Is The FDIC Killing Short Sales

As some of you already know, I blogged recently about being interviewed recently by our local NBC news affiliate.  To read the blog, click here.  Basically, IndyMac Bank (now OneWest Bank), is holding one of my clients hostage, demanding a $75k promissory note, or they will proceed to foreclosure.  For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why they were doing this.  The BPO came in at the contract price of $275k, with a net to IndyMac of $241k.  What advantage could there possibly be for them to proceed to foreclosure?

Yesterday, I figured it out.  You see, IndyMac was taken over by the FDIC and sold to OneWest Bank in March/2009.  Guess who the investors are behind OneWest?  George Soros, Michael Dell, Steve Mnuchin (former Goldman Sachs executive), and John Paulson (hedge-fund billionaire). 
Now, listen to the deal they got from the FDIC....Basically, they purchased all current residential mortgages at 70% of par value (70% of the outstanding loan amounts).  They purchased all current HELOCS at 58% of Par Value!!!

Next, in order to "sweeten the pot", the FDIC stepped in and guaranteed the following:  For any residential mortgages where OneWest experiences a loss, the FDIC will step in and cover anywhere from 80%-95% of the loss.The loss is calculated using the ORIGINAL LOAN BALANCE, not the amount that OneWest paid for the loan.  Let's use my clients situation as an example:

Loan Amount is $478,000, plus 6 months of missed payments, for a grand total of $485,200
OneWest pays $334,600 for the loan we have an all cash offer of $241,000, net to OneWest.

So, let's do the math, shall we?  The net loss, according to the FDIC formula is the ORIGINAL LOAN AMOUNT minus the amount of the offer.  In this case, $485,200-$241,000, or $244,200.  Next, the FDIC, according to their Loss Share Agreement, writes a check to OneWest for 80% of the so-called "net loss".  So, in this case, OneWest gets a check from Uncle Sam for $195,360 (.80 X $244,200).

Add the $195,360 to the sales price of $241,000, and you get a grand total of $436,360.  Remember, OneWest paid $334,600 for the loan.  So, OneWest puts $101,760 in their pocket, thanks to the FDIC.  Folks, that is over $100k of our hard-earned tax dollars!

So, you ask...Why does this program hurt short sales?  Because, our brilliant government offers this SAME PROGRAM FOR FORECLOSURES!  The only difference is, the government picks up 80% of the tab on all of the extra costs associated with a foreclosure (BPO's, upkeep, utilities/maintenance, legal fees, etc.)
So, If I'm OneWest, why would I want to waste my time negotiating through a Short Sale, when I can make the same amount of money (if not more) by just letting it go to foreclosure?  And we wonder why nobody can get a Loan Modification?  Why would OneWest approve a loan modification for this guy, when they can foreclose and make over $100k?  And, to add injury to insult, they have held this loan for 6 months!  Not a bad ROI, huh?

What infuriates me the most is that in my particular case mentioned above, they have the guts to hold my client hostage for a $75k promissory note, after they are already making more than $100k on the sale!!! This is his primary residence, 1st Position loan, and OneWest has NO RECOURSE!  Imagine if they could make $100k, then get a deficiency judgement!  Talk about making some big bucks!
Can you say "GREED"?

The scary thing is that over 50 banks have Shared Loss Agreements in place with the FDIC.  Some of them include:  Bank of America (go figure), CitiMortgage, Wells Fargo, etc.

This entire agreement between the FDIC and OneWest can be found here, on the FDIC website.  It's all there, for the world to see!  They have it all layed out.  All of the formulas, worksheets, etc.
Now, it's up to us to bring it to the attention of our elected officials and the media.  Enough is Enough!

UPDATE 9/18/09:  I JUST READ AN AWESOME ARTICLE ON THIS, THAT GOES INTO WAY MORE DETAIL THAN MY BLOG ABOVE.  TAKE THE TIME TO READ IT WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE! CLICK HERE TO READ IT.

Wait, it gets better...The FDIC just announced that it needs to start borrowing money from the U.S. Treasure in order to replenish it's deposit insurance fund (the same fund being used to pay all of these banks in the Loss Share Agreements).

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
California Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(b), 476(d) and 473.5 specify the grounds on which you can base a motion for relief of default or default judgment. Permitted grounds include:
Mistake (CCP 473(b)):
A mistake of fact occurs when a person understands the facts to be other than they are. A mistake of law occurs when a person knows the facts as they are, but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts. Ignorance of the law or negligence in researching the law does not constitute excusable mistake, and therefore is not grounds for relief from default.
Inadvertence (CCP 473(b)):
Inadvertence stems from a lack of attentiveness, inattention, or fault from negligence. However, mere inadvertence does not warrant relief unless, on consideration of all the evidence, the inadvertence is excusable. Forgetting about the case or mislaying the summons and complaint are not sufficient grounds for relief. Inadvertence is often combined with excusable neglect.
Surprise (CCP 473(b)):
Surprise occurs when a party is placed in an injurious legal situation, through no fault or negligence of his or her own, that ordinary prudence would not have guarded against.
Excusable Neglect (CCP 473(b)):
To be excusable, the neglect must have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.Forgetting about the lawsuit, being too busy to properly respond, or being unable to afford an attorney are not grounds for excusable neglect. Examples of excusable neglect include:

• Illness that disables the party from responding or appearing in court
• Failure to respond because you relied on your attorney to do so
• Failure to appear at trial because you relied on misinformation provided by a court officer

