Massachusetts Sussex County Calling for HALT of ALL FORECLOSURES - Attorney General Coakley SUING BANKS for Wrongful Foreclosures in the State of Mass. Why are the other AG's in U.S. going to allow Lawlessness from Banks?!

Supreme Court Building saying "Equal Justice Under Law"

John O'Brien the register of deeds in Sussex County in Massachusetts is calling for a HALT OF ALL FORECLOSURES due to the Mass Supreme Court ruling on the 18th of Oct.

He also states "PEOPLE SHOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT BUYING A FORECLOSURE!"

Attorney General Martha Coakley is SUING THE BANKS FOR FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURES IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Portion - Read more at above link:



My question is.... if the AG of Mass can see the banks committed FRAUD how come all the other AGs in the U.S. are overlooking all the FRAUD?! How come the AGs of the U.S. are NOT STANDING BY THE LAW? How come the AG's of the U.S. who are suppose to UPHOLD the Law of the States are going to NOT STAND BY THE PEOPLE BUT STAND BY THE BANKS?!

I am asking EVERYONE to send something to your AG and ask them - How are they REWRITING LAWS FOR THE BANKS AND NOT UPHOLDING THE LAW!?

Here is the link to find your Attorney General's Contact information

The Attorney Generals are finalizing their deal with the banks and plan on announcing it by the end of this month (October 2011) - EVERYONE Seriously needs to CONTACT their AG and DEMAND THE LAW BE UPHELD FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT BE REWRITTEN FOR THE BANKS!  IF THEY BROKE THE LAW, THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!  THEY WOULD NOT REWRITE LAWS FOR ALL OF US REGULAR PEOPLE!  THEY WERE ELECTED BY ALL OF US TO UP HOLD THE LAWS AND TO WATCH OVER THE LAWS FOR ALL OF US!

All of us have to contact our Attorney Generals to get anything done - Tell them they CAN NOT settle with the banks and allow Contract Lawlessness!  They then will make ALL Contracts in the future suspect and with fraud that people would sign with the banks!  NO Contract will ever be safe for the people!  The banks could commit FRAUD over and over and not have to be liable for the fraud!  

Calling ALL Class Action Lawyers - GET GOING! Here is your ruling - Mass. Supreme Court Ruling: ALL PREVIOUS FORECLOSURES ILLEGAL AND NOT VALID, No legal title transferred! DO NOT BUY A FORECLOSURE!

Update - 10/21/11 - Mass Sussex County Register of Deeds Calling for HALT of All foreclosures - Mass.AG Coakley Suing banks for Foreclosure Fraud

I have said this a few times here! DO NOT BUY A FORECLOSURE!  They have not been legal, due to the Banks foreclosing on them ILLEGALLY!

I wrote about the Mass. Supreme Court to rule on previous foreclosures back in January of this year.

Here is a portion of that post:

Now  they are going to rule on another case of a buyers right to the property, that was illegally foreclosed on by a MERS bank.

A lower Massachusetts court had already ruled against the buyer of a foreclosure, saying they had no right to the property, due to being foreclosed on fraudulently by a MERS bank.

That court case is now going to the Supreme Court, as the buyer is trying to keep the property he purchased 3 years ago from the bank.

Imagine if the Supreme Court rules against the buyer, as the lower court has done....... I can see a whole new area of law suits, when buyers start losing their money and property of foreclosures they have purchased.  Besides that, I can't imagine there will be much of a market for foreclosures, as they may become impossible to sell, as no title insurance company will touch them.

Bloomberg is the one even carrying the story, which is amazing they would let people know they may have a huge problem if they have purchased a foreclosure in the past.

This ruling from Massachusetts will be important all around the country.  There are already class actions that have started in a few states for previous foreclosures.  If the Massachusetts Supreme Court rules the buyer of the home has no right to the property fraudulently foreclosed on, we can expect a whole rush of class actions throughout the country against the banks.

I also posted warning all buyers of property - DO NOT BUY A FORECLOSURE AS I BELIEVED CLASS ACTIONS WOULD START THIS YEAR FOR ALL HOMEOWNERS FORECLOSED ON! 

Portion from post:

I believe we will be seeing Class Action Suits in All the States against MERS and ALL MERS Servicers and Banks this year!  Once that happens, you can be assured ALL Title Insurance companies will not even touch insuring the title of ANY foreclosure!

