My trustee just denied Wells Fargo relief from stay.....????

[tobee43]

LOL!!! yeap...it didn't come out...we got the "wildcard" exemption........sorry about that....falling asleep right in the middle of a reply is SAD....and thanks for overlooking my typo's... but you know usually i NEVER leave out a word or two... thanks...and sorry!

[Ditos]

Maybe you are part of this action as well. It involves the robo signers for Wells and GMAC in Maryland. Click through to the article that Karl references.

www dot market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=177483

But I Thought There'd Be No Disruptions?


Oops....

In a major ruling Friday, a coalition of nonprofit defense lawyers and consumer protection advocates in Maryland successfully got over 10,000 foreclosure cases managed by GMAC Mortgage tossed out, because affidavits in the cases were signed by Jeffrey Stephan, the infamous GMAC “robo-signer” who attested to the authenticity of foreclosure documents without any knowledge about them, as well as signing other false statements.

But but but.... the banks have all sputtered, this is just paperwork and it doesn't really impact anything. It won't stop us. We just had to do a little internal review and "resubmit" documents where former ones were "incorrect" (a fancy word for PERJURED), right?

Uh, maybe not. Peter Holland of the University of Maryland School of Law, decided to stop lecturing and start doing. He got his class involved in actually suing instead of standing up and pontificating.

And Friday, he won.

GMAC "agreed" to dismiss every pending suit that had a robosigned affidavit in it. That's about 10,000 of them. Sure, they can come back and file them again, but this time they're going to have to use real documents, and they're also going to have to prove up the debt.

Can they?

I don't know. But what I do know is that this is exactly what should have happened immediately - every one of those cases should have been immediately tossed. Then, the State AG should have brought criminal perjury charges. And finally, if under State Law the security interest has been lost, then the real party at interest (once we figure out who it is!) should have to pursue their claims as an unsecured creditor.

Only the first part of this has happened, of course, but it's a start - and with some luck, now we'll see the other two pieces fall into place.

[tyson24]

I had a robo-signer sign mine. Cindy A. Smith. She signs for everyone. All these people do. It's crazy. Minnesota hasn't caught up to Maryland yet.

I hope this means good things for you Panacea

[pavlikclan]

Des or anyone else smarter than me. Not thinking something like this would happen in our case BUT our loan was included in this whole stupid housing market bubble burst crap. It's been sold again and again and again and again and again.

So obviously we will be claiming our homestead exemption. We are trying to keep said property because we are not upside down in it. It seems that in Iowa as long as the property is 1/2 acre or less (ours is 1/2 acre) in town or 40 acres or less outside of city limits that the exemption has no limits.

So saying something crazy like this happens and I have claimed my unlimited homestead exemption??? What the heck happens then? There is no set amount the trustee would legally have to give back to me because it doesn't seem that iowa is like other states where it says you can exempt x amount of equity.

For vehicles it is 7,000 doubled if married. But the house one gives no $ amount. How confusing *scratches head*

[despritfreya]

Des or anyone else smarter than me. Not thinking something like this would happen in our case BUT our loan was included in this whole stupid housing market bubble burst crap. It's been sold again and again and again and again and again.
So obviously we will be claiming our homestead exemption. . .

Pav,

This thread has morphed into something other than what I think is happening in Panacea's case. In Pan's case there appears to be something wrong with the recording of the mortgage (lien) NOT the transfer of the ownership of the note and mortgage. The recording would date back to the origination of the loan. If it was not properly recorded then the lien on the property is not valid against the Trustee who stands in the shoes of a "hypothetical bonafide purchaser who obtains the property without notice of a lien".

The other issue raised by some of the posters deals with the "show me the note" argument which is only a tactic used to delay the foreclosure of the property. It has nothing to do with the validity of the lien (properly recorded mortgage or properly recorded deed of trust) and has everything to do with whether or not the one who has possession of the mortgage also has possession of the promissory note.

Des.