Party not given "actual notice" in time to defend (CCP 473.5):
If service of the summons did not result in "actual notice" to a party in time to defend their case, the default may be set aside. "Actual notice" means the party genuinely knows of the litigation. Lack of actual notice cannot be caused by the defendant's inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service.
Void judgments (CCP 473(d)):
The court may, on its own motion or the motion of either party, set aside any void judgment or order.  A judgment or order may be void if the issuing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, if the judgment or order granted relief that the court had no power to grant, or if the judgment was procured by fraud on the court. A common way default judgments are considered void is if the judgment was obtained after improper or fraudulent service, resulting in a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. There are many other ways in which a default judgment may be void. For more information, see:

• California Forms of Pleading and Practice Vol. 43, § 489.132 et seq. KFC 1010 .A65
  Electronic Access: On the law library computers, using the LexisNexisCD.

In Pennsylvania foreclosure rates of the state are below the Philadelphia foreclosure rate.

From Philly to So Cal Due to the increase in the number of foreclosure homes in Philadelphia, there has been an impact on the overall foreclosure of Pennsylvania. There has been one foreclosure per 2,068 households in Pennsylvania but the foreclosure rate of the state is below the Philadelphia foreclosure rate.

Philadelphia is not the only metropolitan that has seen an increase but there have been increases in the counties of Bucks and Delaware too. 181 foreclosures were reported in Bucks County, which is a 9.5% increase from July. The foreclosure rate in this county is one per 2,784 households.

As a result of these foreclosures there is a huge database of Philadelphia bank foreclosures available for purchase. You have to participate in an auction and the highest bidder will get the home. There are some really great modern and traditional styled homes available for purchase and that also at 15 to 20% less than the market price.

ONLY A FINAL JUDGMENT THAT IS 'SUFFICIENTLY FIRM' CAN BE ISSUE PRECLUSIVE //Doctrine of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel

Philadelphia is no different than all other state in the union by benefiting from the argument that only a final judgment that is 'sufficiently firm' can be issue preclusive.' Luben Indus. v. U.S., 707 F.2d 1037, 40 (9th Cir.'83). To ascertain the 'firmness' of a judgment, courts look to various factors, including whether the decision was tentative, whether the parties were fully heard, whether the court supported its decision with a reasoned opinion, and whether the decision was subject to appeal or was actually reviewed on appeal. Luben, at 1040 (quoting Restatement (2d) of Judgments S 13 cmt. g (1982)).

In early November of last year Ms S.Corbitt prevailed in an unlawful detainer case brought by Aurora. The case was heard in a Northern California Superior court. According to experts opinion M.Soliman a Los Angeles based analyst cites where the claims brought by the Plaintiff are customary to gaining possession and are more procedural in format and content

Now consider the matter whereby only a final judgment that is 'sufficiently firm' can be issue preclusive.' Luben Indus. v. U.S., 707 F.2d 1037, 40 (9th Cir.'83). To ascertain the 'firmness' of a judgment, courts look to various factors, including whether the decision was tentative, whether the parties were fully heard, the court entered its final judgment for the Defendant. The Aurora v Corbitt decision was further frustrated in favor of the defendant from a 24 month suspension of the last payment made. Finally, as if that were not enough the court enters its decision with “prejudice”. 

It was my first involvement ever, as expert witness” in a case decided with prejudice. Sometimes one party's performance of a contract is dependent on someone else first performing an obligation, or something else happening first. If someone else was required to do something before you had to perform your obligations under the contract but failed to do it, or something was required to happen before you had to perform but it did not happen, you may raise this defense.

Weeks later the Plaintiff brings back to court another unlawful detainer and motion likely to hear again the argument. Counsel here is testing the court and the only clear indication of the plaintiff’s intent. The grounds for arguments herein are a juridical unknown. There is no obvious meritorious avenue the case can travel this late in the game including likely jurisdiction claims and failure to provide plaintiff due course of law. (Sound familiar).

Remember that judgment may be conclusive, however, with respect to one or more issues, if the parties have entered an agreement manifesting such an intention.' 'In such a case the effect results not from the rule of this Section but from an agreement manifesting an intention to be bound.' (Rest.2d Judgments, section 27, reporter's notes, p.269.)In Pelletier v. Alameda Yacht Harbor (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 1551, a prior unlawful detainer was resolved by a stipulated judgment. The appellate court rejected the collateral estoppel defense, saying, 'Here, the unlawful detainer action was resolved by stipulated judgment which made no mention of a relinquishment by the Pelletier’s of claims arising from a retaliatory eviction. The retaliation defense was not fully and fairly litigated in an adversary hearing, and thus was not conclusively established.' (Id. at p.1557.)

Interesting is it to see the other side of these complicated and problematic judicial quagmires for borrowers The parties are seeking possession and it’s the prevailing party in foreclosure. Seeking to have the court hear new arguments subject to anything the court rules with prejudice are confusing by all means and subjects counsel to contempt and sanctions. No change of venue, nothing mentioned subject to mis trial or court incompetence for something not known and considered critical to the case. In fact there is no competent rationale and it appears to be a void revelry for possession.

Luben affirmed the district court's determination that an interlocutory order issued by another judge in the same district was not 'sufficiently firm' because 'it could not have been the subject of an appeal. ' Id.
Where counsel for the plaintiff suddenly is a movant and in a matter decided and entered he gives the court rise to standing and jurisdiction. Consider the more serious consideration for a court leveling hefty sanctions in charging counsel with contempt under a restrictive motion.