What does that mean to investors who buy foreclosures?  Means you may possibly be out money and a house after it is all said and done (then you can start your own lawsuits)!  But besides that banks will have trouble even selling foreclosures in the future, if Class Actions start!  Who in their right mind would buy a foreclosure, if there are lawsuits and the all MERS foreclosures were done through FRAUD?!

So............ Just something for all the investors to think about!  I would not touch a foreclosure with a 10 foot pole, even if it was 1/4 the price of the market value!

Yesterday they ruled and have upheld THE BUYER of a piece of property from 3 years ago, has NO RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY!

Zerohedge has a great article on it and explains it all. 

Portion:

On Oct. 18th, 2011 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down their decision in the FRANCIS J. BEVILACQUA, THIRD vs. PABLO RODRIGUEZ – and in a moment, essentially made foreclosure sales in the commonwealth over the last five years wholly void.

In essence, the ruling upheld that those who had purchased foreclosure properties that had been illegally foreclosed upon (which is virtually all foreclosure sales in the last five years), did not in fact have title to those properties.

Given the fact that more than two-thirds of all real estate transactions in the last five years have also been foreclosed properties, this creates a small problem.

The Massachusetts SJC is one of the most respected high courts in the country, other supreme courts look to these decisions for guidance, and would find it difficult to rule any other way in their own states. It is a precedent. It's an important precedent.

Here are the key components of the Bevilacqua case:

1. In holding that Bevilacqua could not make "something from nothing" (bring an action or even have standing to bring an action, when he had a title worth nothing) the lower land court applied and upheld long-standing principles of conveyance.

2. A foreclosure conducted by a non-mortgagee (which includes basically all of them over the last five years, including the landmark Ibanez case) is wholly void and passes no title to a subsequent transferee (purchasers of foreclosures will be especially pleased to learn of this)

3. Where (as in Bevilacqua) a non-mortgagee records a post-foreclosure assignment, any subsequent transferee has record notice that the foreclosure is simply void.

4. A wholly void foreclosure deed passes no title even to a supposed "bona fide purchaser"

5. The Grantee of an invalid (wholly void) foreclosure deed does not have record title, nor does any person claiming under a wholly void deed, and the decision of the lower land court properly dismissed Bevilacqua's petition.

6. The land court correctly reasoned that the remedy available to Bevilacqua was not against the wrongly foreclosed homeowner but rather against the wrongly foreclosing bank and/or perhaps the servicer (depending on who actually conducted the foreclosure)

When thinking about the implications of Bevilacqua – the importance of point six cannot be overstated.

 IF YOU ARE BEING FORECLOSED ON - FIGHT IT!  CONTACT YOUR LEGAL AID OR AN ATTORNEY!  IF YOU HAVE BEEN FORECLOSED ON AT ANY TIME IN THE LAST FEW YEARS - CONTACT AN ATTORNEY START A SUIT - JOIN A CLASS ACTION SUIT!
THIS RULING MAKES IT POSSIBLE NOW!


CLASS ACTION ATTORNEYS...... START YOUR PAPERWORK - START GOING!  YOU NEED HELP GETTING PEOPLE?  CONTACT ME - I WILL HELP IN ALL WAYS POSSIBLE!

Video I did about it at this link on youtube.

Added 10/25/11 - Excellent article from Seeking Alpha about this ruling - I highly suggest everyone reading it!

Buyers Beware - Massachusetts Supreme Court To Rule on Buyer of Fraud Foreclosure - Lower court - NO Right to Keep Illegal Foreclosure by a MERS bank!

All those people who have bought foreclosures and are considering buying a foreclosure will need to watch this ruling carefully.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court had ruled two weeks ago, MERS had no rights to foreclose on property.  

 Now  they are going to rule on another case of a buyers right to the property, that was illegally foreclosed on by a MERS bank.

A lower Massachusetts court had already ruled against the buyer of a foreclosure, saying they had no right to the property, due to being foreclosed on fraudulently by a MERS bank.

That court case is now going to the Supreme Court, as the buyer is trying to keep the property he purchased 3 years ago from the bank.

Imagine if the Supreme Court rules against the buyer, as the lower court has done....... I can see a whole new area of law suits, when buyers start losing their money and property of foreclosures they have purchased.  Besides that, I can't imagine there will be much of a market for foreclosures, as they may become impossible to sell, as no title insurance company will touch them.

