Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!) (updated: 04/28/2015)

Welcome to the Bankruptcy Forum. Bankruptcy (BK) Forum is known as BKForum.com and will be referred to as BKF hereinafter. In order to ensure a long term success of our vibrant community, we have established certain rules and guidelines to which everyone must adhere to. Please take your time to carefully read our rules, before you start to participate in the community.

Things you agree to do:
BKFORUM.com (BKF) users agree to use the search function before starting a new thread. This prevents duplicate discussions and allows for better organized topics.

All BKF users agree to read the sticky posts which may be available at the top of a forum page. These Sticky posts often contain valuable information. They may also outline more rules and guidelines specific for that particular forum, stickies are put in place by that forums moderator(s) or admin(s).

Things you agree not to do:

All BKF users agree not to call people names or write a post simply to make a personal attack, or get a negative reaction; this behavior is not allowed on our forum. The use of derogatory language aimed at anyone will be severely dealt with. There is no need to agree with each other, or to even like each other. However, by signing onto BKForum.com you agree to treat each member and guest with the respect they deserve. No threats or personal attacks will be allowed.

All BKF users agree not to discuss, engage, or encourage any behavior or activity which violates the law. Discussion of drugs, violence, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud or any other issue which could be used to help individuals break the law is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to "bump" old threads, unless there is a specific benefit to the community by doing so. But in most cases, please don't post in very old threads, instead start new threads.

All BKF users agree not to attempt/use another members account. It is against BKF rules to use any account other than your own. Impersonating another member will result in an immediate ban. It is also against the rules to open more than one account in your own name without permission from a moderator or administrator. If you have been banned for any reason, it is against the rules to open another account. If you were banned temporarily and you are caught using another account you will be banned permanently. Choosing a moniker which is similar in either sound or spelling as a moderator or administrator is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to private message any moderator, admin, or other member with questions related to their personal circumstances (Questions about the forum or issues with the forum are ok). This forum only works when members share their experience and insights with everyone.

Things you agree not to post:
All BKF users agree not to post any derogatory/racist/or sexist remarks. This includes attachments, links and all information contained within posts, signatures, and avatars, failure to comply with this rule will result in a permanent ban.

All BKF users agree not to post any copyrighted or trademarked information without the express written permission of the owner(s) / proper citation of source.

All BKF users agree not to post any real names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, or any other personal details (their own or other people's).

All BKF users agree not to post links, pictures, attachments, videos, or the like of pornographic content, objectionable material or extreme violence, whether cartoon or real.

All BKF users agree not to use BKF for advertising purposes without a written contract between yourself/company/agent and the administration of BKF. Blatant advertising will result in a ban.

All BKF users agree not to spam the forums. Spam includes but is not limited to posting erroneous, non-relevant-useless, off-topic, or meaningless posts. Spam may also include posts which contain no text, or large areas of blank space between lines. Simply posting emoticons without text is considered spam. BKF is the largest bankruptcy message board and all the content is intended to help other users. Please help us improve the quality of our forum by making sure that your posts are well-worded, spell checked, grammatically correct and syntaxed.

Regarding actions of moderators and administrators:

The forum is no place to air out your opinion or be judgmental of our staff and its capabilities.

All BKF users agree not to abuse or mistreat moderators or administrators. It is against BKF rules to post any information regarding bans or any other action taken by a member of the moderating or administrative team. If you wish to discuss bans or warnings please do so via PM. To place a complaint against a moderator, send a PM to a super moderator. All Moderators are equal, any decision made by a moderator must be adhered to. If a moderator tells you something you do not like, do not go to another moderator looking for a different answer. If you are caught doing this you will be banned. The moderators work as a team and respect the decisions made by their peers and will help enforce them unless an administrator tells them differently.
If you have an issue with how the forum is run, then notify one of our administrator and we will look into the situation. We have in the past and still do appreciate any input that you offer this forum. But critical input and/or judgmental postings towards the staff will result in you getting banned.


Should you find a thread offensive or out of line, then notify a Mod in a PM so they can evaluate the situation and do the action deemed necessary.

All moderators do have active "other" lives outside of the forum and help moderate this forum in their spare time throughout the days and weeks.

If you have a problem with a member or Mod follow the proper channels of reporting it.

BKF reserves the right to delete any posts which contain anti-BKF comments or discussion. Any bashing of moderators or administrators, or any of their discussion or actions will also be deleted, and the responsible posting party(s) will be banned. Any public anti-BKF advertising, communication, or posts on another forum will result in permanent bans as well.

All warnings and bans are decided by individual moderators and administrators. Warnings are preferable to bans however, for serious offenses and repeat abusers bans will go into effect. The length of the bans can vary from several hours to permanent.

All messages posted or sent including through PM are the property of BKforum.com.