Prior litigation by the same parties on a different cause of action has a collateral estoppel effect only as to those issues litigated and determined in the prior action. (7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed.1985) Judgment, section 253, p.691.) The party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden to show from the record of the prior action that the asserted issue was previously litigated and determined. (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257-58.)
In California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 658, 64, 67 held that 'a stipulated judgment may properly be given collateral estoppel effect, at least when the parties manifest an intent to be collaterally bound by its terms.' (Id. at 664, emphasis added.)

The court held on the particular facts that 'by specifically stipulating to the issue of liability, the parties intended the ensuing judgment to collaterally stop further litigation on that issue.' (Id. at 664-65, fn.2.) By so limiting its holding the CSAA court avoided any conflict with the rule recognized in an annotation it cited, (1979) 91 A.L.R.3d 1170, 174, that a consent judgment is not usually given preclusive effect in subsequent litigation on a different cause of action, unless the parties manifest an intent in the consent judgment to give it such preclusive effect. (CSAA, supra, 50 Cal.3d at 664-65, fn. 2.)

Counsel in my view is offering the closed matter no real cause to defy a court’s decision. The contempt risk to reward considering the home can never be vacated. This you can see adds a strange twist whereby the foreclosure power of sale has in fact no bearing on possession. Therefore the limited jurisdiction can be dewed here as the court with a higher authority as compared to a judicial action.

That general rule is based on reasoning that 'the parties to a consent judgment generally intend merely to put an end to the litigation at hand.' (91 A.L.R.3d at 1174.) It is supported also by comment e to section 27 of the Restatement Second of Judgments, at 257: 'In the case of a judgment entered by confession, consent, or default, none of the issues is actually litigated. Therefore, the rule of this Section does not apply with respect to any issue in a subsequent action.

A prior stipulated or consent judgment is subject to construction as to the parties' intent, and if sufficiently ambiguous may be interpreted in light of extrinsic evidence. (United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Johansen (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 824, 837-39; see Larsen v. Beekmann (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 185, 91; Ellena v. State of California (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 245, 61.)

Another line of authority states that a party consenting to judgment against him admits those elements of the litigation 'which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto' (Code Civ.Proc., section 1911) and may suffer collateral estoppel effect unless the parties expressly reserved or withdrew that issue from the prior judgment. (In re Marriage of Buckley (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 927, 35; Ellena v. State of California, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 261.)

For example, where the defendants in a foreclosureaction withdrew a defense of fraud and consented to a judgment, they 'necessarily admitted the validity of the instruments' and were precluded from collaterally litigating their claim they were induced by fraud to execute the instruments (Wittman v. Chrysler Corp. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 586, 91); where an ex-husband consented to a prior judgment for alimony after raising a defense that his obligation was terminated by the wife's remarriage, he was precluded from relitigating whether her remarriage terminated the obligation. (Avery v. Avery (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 525, 529-30.)

Collateral estoppel does not apply to an issue which could not have been raised in the prior proceedings. (See Chern v. Bank of America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 871-72 ['different historical transaction']; Vella v. Hudgins, supra, 20 Cal.3d 251, 255 [limited nature of issues which may be asserted in unlawful detainer; cross-complaints generally not allowed].)
A prior judgment, arrived at by stipulation with no issues actually litigated, does not preclude another action, because the face of the judgment does not show the parties so intended. (See Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 263-64 [a judgment by stipulation does not cover matters not in the stipulation; failure to include sufficiently comprehensive language in compromise offer allowed additional relief to be granted against party who believed compromise amount excluded court costs].)

You can raise this defense if there was no contract or agreement between you and the lender suing you, or the debt was not properly assigned to the party suing you.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS

the "Statute of Frauds" is a law that requires many different types of contracts be in writing. There are some exceptions to the Statute of Frauds, but if you think the claim the plaintiff is suing you for arose out of an agreement that was required by law to be in writing, but was not in writing, this defense may apply to you.

PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE

The law states that when a lenders staff put their agreements in writing, the written contract takes priority over whatever else is said in relation to the agreement. If the plaintiff's claims are based on a verbal statement that contradicts, or falls outside the written terms of the agreement, you may raise this defense.

Those of us who had anticipated the possibility of a de facto nationalization of the banking and finance sector of the economy after the meltdown last fall and the government's bailout reaction, may have to rethink our scenarios and happily so. With the announcement that Citigroup will pay back $20 billion in bailout loans and that Wells Fargo will pay back $25 billion – following closely on Bank of America's announcement that it will pay back $45 billion – the nine major banks that took bailout money in October 2008 will have repaid or be in the process of repaying their federal loans.


Some of the smaller banks that took TARP money repaid the loans months ago.