Bloomberg is the one even carrying the story, which is amazing they would let people know they may have a huge problem if they have purchased a foreclosure in the past.

This ruling from Massachusetts will be important all around the country.  There are already class actions that have started in a few states for previous foreclosures.  If the Massachusetts Supreme Court rules the buyer of the home has no right to the property fraudulently foreclosed on, we can expect a whole rush of class actions throughout the country against the banks.

Portions of article:

Massachusetts’ highest court will consider whether a home buyer can rightfully own a property if the bank that sold it to him didn’t have the right to foreclose on the original owner.

The state’s Supreme Judicial Court, which agreed last month to take the appeal, already ruled Jan. 7 that banks can’t foreclose on a house if they don’t own the mortgage. The lower- court decision now under review said the buyer of residential property in Haverhill, Massachusetts, never really owned it because U.S. Bancorp foreclosed before it got the mortgage.

In August, Long ruled that Bevilacqua wasn’t the property’s owner and didn’t have standing to inquire about claims. U.S. Bancorp, which sold Bevilacqua the property in 2006, conducted an invalid foreclosure because it didn’t properly own the mortgage at the time, Long said. 

The mortgage transfer to U.S. Bancorp, which oversees the mortgage-backed trust containing the loan, happened after the foreclosure, Long said. All Bevilacqua had was a deed from an invalid foreclosure sale, the judge said. 

So, I posted last week saying :BUYER BEWARE of foreclosures, as I believed class actions would be started.

NOW ALL WHO HAVE PURCHASED FORECLOSURES - YOU WILL WANT TO WATCH THIS CAREFULLY!  If Mass. Supreme Court rules against the buyer of an illegal foreclosure, you can expect ALL Title insurance companies will stop insuring ALL Foreclosed homes and there will be NO buyers of foreclosed homes!  

I believe a ruling against the buyer by the Supreme court would also slow down foreclosures immensely.  As banks would not be able to get rid of foreclosures, why would they want to foreclose, to only have the liability of upkeep and costs, when title companies and buyers would not want to touch them.

In my opinion this will be a very important ruling.  So Watch it!

MASS. SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST BANKS/MERS - FOR HOMEOWNERS! NO RIGHT TO FORECLOSE!

THIS IS AWESOME!

MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST THE BANKS FOR THE HOMEOWNERS - NO RIGHTS TO FORECLOSE! FORECLOSURE BASED ON FRAUD!
It is just out! 

EVERYONE STAND UP TO THE FORECLOSURE FRAUD - DO NOT GET FORECLOSED ON!  ALSO PEOPLE IN TENNESSEE PLEASE CONTACT ME - WHO ARE AT RISK OF BEING FORECLOSED ON!   

EDIT - 1:32pm est - Reuters just picked the ruling up and has an article about it!  I am happy MSM has written about it!  

Edit - 1/8/11 - Bloomberg has an article about it and says it can affect foreclosure practices across the nation. 

u.s. Bank v. Ibanez, Sjc Slip Opinion, 1.7


The Attorney General for Massachusetts had filed papers with the Supreme Court about the Foreclosure Fraud.  Zerohedge has a PDF link for the filing.

They have what the most important parts of it are listed:

Page 4-5:
“Rose Mortgage was the original lender for the Ibanez mortgage and Option One Mortgage Corporation was the original lender for the LaRace mortgage.  Rose endorsed the Ibanez note and property assigned the mortgage to Option One.  Option One then executed an endorsement of both promissory notes in blank, making each “payable to bearer” and negotiated by transfer alone until specifically endorsed.”  In both cases, Option One also executed an assignment of the mortgage in blank (i.e. without a specified assignee).  These blank assignments were never recorded and were not legally recordable because they failed to identify the assignee [cites state law].”

