Foreclosure Defense Florida

Look How Hard the Foreclosure Mills Will Fight Not to Have a Robo Signer’s Deposition Taken

All parties to litigation are entitled to ask any relevant questions that relates to the litigation, but the foreclosure mills don’t want the secrets behind both their and their client’s business practices….apparently depositions like the Cottrell deposition that I posted earlier are not very helpful to the Foreclosure Mill’s cause.

You see when judges read these depos and get more information about the shady business practices, they might just stop or slow down to examine the garbage without any authority that’s being shifted under their noses every day.   I love paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 which essentially state that although we have placed an Assignment of Mortgage into the record, that piece of evidence means nothing so the court is not required to allow inquiry into it. Kinda like the Cullaro depositions that are “withdrawn” when counsel attempts to take their deposition…and seeks to insulate themselves from questions about their production….read on….

Motion+for+Protective+Order

motion for protective order

5 Comments

  • ForeclosureHamlet says:

    As a non-attorney, I have found foreclosure pro-se litigation much like the game of hide-and-seek.

    Mills hide the truth, which I believe is likewise hidden from the mill attorneys.

    I seek the truth.

    They withdraw from hiding place number one and run to hiding place number two.

    Repeat. Over and over and over.

    Me: Motion to strike affidavit

    Mill: Ignored and new affidavit entered.

    Me: Subpoena Affiant and notary

    Mill: Withdrew Affidavit

    Me: Notice of depo of two Affidavits of Indebtedness

    Mill: Withdrew both affidavits

    Mill: Emailed me with a demand that I set the next (unknown) affiant for depo and then they will file the affidavit.

    Me: I can’t notice for depo an affiant whose affidavit I have neither seen nor has it been filed in my case yet.

    Mill: Choose from the following two dates for the depo of the “third affiant”.

    Me: What third affiant?

    Mill: The one on the affidavit we will file after we schedule the depo.

    Me: ?

    • You see how hard even attorneys have to fight for the basic rights the rules provide to our clients. I can only say get an attorney if you can and if not, just put every objection onto paper and make sure a court reporter is at every hearing.

    • indio007 says:

      How about a contempt petition?
      You have to play hardball.
      Must of these complaint’s don’t meet any legal standard and fail to state even a colorable claim.
      The affidavit is the foundation of a legal process. If the judge won’t do his duty I guess you will just have to collaterally attack him for proceeding without any jurisidiction. Lawyers (no offense to Mark) don’t have to luxury because they will have to go before the same judge most likely.
      What I don’t understand is why people are taking out Writ’s of Scire Facias to get the deed of trust annulled or released when they have evidence of the splitting of the instruments.

  • forensicmortgageexaminers says:

    In one of the cases I am currently working on (with an attorney here in GA), the foreclosure mill asked for a Protective Order after the FIRST (initial) Interrogatories and Request for Admissions were submitted. They replied to each interrogatory with something along the lines “unduly burdensome” for THEM to produce documents etc. Imagine how “burdensome” it is toe HOMEOWNERS!

    Btw, this is a contest over being dispossessed… we haven’t even gotten to the Wrongful Foreclosure suit yet!

  • indio007 says:

    When the note is split from the deed of trust, ” the note becomes, as a practical matter, unsecured.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF
    PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5.4 cmt. a (1997).
    A person holding only a note lacks the power to
    foreclose because it lacks the security, and a person holding only a deed of trust suffers no
    default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment on it. See RESTATEMENT
    (THIRD) OF PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5.4 cmt. e (1997).
    ” Where the mortgagee has
    “˜transferred’ only the mortgage, the transaction is a nullity and his “˜assignee,’ having received no
    interest in the underlying debt or obligation, has a worthless piece of paper.” 4 RICHARD R.
    POWELL, POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY, § 37.27[2] (2000).

    There are legitimate reasons to separate the mortgage from a note. Such as if the mortgage contains a clause to some profit from the land. Or a share of the crops. Someone might like to keep one right and transfer another. We already know these instruments where sold separately.
    I know someone that has the separate CUSIPs
    Trying to rejoin them ex post facto is unjust enrichment

    My intuition tells me the notes where monetized with the FED to fund the “loan” and the mortgages sold separately to twin a stream of revenue. This is why there a bunch of promissory note forgery’s , losses, and whatever. What happened to them all?
    Public Law 106″“122
    106th Congress
    An Act
    To amend the Federal Reserve Act to broaden the range of discount window loans which may be used as collateral for Federal reserve notes

    It incorporates 10 B of the Federal Reserve ACT
    Which is residential mortgages.

Leave a Reply