FILE - In this April 16, 2009 file photo, a sign at the Citigroup Center is shown in New York. Citigroup Inc. said Monday Dec. 14, 2009 it is repaying $20 billion in bailout money it received from the Treasury Department, in an effort to reduce government influence over the banking giant. The government will also sell its stake in the company. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, file)

ADVERTISEMENT

More from Editorials

• Editorial: Rehab for terrorists: crayons and finger paints
• Editorial: Time to re-examine that 'settled' science
• Editorial: New Year's resolution for fixing Congress
• Editorial: New laws: nothing too trivial to ban, require or tax
• Editorial: Sick way to increase doctors' numbers

Perhaps they will all value their independence from the government a little more in the future.
Most of the commentary on the big banks' eagerness to pay the money back and get out from under the federal thumb has focused on the government's control of pay and bonuses for top executives – a stricture that is already complicating Bank of America's search for a new CEO. But it was more than limits on pay that bothered the banks. They were dying the death of a thousand cuts of micromanagement as government bureaucrats who had never run a business or met a payroll dictated how they should operate.
The government desire to dictate policy to private businesses was perhaps symbolized by President Barack Obama's summoning the heads of major financial institutions to the White House Monday to give them a tongue-lashing about not making enough loans to get the economy jumpstarted. This was objectionable, even obnoxious, on several levels.
In the first place, the president placed sole blame for last year's financial collapse on private financial institutions. While some of them do bear a portion of responsibility, there is little question that government policies and actions – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteeing risky financial instruments, the Federal Reserve flooding the economy with cheap money, pressure from regulators to make loans to risky borrowers and much more – bears primary responsibility for the meltdown. President Obama didn't come close to acknowledging even a minor role for the government.

US media have turned on Wall Street

'Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic,' Bush warned. He sketched out a scenario of failing banks and plunging share prices which would savage retirement plans and put millions out of work.But the administration's planned $700bn bail-out for the financial sector has outraged and appalled many on the country's Main Streets. It has led to anger on the left of American politics, shocked at such aid to wealthy bankers when the millions of families losing their homes get little direct help. At the same time many on the right have expressed equal disbelief, watching in amazement as the previously free-marketeer Bush suddenly embarked on the biggest government intervention since the Great Depression.

The US media have turned on Wall Street like a pack of wolves. 'Fraud Street,' screamed the banner scrolling beneath the concerned features of Fox Business Network's Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune

Daily newspaper published in Chicago. The Tribune is one of the leading U.S. newspapers and long has been the dominant voice of the Midwest. Founded in 1847, it was bought in 1855 by six partners, including Joseph Medill (1823–99), who made the paper
..... Click the link for more information.

At the United Nations, an Australian reporter accosted ac·cost
tr.v. ac·cost·ed, ac·cost·ing, ac·costs
1. To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively, as with a demand or request.

2. To solicit for sex.  the actor Michael Douglas during a press conference and demanded to know - with a straight face, mind you - whether he felt any responsibility for the crisis because he delivered the line 'greed is good' as the character Gordon Gekko in the film Wall Street. 'Are you now saying, Gordon, that greed is not good?' the reporter asked.

'I'm not saying that,' a bemused Douglas replied. 'And my name is not Gordon. He's a character I played 20 years ago.'

The huge bail-out plan has also fundamentally changed the battlefield of the American election, which is just five weeks away from deciding who will be the next president. The sheer scale of the economic crisis, and the enormous sums of taxpayers' money demanded to sort it out, are the biggest game in town.

In the UK, the red mists of anger have been slower to appear but the frustration is emerging with millions of savers and shareholders in Bradford and Bingley recognising that it will become the latest high street bank to fall victim to the financial contagion financial contagion

A financial problem that spreads among companies or regions. For example, Russia's 1998 default triggered sharp declines in the market values of debt issued by emerging countries.  that has its roots in sub-prime lending to poor American homebuyers. Gordon Brown, who had been in Washington conferring with Bush about the crisis, branded the past few years an 'age of irresponsibility' and demanded the banks stop behaving recklessly. Until recently, Brown and his Chancellor, Alistair Darling, had been boasting that the past decade was an era of unprecedented prosperity and stability, and the Prime Minister's volte-face drew immediate accusations of hypocrisy from the Conservatives.

As the deadlock on Capitol Hill continued last week, it must have been painfully obvious to Brown that the consequences of failure would reverberate re·ver·ber·ate
v. re·ver·ber·at·ed, re·ver·ber·at·ing, re·ver·ber·ates

v.intr.
1. To resound in a succession of echoes; reecho.

2.
..... Click the link for more information. throughout the world financial system - and straight to the pockets of Britain's homeowners. The cost of interbank lending on the London money markets has shot up, as shocked investors feared more banks could be at risk of going bust. Mortgage rates in the UK quickly followed, leaving thousands of homeowners struggling to find affordable finance.

Here in Britain, analysts believe the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy has only just begun to bite. But to millions of Americans, it seems as though the doomsday picture is already upon them, especially in crucial battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, America's former manufacturing heartland.

These are people like Ken Karasek. The 47-year-old union organiser in the city of Wilkes-Barre has lived all his life among the hardscrabble hard·scrab·ble
adj.
Earning a bare subsistence, as on the land; marginal: the sharecropper's hardscrabble life.

n.
Barren or marginal farmland.

Adj. 1.  towns of eastern Pennsylvania. He has seen factory after factory close and jobs move overseas. He feels that the economic crisis of the past year has merely brought the rest of America up to speed with what has happened in his home patch for the past three decades, and he is angry that the government has been so quick to bail out Wall Street with hundreds of billions. 'It disgusts me. I have seen huge plants close down all over this area. I have seen good union jobs go and get replaced by service jobs, like McDonalds or Wendy's. Now we give all this money to Wall Street just like that?' he protested.

The panic around the economy has infected the political system, upending traditional alliances, pushing Democrats closer to Bush's plan and Republicans further away. It has created ructions in the race between Barack Obama and John McCain For McCain's grandfather and father, see John S. McCain, Sr. and John S. McCain, Jr., respectively
John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936 in Panama Canal Zone) is an American politician, war veteran, and currently the Republican Senior U.S. Senator from Arizona. , seeing a dangerous game of political brinksmanship brink·man·ship   also brinks·man·ship
n.
The practice, especially in international politics, of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede.  that ended with McCain suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington.

