HUGE Ruling Against Bank of America MERS bank foreclosure in Washington State (non-Judicial) - Judge: FORECLOSURES ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Give this information to your Lawyer!

Update 2/18/14 - I spoke to Scott Stafne about the ruling.  The Interview is here.

This is HUGE RULING against Bank of America, a MERS bank in Washington State.

The judge ruled the BOA MERS foreclosure was not legal in anyway. He also set it up where the person foreclosed on can get monetary damages from BOA in a trial.

This information and ruling was in a non-judicial foreclosure state.

The attorney in Washington State who handles illegal foreclosures and who won this case is

Scott E. Stafne
Stafne Trumbull, LLC 
239 North Olympic Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223
ph# 360-403-8700

The pdf of the Judges ruling is here. 

portion from ruling:

There was no evidence that MERS was ever the owner or holder of the note. Hence, 

under the Bain decision, MERS could not have been the beneficiary. Bain left open the issue of 

whether MERS could act as an agent of the lender or trustee, and in support of its motion for 

summary judgment defendants make that assertion here. More troubling is the role of 

ReconTrust. It was ReconTrust which issued the notice of default to the borrower. ReconTrust 

was not the trustee when that notice was issued. It’s undisputed that ReconTrust was, at all 

times, a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA. There’s no reason, or at least none that I could see, 

that would preclude ReconTrust from issuing a notice of default as an agent of BANA. But 

thereafter MERS named ReconTrust as the trustee. Or perhaps ReconTrust named itself as the 

trustee, since the signatory “G. Hernandez” was not an employee of MERS but rather was 

employed by ReconTrust. While the DTA appears to have been amended and arguably might 

permit a subsidiary to act as a trustee, the statutory requirement remains that the trustee be 

independent and not beholden to the lender or borrower. Acting as an agent of BANA and being 

a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA, it seems specious to attempt to argue that ReconTrust was 

an independent trustee

I have a call to Stafne Trumbull this morning and have left a message, asking if I could speak with him a few minutes about the ruling and the implications and how this helps everyone throughout the U.S.  If I hear from him and am able to speak with him for a short interview I will upload it and put it on the blog.


Here is an interview with a woman who is intimately familiar with the case and what the implications are.





If you are in Foreclosure or at risk for a Foreclosure - PLEASE contact an attorney, your town/city legal aid and get this information to them!

DO NOT GET FORECLOSED ON!  STAND UP AND STAND FOR YOUR RIGHTS!  STAND FOR LEGAL JUSTICE!  STAND UP AGAINST THE ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES THAT ARE HAPPENING! 

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN FORECLOSED ON - GET AN ATTORNEY AND FILE SUIT AGAINST THE BANK THAT FORECLOSED ON YOU!

START A MOVEMENT OF ALL PAST ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES HAVING TO GO TO COURT AND THE PEOPLE WINNING FOR LEGAL JUSTICE!

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!