All BKF users agree not to advertiser on the forum (Niether by posting, private messaging or using your signature). If you are a company/attorney/legal adviser wishing to advertise on the site or sell a product, you must contact the head administrator and inquire about our advertising packages.

All bankruptcy related opinions expressed on BKForum.com are those of their authors and not necessarily of BKF, its staff or representatives.

You agree not to copy any material/post/content from BKF without written permission from our head administrator .

By posting on this forum you agree to these terms and conditions, including any punishment deemed appropriate by moderators or administrators in the event of an offense.

Administrators/Moderators can change these rules at any time without prior notice.
See more
See less

Challenging lien AFTER discharge

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Challenging lien AFTER discharge

    Chapter 7 debtor listed lender as undisputed secured creditor. Debtor was underwater so value of claimed homestead exemption was $0. Then debtor received discharge. Case will be closed soon. Is it too late to challenge the lien in bk court as being void (for lack of standing...not lien stripping)? That is, has the property left the bk estate so the bk court now lacks subject matter jurisdiction? (i'm pretty sure it has left).

    Can the property be brought back into bk estate by having the debtor file a motion to revoke the discharge based in frcp 60 "mistake"?...or must the debtor now take up the issue in state court and risk dealing with the defense of res judicata/judicial admission?

  • #2
    Sorry, but are you nuts? You want to have the bk court revoke your discharge so that you can assert your mortgage lender does not have standing? Standing to do what? Seek relief from the automatic stay? Has it filed such a motion?

    Please explain exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Remember, the “show me the note” stuff is pretty much dead and I trust you are not a “Neil Garfield disciple”.

    Des.

    Comment


    • #3
      I must absolutely agree with Des, and especially ask, just what are you trying to do? Most Bankruptcy Court judges don't want to make any sort of rulings on "standing" or other issues regarding Mortgages and Notes except within the bankruptcy context. In fact, the bankruptcy court only has jurisdiction in certain cases, and this appears to be a jurisdictional question. Any smart bankruptcy court would not allow you to re-open and would send you back to State non-bankruptcy court anyhow, since this is where this belongs.

      As for the "show me the note"... they apparently are showing them now, so that is all moot at this point. What is this "res judicata" issue you mention? What would be "res"... the fact that you listed the lender in your petition as the owner of the security instrument on Schedule E (Creditors holding secure claims)? That may be more an issue of estoppel.
      Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
      Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
      Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


      I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

      Comment


      • #4
        Sorry to welcome you to the forum this way, Savoy, but you have gotten responses from two of our most informed members--one of whom IS a BK attorney. So I think your idea is dead on start-up. But welcome anyway.
        "To go bravely forward is to invite a miracle."

        "Worry is the darkroom where negatives are formed."

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmmm...as I research the issue, it looks like the discharge affects only "in personam" liability while the lien issue is an "in rem" issue. Therefore, revoking the discharge would seem like a crazy thing to do (whether generally or in this case in particular). Agreed.

          Regarding "standing", we allege that the trust (who claims to own the lien) was never really created (and therefore doesn't have standing to foreclose either by seeking relief from the autostay during bk, or by foreclosing after the bk). So the thing we want to accomplish is to quiet title in favor of the Debtor.

          With regard to "show me the note", not only is it not really viable in Texas, they actually have the note.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Savoy View Post
            Regarding "standing", we allege that the trust (who claims to own the lien) was never really created (and therefore doesn't have standing to foreclose either by seeking relief from the autostay during bk, or by foreclosing after the bk). So the thing we want to accomplish is to quiet title in favor of the Debtor.
            This is not going to get any traction in the bankruptcy court, especially since "Relief From Stay" is moot after the discharge is entered (or the Trustee abandoned the property). If you want to quiet the title, get back into State non-bankruptcy court.

            In any event, with the facts you lay out, I don't see how you get a "quiet title" if the only defect in the foreclosure action is that it's the wrong entity foreclosing. In other words, the debtor DID pledge the property to SOME entity and that Promissory Note has not been satisfied (and the mortgage not released). If the only question is who is showing up with the actual endorsed Promissory Note, and they have it in their possession, I don't think you can get to a quiet title. If you saw the Note, is it endorsed in blank or to some bank?

            Again, I don't see this as an issue in or under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy court. And, don't forget the estoppel issue I mentioned earlier.
            Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
            Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
            Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


            I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

            Comment


            • #7
              Given that I'm probably headed to state court, will anything which took place in the bk case have an impact? Regarding listing the bank as a secured creditor on the the original schedules, estoppel seems more appropriate than res judicata. However, in our favor, the schedules were amended (after the discharge but before case closed) and indicate a 100% homestead exemption to which the "secured creditor" didn't object (and the time to do so under BR4003b and BR4003d has long since gone). Thoughts?