The events which led to that astonishing a·ston·ish
tr.v. as·ton·ished, as·ton·ish·ing, as·ton·ish·es
To fill with sudden wonder or amazement. See Synonyms at surprise.  twist began at 8.30am on Wednesday. Obama had placed the call to McCain, reaching out with the idea that the two rival candidates could draft a common statement on the financial crisis gripping America. Such a move was far from altruistic. A Washington Post poll that morning showed Obama opening up a nine-point lead in the race. The poll was perhaps the strongest sign that voters were beginning to decisively break for the Democrats. By reaching out to McCain across party divides, Obama could stamp his ownership on the economic issue and also appear as a unifying president-in-waiting.

McCain finally returned the call at 2.30pm that afternoon. The two men agreed in principle to a joint statement and McCain mentioned he was thinking of returning to Washington to address the crisis. He also suggested suspending Friday night's first televised presidential debate. Obama, apparently, assumed McCain was not serious - but he misjudged his opponent. A few minutes later, McCain called a press conference, suspended his campaign and said he was heading back to the capital.

It was a high-stakes move, dictated by political needs of the moment. It showed leadership and his maverick streak that is always popular with swing voters, as McCain also struck a new populist tone, railing against the freewheeling free·wheel·ing
adj.
1.
a. Free of restraints or rules in organization, methods, or procedure.

b. Heedless of consequences; carefree.

2. Relating to or equipped with a free wheel.  excesses of the wealthy bankers who had caused the mess. But the plan had a huge risk, not least due to McCain's long record of supporting deregulation Deregulation

The reduction or elimination of government power in a particular industry, usually enacted to create more competition within the industry.

Notes:
Traditional areas that have been deregulated are the telephone and airline industries.  and his close ties to big business. Voters are unlikely to see McCain as a convincing populist. 'He has an uphill fight to persuade people that this is what he believes,' said Professor Rogers Smith Rogers Smith (born September 20, 1953) is an American political scientist and author noted for his research and writing on American constitutional and political development and political thought, with a focus on issues of citizenship and racial, gender, and class inequalities. , a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania (body, education) University of Pennsylvania - The home of ENIAC and Machiavelli.

http://upenn.edu/.

Address: Philadelphia, PA, USA. .

Instead of following his lead, the Democrats slammed McCain for interfering in something about which he knew nothing. He returned to Washington, leading a train of reporters in his wake, though he had no meaningful appointments scheduled there. Bush himself rescued McCain, inviting him and Obama to a White House meeting which caused gridlock Gridlock

A government, business or institution's inability to function at a normal level due either to complex or conflicting procedures within the administrative framework or to impending change in the business.  in Washington as competing motorcades darted around the White House. As predicted, it also derailed the bail-out plan, producing only partisan rancour. At one stage a frustrated Bush said: 'If money isn't loosened up, this sucker could go down.' But even such frank language from the most powerful man in the world could not secure agreement.

Suddenly Republican politicians broke away from the plan, leaving only Democrats still willing to work on it. In an astonishing scene, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson walked into a room where top Democrats were meeting. He got down on one knee before Speaker Nancy Pelosi and begged Democrats not to 'blow up' the deal. Pelosi and other Democrats furiously told Paulson that they blamed Republicans for the mess. 'I know, I know,' Paulson replied.

By Friday the meetings had begun again, seeking to rescue some of the plan or come up with a better alternative. But by that time the huge Washington Mutual “WaMu” redirects here. For the Washington, DC radio station, see WAMU.

Washington Mutual (or WaMu; NYSE: WM) is the United States' largest savings and loan association.  bank had failed overnight, the biggest such event in US history - though even such a momentous collapse was relegated to almost an afterthought on the morning TV news shows. Bush again appeared before the TV cameras, vowing that a bail-out plan would be passed but offering nothing concrete as to what or when. The political theatre took on a rare tinge of humour when Gawker gawk
n.
An awkward, loutish person; an oaf.

intr.v. gawked, gawk·ing, gawks
To stare or gape stupidly. See Synonyms at gaze. , the Manhattan media gossip website, declared Paulson a 'hotty' after digging up an old photo of him standing bare-chested on a beach brandishing a large fish. 'Look at that chest,' Gawker gushed. 'The power of Paulson, indeed... Hank can bail us out any time.'

But in Wilkes-Barre, Ken Karasek and others at a rally for Obama's running mate running mate
n.
1. The candidate or nominee for the lesser of two closely associated political offices.
2. A companion.
3. A horse used to set the pace in a race for another horse. , Joe Biden This article is about the United States Senator from Delaware, for other uses of the name, see Biden.
Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is an American lawyer and politician from Wilmington, Delaware. , were not interested in Hank the Hunk's manly musculature musculature /mus·cu·la·ture/ (mus´kul-ah-cher) the muscular apparatus of the body or of a part.

---

mus·cu·la·ture
n.
The arrangement of the muscles in a part or in the body as a whole.  - they were just furious at being asked to pay for his extraordinary proposal.
Retired nurse Betty Daniels, wearing a baseball cap emblazoned with the words 'Jesus is my boss', was furious at the bail-out. 'I feel angry. People are losing their homes. They are barely making enough money to feed their families. I would like to see that money go to those people, not banks who just wasted it,' she said.

