This is a very important video, one that every practitioner and litigant needs to review and consider especially in the context of the aggressive moves to punish homeowners in the context of foreclosure context.

Bernardo vs PNC Mortgage- Defending Homeowners in Foreclosure Is Dangerous

Defending Homeowners in Foreclosure Is Dangerous

7 Response Comments

  • serge carpenter  December 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    Actually, I thought counsel was unprepared – didn’t hear him state case law to support his position, frankly I think a 57105 threat was warranted – what was most disturbing, was to hear the judges ask whether defendant has paid anyone for monies due – in other words, if defendant hasn’t paid, then they are guilty – which confirms my belief that in order for me to obtain a dismissal with prejudice (we won round one), I will have to show that Plaintiff has received insurance from multiple sources (credit default swaps, Ambac Assurance, etc.) – and thus the value of the Bond fund is zero

    Reply
  • Mark Bowen  December 11, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    As clearly corrupt as these dishonorable judges are, the attorney presents himself as totally incompetent. A truly sick state of affairs in Florida’s Judiciary. Apparently it doesn’t matter who owns or holds a note and mortgage, if the defendant (which the court determines to be a borrower, in violation of defendants due process rights) hasn’t made a mortgage payment. Sick, sick, sick. These judges themselves are in contempt of their oaths of office.

    Reply
  • Shelley Erickson  December 12, 2013 at 1:26 am

    This is the OCC, Office of Comptroller of Currency Securitization Handbook. See page 11 which states implicitly that the Borrower is the first party to the securitization.

    This is the OCC, Office of Comptroller of Currency Securitization Handbook. See page 11 which states implicitly that the Borrower is the first party to the securitization.

    see attached pdf or http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/comptrollers-handbook/assetsec.pdf
    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=533
    RESEARCH: This squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization

    Countless Foreclosure Rulings are Wrong!
    US BANK ADMITS THE BORROWER IS A PARTY TO AN MBS TRANSACTION
    Jeff Barnes, Esq. wrote: “We have been provided with a copy of U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services’ “Role of the Corporate Trustee” brochure which makes certain incredible admissions, several of which squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization and is thus not entitled to discovery or challenges to the mortgage loan transfer process.” The second page sets forth that U.S. Bank, as Trustee, “does not have any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process.” If this is true, how can U.S. Bank as Trustee be the Plaintiff in judicial foreclosures or the foreclosing party in non-judicial foreclosures if it has “no authority in the foreclosure process”?
    US Bank Brochure
    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=533

    Reply
  • Shelley Erickson  December 12, 2013 at 2:03 am

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/11/11/bombshell-us-bank-admits-the-borrower-is-a-party-to-an-mbs-transaction-that-securitization-trustees-are-not-involved-in-the-foreclosure-process/#sthash.LlpJTB5r.dpuf
    See the OCC letter dated 1997 on the http OCC I sent and read on this report as well as the US Bank brochure, that the trustee of the trust and the servicer have no part in the foreclosure process when the note was allegedly securitized . See Wells Fargo admits there is no lender after securitization. No lender no borrower? Have to have a lender to borrow? Also the servicer only has limited function, to make as much money as possible for the investors, to take funds from borrower and give to investors. No party in the foreclosure. The Trustee of the trust has limited function. To take funds from Servicer and give the funds to the investor. Specifically has no part in the foreclosure. The investors received insurance money after the 90 day alleged defaults, and were paid off. The law does not allow for a debt to be paid twice, if it is the pope paying the debt or a sister.

    Reply
  • Shelley Erickson  December 12, 2013 at 2:09 am

    - See more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/11/11/bombshell-us-bank-admits-the-borrower-is-a-party-to-an-mbs-transaction-that-securitization-trustees-are-not-involved-in-the-foreclosure-process/#sthash.LlpJTB5r.dpuf

    A debt is not owed twice when the PSA is paid in full by insurance! ahttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/09/09/the-embarrrassing-double-dipping-docket-bank-foreclosure-complaints-conceal-that-the-psa-trusts-pay-defaulted-mortgages/ payment – Legal Dictionary – The Free Dictionary
    legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/payment‎
    Good faith does not allow us to demand the payment of the same thing twice. … day, as an absolute payment, the principal would be discharged from the debt.

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Please enter your name. Please enter an valid email address. Please enter a message.