collectors and their attorneys who admit they don't own the debt) relentlessly maneuver to steal your home, while your own court system turns out to have already structured an apparatus operating under "color of law" in defiance of our constitution and even contradicting other state laws still on the books?

(photo credit: Bobbie Benson, pro climber)



What does HEARTBREAK AND HARM across the nation look like, in the utter financial and material devastation and homelessness of American families, UNLAWFULLY stripped of the basic dignity of primary dwelling and home WHEN ALTERNATIVES ARE WITHIN REACH? American working families, whose lawful application for a redress of grievances too often goes unable to be heard, invisible to be scrutinized; by our own elected and appointed stations of government entrusted with upholding OUR laws. What is it like to see your mainstream media spin you as "deadbeat homeowner" touting the romping success of federal "affordable loan modification programs," when you and your fellow homeowners across the nation KNOW FIRSTHAND these "loan-mods" WERE ALMOST ALWAYS WRONGLY DENIED, being a farce and show without any unaccountability for mockery made of it. And it goes on: federal and state consumer protection agencies who file your complaint, send a thank you letter and proceed to utter ineffectiveness towards corrective measures -- except produce statistics on the numbers of complaints received? There's more .. but ----


How is it that we suffer from a dereliction of these duties, and further it would appear, including even in the trusted halls of our own judiciary, thus under color of law, we are without true advocacy, our sacred constitution trampled really -- to our utter dismay and harm? O woe and great suffering; while these debt collectors and their attorneys have zero incentive structurally to be paid monies EVEN PAYMENT IN FULL and overwhelming incentive to strip your home and property away from you and your family?


What does it look like when you finally decide to pay the ransom, get unhijacked from over a decade as an "accidental lawyer" defending your family home, obtain your private hard-money loan with FULL PAYOFF PLUS AN EXTRA $100,000 to make sure you have AMPLE FUNDS FOR THE RANSOM, PROVE AND POST TENDER IN FULL ON TIME -- and these debt-collectors and attorneys violate ALL known laws and Reject, Refuse, Obstruct your RIGHT TO REDEEM YOUR HOME and PROPERTY (Law of Right of Equitable Redemption) and incredulously take your house to Foreclosure Auction anyway?


You're looking at what that looks like.



https://www.paidinfullcancelsforeclosure.com



Unwavering Offer to Pay - 11 years, really? And still in the home? YES.

  • 2008 - 2013 Repeated denials of loan modifications despite ability to afford and qualified - BofA servicer

  • 2013 BofA transfers its servicing (debt-collecting) to Nationstar Mortgage who proceeded to make sure I couldn't dare apply for a new loan with them - total failure to validate debt such that a modified loan with Nationstar would be fatal.

  • 2014 - 2018 Therefore, since Nationstar claimed to be collecting for a Merrill Lynch "trust" formed in 2006 on behalf of the trust's trustee M&T Bank / Wilmington Trust; we demanded proof of their injured party status and summoned the injured party into the courtroom in a suit to quiet the title; so that homeowner could pay the true owner DIRECTLY and cure their injury, bypassing the bogus fatal claims of Nationstar a mere third party. NO INJURED PARTY EVER APPEARED --- IN OVER 4 YEARS. Solely Nationstar and their attorneys appeared, constantly; with proof of standing to make claims against me equalling exactly zero. NONE. One federal judge's statement in open court to my complaint: "I probably won't hear it, you're welcome take to state court." And more -- our courts hate having to apply the structured injustice spelled out by some - not all - California statutes which violate constitutional rights. [Supreme Law of the Land, Article 6 Clause 2 of the constitution for the united states solves that discrepancy.]

  • 2018 - 2019 Complaint for violations of California Homeowners' Bill of Rights SOLELY on requiring a "telephonic discussion between homeowner and servicer on all viable alternatives to foreclosure and to initially agree on homeowner's effective completion of a recognized foreclosure alternative - with a 30-day stay before servicer is allowed to file a notice of default against the property. WON preliminary injunction. Attorneys and defendants then cheated and removed to federal court - appeared to be an ambush, so homeowner dismissed the case without prejudice.

  • Second time around bringing SAME CalHBOR complaint (2923.5) but second court ignored collateral estoppel and issue preclusion and this time denied injunction on the exact same fact pattern that another court in same County superior court system DID find in favor and ORDERED preliminary injunction (appears excess of jurisidiction).