In an already distressed area such as Wilkes-Barre the impact of the economic crisis has been profound. Over the past year more businesses have closed and many homes have been lost as the mortgage crisis has reached out and cast people out of their houses.

When Biden took to the stage in front of the small crowd, he dished dished
adj.
1. Concave.
2. Slanting toward one another at the bottom. Used of a pair of wheels.
Adj. 1. dished - shaped like a dish or pan
dish-shaped, patelliform

concave - curving inward  out lashings of angry politics which struck a chord with many of those present. Biden attacked Wall Street executives and a culture in Washington that had been too friendly to big business. 'The wealthy and the powerful have a seat at the table and everybody else is on the menu,' he said.

There were echoes of that populist mood in the UK, where the Archbishops of Canterbury This is a list of the Archbishops of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the established Church of England and, symbolically, of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

From the time of St.  and York intervened in the debate, describing City speculators as asset strippers and bank robbers. Only a few months ago the churchmen would have been ridiculed for their outbursts, but now there were even some in the Square Mile prepared to admit they have a point. Investment banker Investment Banker

A person representing a financial institution that is in the business of raising capital for corporations and municipalities.

Notes:
An investment banker may not accept deposits or make commercial loans.  John Reynolds There are several men named John Reynolds:

• John Reynolds (soldier), a soldier in the English Civil War
• John Reynolds (musician), a writer, musician, and producer; the first husband of Sinéad O'Connor
• John F.

..... Click the link for more information., chairman of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group (see right) said: 'It is easy to see how abusive market practices have developed, harder to see why they have been allowed to grow unchecked by regulators. To avoid repeating the mistakes we need regulators to be more interested in understanding markets and politicians to be less in awe of money and less influenced by the seemingly munificent gestures of large companies seeking to show that they aren't just greedy bastards - when in fact they are.'

The financial crisis has called into question a whole philosophy on both sides of the Atlantic: the so-called 'Anglo-Saxon model' of liberal capitalism which has dominated the US and the UK economies for 30 years, now with disastrous results.

Even Irwin Stelzer Irwin M. Stelzer (born 1932) is an American economist. He is the U.S. economic and business columinst for The Sunday Times (UK), The Courier-Mail and a contributing editor of The Weekly Standard. , Rupert Murdoch's economic adviser, and arch-defender of free markets, admitted: 'The day when that engine of capitalism, the financial market, will be allowed to operate more or less unimpeded unimpeded
Adjective

not stopped or disrupted by anything

Adj. 1. unimpeded - not slowed or prevented; "a time of unimpeded growth"; "an unimpeded sweep of meadows and hills afforded a peaceful setting"  by government, has passed.' Veteran investor George Soros George Soros

Born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1930, George Soros is considered by many to be one of the world's greatest investors. A famous hedge fund manager, Soros managed the Quantum Fund, a fund that achieved an average annual return of 30% from 1970-2000.  has argued that we are suffering the after-effects of a 'super bubble' fuelled by decades of deregulation and hands-off economic management - and it is time for the political tide to turn.

The financial markets' extraordinary ascendancy can be traced back to the Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher Thatch·er   , Margaret Hilda. Baroness. Born 1925.

British Conservative politician who served as prime minister (1979-1990). Her administration was marked by anti-inflationary measures, a brief war in the Falkland Islands (1982), and the passage of a  era of the 1980s. They slashed controls on markets and set finance free. In 1986, a whole series of rules and restraints were abolished in one fell swoop, the 'Big Bang'. For consumers up and down Britain, the liberation of the financial markets made it much easier to borrow. The days of queuing anxiously to see the bank manager, to persuade him to give the nod to a mortgage, or agree to an overdraft, were over. Owning shares was no longer the preserve of the wealthy few, sauntering to their brokers after lunch in a London club An informal group of private creditors on the international stage. Similar to the Paris Club of public lenders. London Club is not the only informal group of private creditors. Its first meeting took place in 1976 in response to Zaire's payment problems. .

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, exposing the shattered state of the centrally planned Soviet economy, defenders of market freedom felt vindicated. It was, said one darling of the free-marketeers, Francis Fukuyama Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952, Chicago, Illinois) is an American philosopher, political economist and author. Early Life
Francis Fukuyama was born October 27, 1952, in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. , 'the end of history' because the Cold War was over and the power of the market had triumphed.

During his decade as Chancellor, from 1997, Gordon Brown worked hard to keep the City on side, boasting of its competitiveness, and nurturing it with 'light-touch' regulation. But with the crisis-hit banks now forced into pleading for charity from the state, many observers are arguing that the financial firms have surrendered their right to demand an easy ride. One stunned City veteran trying to absorb the magnitude of Paulson's plan said: 'We've just turned the clock back on 25 years of Neanderthal capitalism.'

Already, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are busily drawing up plans to tighten the rules on the level of assets banks must hold to secure their loans; and to ensure that financial regulators from different countries keep in closer contact. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for a global summit in November to rebuild the whole world financial and monetary system from scratch, saying: 'The idea that markets are always right was a mad idea.'

Even if the Paulson plan is clinched without further delay, there is no hope of an imminent recovery either in the US or the UK. The pain for ordinary homeowners on Main Street USA is already being felt, and in Britain unemployment is rising quickly, and consumers are tightening their belts. Rosebys, the home furnishing chain, became the latest casualty in the retail sector on Friday, when it collapsed into administration, leaving its 2,000 staff uncertain about their future.

'Folks, it's not just finance,' Citigroup economist Steven Wieting warned the world. 'The recession bus left the station earlier this year.'