“After Option One sold the Ibanez mortgage to Lehman Brothers.  Lehman Brothers then sold the mortgage, together with hundreds of other loans, to Structured Asset Securities Corporation (“SASC”).  SASC then sold these loans to the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-Z, of which plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) was the Trustee. All off the supporting documents concerning the Ibanez mortgage were placed into a “collateral file” and presumably were transferred between the entities listed above as each transaction was completed.  This collateral file contained the original promissory note, the Rose Mortgage endorsement of the promissory note to Option One, Option One’s blank endorsement of the promissory note, the mortgage issued to Rose Mortgage Inc., the assignment of the mortgage from Rose to Option One and Option One’s blank mortgage assignment”

[Goes through similar for the LaRace mortgage]

Page 8:
“The Land Court was correct to invalidate the foreclosure on two distinct grounds.  First, the plaintiffs lacked the legal authority to conduct the foreclosures because they were not among the parties authorized to do so under either the statutory power of sale or under G.L.c. 244 §14.  Second, even if the plaintiffs had the legal authority to foreclose (which they did not) the foreclosures would still have been invalid because the notices issued by the plaintiffs failed to name the present holder of the mortgage as required under G.L. c. 244 §14.  To foreclose on a mortgage securing property in the Commonwealth, one must be the holder of the mortgage.  To be the holder of the mortgage, one must be the original mortgagee or be the assignee under a valid assignment of the mortgage.  It is not sufficient to possess the mortgagor’s promissory note.  The Land court correctly held that the plaintiffs, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo were not holders of the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages at the time of the foreclosure because they were not assignees of valid assignments of the mortgages.  Without valid assignments, the plaintiffs lacked the legal authority to foreclose the mortgages.  This, without more, is sufficient grounds on which to invalidate the foreclosures and the Land Court was correct to do so.”

Page 10:
“Plaintiffs’ claims that the Land Court’s ruling will cause widespread confusion or significant cost to innocent parties are greatly exaggerated, and such reasoning does not warrant ignoring the plain requirements of the law designed to protect Massachusetts consumers. Indeed, it is the foreclosing entities themselves who will bear the greatest cost of clearing titled from their invalid foreclosures.   Having profited greatly from practices regarding the assignment and securitization of mortgages not grounded in the law, it is reasonable  for them to bear the cost of failing to ensure that such practices conformed to Massachusetts law.”


Page 11:
“Plaintiffs had no legal authority to foreclose because they were not the original mortgagees, were not authorized by the power of sale, and because they lacked valid assignments of the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages.”

Page 12:
“Plaintiffs are not the mortgagees of the Ibanez or LaRace loans.”

Page 16:
“Neither plaintiff was authorized by the power of sale in the respective mortgages.”

Page 17:
“The assorted securitization documents do not establish or compromise valid assignments.”
Plaintiffs contend that various securitization documents constructively assigned to them the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages.  Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the Ibanez mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank by way of a Trust Agreement that is not part of the record, but is purportedly evidenced by a Private Placement Memorandum.  They contend that Wells Fargo received the LaRace mortgage via a Purchase and Sale Agreement.  In each case, plaintiffs’ argument is without merit.”

The LaRace Securitization Documents
As the Land Court found, the LaRaces gave a mortgage to Option One when the loan was initially made.  Thereafter, Option One executed an assignment of the mortgage “in blank,” i.e., without naming the party to whom the mortgage was to be assigned.  As detailed above and by the Land Court, this “assignment in blank” was ineffective to transfer any interest in the mortgage.   Wells Fargo contends that the LaRace mortgage was assigned to it by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement it entered into with Asset Backed Funding Corporation (“ABFC”).  This agreement purports to transfer and assign all of the rights of ABFC to Wells Fargo.  However, there is nothing the record that ABFC had any interest in the LaRace mortgage.  Thus, even if the language in the Pooling and Servicing agreement was sufficient to transfer all of ABFC’s interests in the LaRace mortgage, the assignment would be ineffective because ABFC had no interest in the LaRace mortgage to transfer.”

Page 20:
“Not only did plaintiff’s lack legal authority to foreclose, but the foreclosures are invalid because the notices published prior to foreclosure are fatally deficient.”
-    G.L. c 244, §14 requires that the notice identify the “present holder” of the mortgage
-    Plaintiffs’ false identification of themselves as the “present holders” in their foreclosure notices renders the notices fatally deficient
-    Plaintiffs’ argument that they held the mortgages notwithstanding the lack of valid, written assignments as of the date of the foreclosures is unsupported by law.


Page 27:
“There are no grounds on which to limit the Land Court’s decision to future cases”
-    Plaintiffs request that if the Land Court’s decision is upheld, this Court limit its application only to future foreclosures.  This argument is without any basis in law and should be rejected.”
-    Notwithstanding the “industry practice” of subprime lenders and other who created mortgage backed securities, the statutory requirements at issue int his case are long –settled.