  • Finally in September 2019 homeowner decided to PAY RANSOM IN FULL, after a couple of "short payoff" offers were rejected by the debt-collector Nationstar. The full payoff amount on the September 2019 monthly mortgage statement showed the line item labeled "Full Payoff" = $698,992.16. Therefore homeowner obtained email acknowledgement from attorney for Nationstar, the single point of contact for the account, that the exactly FULL PAYOFF would be accepted by Nationstar; yet the same single point of contact attorney and her entire law firm then went completely silent for 13 straight days, leaving unanswered this homeowner's request: "Thank you, please provide the exact full payoff amount and bank wiring instructions to our title-escrow officer; we are soon to close on the hard money loan I have been approved for."

  • After thirteen days of incommunicado to that request, early morning on September 25, 2019,loan broker on the private hard money loan emailed the "written proof of funds" the 2-page dual signed loan approval, to the single point of contact attorney for Nationstar et al. copying to our title-escrow officer and homeowner - requesting the wiring instructions once again and confirming our understanding that the trustee sale foreclosure auction pending for 4 hours later that day about noon would surely be cancelled; so their full payoff could indeed be wired to them.

  • To our amazement, the single point of contact attorney for the law firm representing Nationstar et al REPLIED to that email with its attached Proof of Written Funds, and informed us that n"their client informed [them] they will be proceeding to trustee sale. Ms. Yamagishi has had ample time before this to try and settle."


Unwavering Offer to Pay




California Code of Civil Procedure 765.010


BILL NUMBER: AB 1267 APPROVED BY GOVERNOR AUGUST 13, 2015

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. Section 765.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure is repealed. SEC. 2. Section 765.010 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, to read: 765.010. (a) For purposes of this section: (1) "Harass" means engage in knowing and willful conduct that serves no legitimate purpose. (2) "Entity" includes both governmental and private entities. (b) A person shall not file or record, or direct another to file or record, a lawsuit, lien, or other encumbrance, including a notice of lis pendens, against another person or entity knowing it is false, with the intent to harass the person or entity or to influence or hinder the person in discharging his or her official duties if the person is a public officer or employee. (c) (1) A person or entity whose property is subject to a lien or encumbrance in violation of this section may petition the superior court of the county in which the person or entity resides or in which the property is located for an order, which may be granted ex parte, directing the lien or other encumbrance claimant to appear at a hearing before the court and show cause why the lien or other encumbrance should not be stricken and other relief provided by this article should not be granted. (2) The court shall schedule the hearing no earlier than 14 days after the date of the order. The scheduled date of the hearing shall allow adequate time for notice of the hearing. SEC. 3. Section 765.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read: 765.030. If the court determines that the lien or other encumbrance is in violation of Section 765.010, the court shall issue an order striking and releasing the lien or other encumbrance and may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the petitioner to be paid by the lien or other encumbrance claimant. If the court determines that the lien or other encumbrance is valid, the court shall issue an order so stating and may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the encumbrance claimant to be paid by the petitioner. The court may direct that such an order shall be recorded. [emphasis added] SEC. 4. Section 765.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read: 765.040. Any lien or encumbrance claimant who records or files, or directs another to record or file, a lawsuit, lien, or other encumbrance in violation of Section 765.010 shall be liable to the person subject to the lawsuit or the owner of the property bound by the lien or other encumbrance for a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000).



California Code of Civil Procedure 1138


Parties to a question in difference, which might be the subject of a civil action, may, without action, agree upon a case containing the facts upon which the controversy depends, and present a submission of the same to any Court which would have jurisdiction if an action had been brought;  but it must appear, by affidavit, that the controversy is real and the proceedings in good faith, to determine the rights of the parties.  The Court must thereupon hear and determine the case, and render judgment thereon, as if an action were depending.



The following is likely not of interest unless one is a total geek about nonjudicial foreclosure (by way of being slammed by it and rising to meet the battle face on) or one is an attorney who might get stuck representing clients whose names are Nationstar Mortgage, M&T Bank, Bank of America or Citibank.


audio below









Assignments of deed of trust at pg. 62


counter added 6/1/2018

All Rights Reserved,  Renee Shizue Ramos Yamagishi, 2016

Nothing on this site is to be taken as "legal advice," and content here is presented by a non-BAR non-lawyer and researcher / writer, who is self-represented Sui Juris when seeking remedy from the judiciary.