Additional reporting by James Doran, Elana Schor and Lisa Bachelor

LENDER AND SERVICING AGENT FRAUD IS OVERSHADOWED BY “DEAD BEAT” HOMEOWNERS.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

If your home is the largest investment you have made to date then the subject matter herein is possibly the most important material you will ever read.

By MSoliman
October 8, 2009
In legal terms an action to foreclose on a mortgage is taken by the lender to recover the mortgage debt by enforcing the banks (mortgagee's) rights under the mortgage and in the mortgaged property. It is highly regulated by state and federal statutes and accounting rules that are subject throughout to the court's equitable powers. 

Did you also know a court may also relieve the borrower from default (where the default was not willful)? Since a foreclosure action is equitable in nature and is addressed to a court of equity, the court may relieve a borrower of a default and deny the bank foreclosure on proof that the borrowers default was neither willful nor in bad faith and that the lender (mortgagee's) action established a waiver of the default, or constituted fraud, bad faith, or oppressive or unconscionable conduct that warranted a court of equity to refuse affirmative relief to the mortgagee. 

MSoliman is an expert in the field of mortgage lending, regulatory enforcements, non agency secondary markets and toxic loan programs. The Experts focus is to identify a set of simple guideline criteria that have more to do with accounting and securities laws compared to the mortgage industry. It's a big problem for a lender when a borrower combines stock and bonds securities fraud claims with avoidance of accounting rules, IRS tax violations and deceptive business practices to create an attack against to save their home.

Here is the reality of the situation according to Soliman. "Only a blind fool would not mount an attack to save their home in this market". Mortgage lenders have done business as usual long enough while avoiding the rules and regulations of securities laws and banking guidelines.

This is your family home and the only defense we see for saving your home is a strong offense.

"If you could only hear Wells Fargo's attorney perjuring himself on the stand recently in trial. I personally testified in the matter of a wrongful foreclosure. I later caught a ride back to the office with the borrower who drove all the way smiling from ear to ear after the judge ruled in our favor.

For a moment I thought how sad it was to know how many other families would have to move out their home forever by the end of the day. (Wells Fargo et al v. Goines Superior Court of California; The County of Los Angeles).

Our staff will attack the lending regulatory requirements that at times seem to only enforce investor rights and adversely affect a borrower who received a loan from Wall Street registrant. Our first win in court was for a home that totaled nearly $ 1million. We assumed then as we do today that a public company acting as a lender is alleged to have committed serious civil and criminal acts. (First Franklin Lehman Brothers v. Spicer; Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County)
If this is not the way you envisioned saving your home then let the lender be the first to congratulate you on your way out! 

Soliman said recently that another client was relieved to have never made it to court "after" his home sold. The offer by the lender post trustee sale reduced the mortgage by over $680,000 was all it took to show all of us those lenders will fix a problem where civil violations and criminal allegations can be backed up by testimony and facts. (Matter of Wilshire Servicing Company v Henderson / Out of court settlement from $680,000 original loan to $180,000 new principal balance offered by the trustee).

So who protects the homeowner? Soliman say's "Don't point to HUD "(meaning the department of Housing and Urban Development!) HUD turned the enforcement over to contract firms like ACORN who is the subject of more malfeasance and criminal conduct against others. RESPA and other regulatory protections passed by Congress are offering homeowners the protection of a sinking ship out at sea with no life rafts and HUD staff appears to sail away from each disaster with a total blind eye to human suffering.

According to Soliman "No attorney to date has pulled a rabbit out of his or her hat! We work with borrowers and their attorneys whereby we see the practitioner as a servant of the court and there to lawfully represent a claim to fruition."
Attorneys who litigate are often lost in this convoluted sector of finance regardless of their reputations in other endeavors. This is especially true for borrowers in court who need volumes of serious and practical guidance offered from mortgage insiders who sold and purchased assets from these malfeasant and derelict lending firms for over 20 years.
I personally traded over $1 billion in mortgage backed receivables with a sterling reputation of never having used deceptiveness or being cited for repurchase due to fraud. I delivered closed whole loan assets to big name buyers such as Citigroup, Countrywide, Bank of America and Saxon.

Look, the facts are "there is an underlying concern for criminal activity having played a role in this deliberate and intentional scheme to remove precious capital from domestic and world investors while relying on a safety valve to fall back on known as foreclosure" according to Soliman. These occurrences of lender fraud do appear to be to a greater than lesser extent an absolute breech of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) under FASB authority. "And that is a potential SEC matter" said Soliman

Bernard Ebhers "WorldCom" claimed he did not understand anything having to do with GAAP and other securities subject matter. Ken Lay "Enron" said the same thing on the stand and the jury actually believed him. Both men served as chairman and each are were sentenced to prison. "I believe because both lied and did not want to take responsibility for secretive business dealings and for causing their shareholders to lose money in a securities fraud" according to Soliman.
 
When a public company sells unregulated products (e.i. planes trains and automobiles) the investors will get hurt in a sham business deal. The Securities Exchange Commission protects investors when white collar crimes are committed by liquidating company assets. If the assets or investor's collateral for the stock or shares are your home, you and your family are left homeless while the investors salvage what they can from a foreclosure sale and that is wrong.

The defenses you will need to prevail should go beyond trying to prolong an unlawful detainer hearing that is inevitable in foreclosure yet only appropriate for a land lord seeking to remove a trespasser. These deceptive acceptance practices and wrongful foreclosure recoveries include initial claims of verifiable opaque secretive financing arrangements and avoidance of regulatory agency guidance and material violations of generally accepted accounting practices.
Your state and federal codes are there to protect you from unlawful acts against the homeowner.