              Comment


              • #8
                Agreed...bk court is not an option. With regard to foreclosure, if the wrong entity forecloses, that is a BIG problem...foreclosure must only be conducted by a party with the right to do so (or their agent). Normally, possession will overcome any chain-of-title issues; however, if you think of the trust as a unicorn (because the trust doesn't exist), then "the trust" can't have an agent. So even if it's "agent" claims possession (because the agent has no greater rights than its principle), possession is moot... even if the Note were indorsed in-blank. (The "agent" possessing the Note should find the real owner and give THEM possession).

                Regarding jx under the bk court, I know that normally a bk court has jx to hear 506d challenges to secured creditor status. What issue in MY case would cause the bk court to lose jx?...Is it because the home is no longer considered "property of the estate" because of the discharge? But doesn't the discharge simply permit the bank to pursue state court remedies (i.e., lift the stay) or does the discharge also remove the home from "property of the estate"? (Perhaps it's the closing of the case which removes the home from "property of the estate" and ends jx?...Note: I happen to be in the gap period between discharge and the close of the case.)
                Last edited by Savoy; 12-02-2012, 03:09 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have to ask. . . when you say the "trust" does not exist, exactly what kind of "trust" are you talking about?

                  Des.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm guessing, but they are probably trying to go after a REMIC Trust... the so-called asset backed securities trusts of the 2000s. At least in Florida, even if the Trust has issues, that doesn't mean the debtor did not "mortgage" the home by pledging it as security to the holder of the Promissory Note. In some cases, Judges have opined, and I agree, that even if the Trust is invalid and/or doesn't exist, that's really a tax issue and not one that gets a debtor a free house. The only way to get a free house is to prove the Promissory Note and Security Instrument were bifurcated at the beginning of the process.

                    Yes, the court can hear Security issues under 11 USC 506(d), but these are usually used where there is a claim in the bankruptcy and trying to determine the secured status of the claim. I don't now of many Judges that will entertain you, with most sending the case back to where it belongs... State non-bankruptcy court. I can't tell you if you'd find one that would. I don't see how this belongs in the Bankruptcy court.

                    As for the homestead exemption, that will only protect the BK Estate, should it be re-opened, if you are successful with having the security be void and receiving clean title. No secured creditor would challenge the homestead exemption since it does not apply to a secured creditor to the extent that the property is encumbered.
                    Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
                    Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
                    Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


                    I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      These are "pretender" defenses.

                      People keep "repeating" the same bad advice that has existed for 3 years all stemmed form ONE rogue judicial opinion that no other court follows.

                      Good luck, but you are wasting your time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's a common law trust. Although it purports to be a REMIC, we don't care about tax status and that's not the angle. The angle is that a common law trust exists only if the parties who created it actually did what they promised in the agreement/contract creating the trust (i.e., the Pooling and Servicing Agreement). That is, if "Party A" and "Party B" execute an agreement with the prospective trustee whereby "Party B" is supposed to deposit mortgages into the trust, but "Party A" ends up assigning them, then, in fact, the trust was never created and the purported assignments from "Party A" are void (at least under New York State law which governs this PSA).

                        By the way, y'all have been very helpful. I appreciate the opportunity to confer with you!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's a bogus defense.

                          The right to foreclose arises from the mortgage note and the security instrument. If the borrower is in default, that is pretty much it.

                          As JustBroke alluded, the issue you are raising is between the parties to the trust agreement, NOT The Borrower, and in the context you are discussing, it is not even clear there is a good argument that the borrower is 3rd party beneficiary that would give the borrower standing to raise issues related to the PSA. The problem with the standing argument related to the trust is that many courts reverse the standing argument and hold that the borrower has no standing to raise claims and defenses related to the PSA and Trust Law. The issue with the trusts relates to who gets the money from foreclosure, not the right to foreclose. Sorry to rain your parade...rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of courts and policy makers are side stepping this issue for expediency. Also, despite the over promises of "pretender" foreclosure attorneys and a few rogue cases, the assignments, the notes, etc, are not the issue. Those were actually done correctly in most cases.

                          The real issue, but very few are pursuing it, because it involves real litigation (gathering evidence and proving facts) is that the calculation of the arrears and pay-offs supplied to borrowers in default were inaccurate (e.g. breach of contract and fraud). That is the real issue that is being pursued by the OCC (office of the comptroller or currency) and its consent order with the banks to review foreclosures from 2009 to mid 2010. But most attorneys in this field have no idea how to do this sort of litigation and most borrowers don't have the resources because it is much more time consuming.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have to agree with HHM. Just another spin to the "delay tactics" taking place throughout the Country. A loser in the end - but, I guess the "plaintiff" will continue to reside rent free in the home for a while longer.

                            Des.

                            Comment

                            Unconfigured Ad Widget

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X