We are not a lawyer's referral service or RESPA audit firm who's at times can offer nothing of value" said Soliman. His firm Expert.Witness™ is a mortgage loan origination fraud expert service for fraud claims and foreclosure defense support group assisting lawyers and consumer by testifying in court in wrongful foreclosure matters. Their expert staff provides deep cutting testimony from gathering critical detailed regulatory information citing SEC and GAAP violations and by providing the matter evidence necessary for advantageous case development. Borrowers and legal professionals must be willing to press the full extent of the law and that may include both civil and criminal claims where they exist in a file. 

Borrowers are advised to always seek legal advisement when addressing claims. Soliman is confident he can show verifiable material violations provided in published investment material or substance found in audits by lenders and their top accounting firms.

We tell layers to look at the production of documents or interrogatories phase of the case to truly understand the confidence we communicate herein. As Soliman puts it "that's when the lenders start to lose the cool and do an about face with a "can't we all get along offer to compromise".
M.Soliman

Examiner
NLS Expert. Witness™
Tel. 213-880-6288

Lender Fraudulent Claims

Protecting your most valued asset, your home, from fraudulent claims against your ownership, liens, and undisclosed heirs are just some of the reasons you need title insurance. In this site you will find information on the steps you need to take to purchase a home and secure your ownership. Chicago Title takes pride in the fact that we have helped homebuyers through the real estate transaction process for more than 150 years. It's your investment - it's your choice: contact your Real Estate agent and insist on Chicago Title Insurance.

ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and dated this __

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows.

ARTICLE I ASSET DESCRIPTION

1.01 Assets. Seller agrees that at the Closing, as defined in Section 5.01, it shall sell,
assign, transfer and convey to Buyer free and clear of all other liens, claims, encumbrances and
other interests (except for any easements or other rights with respect to the real property
described in Exhibit A that do not constitute liens, encumbrances or otherwise cloud the title
with respect to such property), and Buyer agrees that it shall purchase and acquire from Seller,
all of Seller’s right, title and interest in the following assets owned by Seller (the “Assets”):

BORROWER WON BACK HOME NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE!

TODAY WE WON A HOME BACK ON DECISION - RULED WITH PREJUDICE
Case Contra Costa Superior Court

corbett v aurora home loans
press release:
 

November 13th 2009 Los Angeles, CA / word just in – superior court of Solano “we won we won” cries out the plaintiff outside the courtroom. The decision was ruled with prejudice in the matter of a wrongful foreclosure. Corbitt v. aurora vcm104344 everyone is asked to celebrate the victory and take note, for now at least that there is hope for others. 

This is support for those suffering and Is proof there is always a solution for being unfairly forced from your home. Homeowners who believe they were dealt with dealt unfairly or in a deceptive mannershouldthink about their rights and contact an attorney.The problems appear to growing with wrongful foreclosure and 2010 looks to be a difficult year.

if you’re feeling that your lender will not listen to reason remember this - amended cc 2923.5 mandates by law and state enforcement that you’re entitled to relief. The reality of all this is the fact a lender cannot do a modification! And, offers for a short sale are unlikely. See GAAP accounting rule FAS 140-3 or write us for more information. [Not spam and at no expense]. Expert.witness@live.com 

TEL 213-880-6288

WHAT YOU really OWN IN A TRUST

Your certificates represent interests only in the assets of the issuing entity. All payments to you will come only from the amounts received in connection with those assets.

The Trust owns a pool of mortgage loans and other assets, as described under “The Trust” in this prospectus supplement.There are no outstanding series or classes of securities that are backed by the assets of the issuing entity or otherwise have claims on the assets of the issuing entity, other than the certificates. The depositor does not expect that any securities representing additional interests in or claims on the assets of the issuing entity will be issued in the future.

 Information About the Mortgage Pool

The mortgage pool consists of 2,435 mortgage loans with an aggregate principal balance as of June 1, 2007 of approximately $1,448,100,398; provided, however, that in the case of 151 mortgage loans that were originated during the period from, and including, June 2, 2007 to, and including, June 11, 2007, all references to “June 1, 2007” under the headings, “Summary Information” and “Risk Factors” in this prospectus supplement shall be deemed to refer to the related date of origination for such mortgage loans. All of the mortgage loans are secured by residential properties (or shares of cooperative apartments) and each has an original term to maturity of not more than 40 years.

After an initial fixed-rate period of one or three months, the interest rate on each mortgage loan will adjust monthly to equal the sum of an index and a margin. As of June 1, 2007, approximately 93.8% of the mortgage loans (by aggregate principal balance) were still in their initial fixed-rate period. The interest rates on the mortgage loans are subject to overall maximum and minimum interest rate limits.

The index for the mortgage loans in loan group 1 will be One-Year MTA, the 12-month moving average yield on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of one year. The index for the mortgage loans in loan group 2 will be COFI, the 11th District Monthly Weighted Average Cost of Funds Index published by the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco.

While the interest rate on each mortgage loan will adjust monthly (after the initial fixed-rate period), the minimum monthly payment on each mortgage loan generally will adjust only annually. On each annual payment adjustment date, the minimum monthly payment generally will not increase or decrease by more than 7.5%. As a result, the interest due with respect to a mortgage loan for any given month may, under certain circumstances, exceed the monthly payment for that month. In that case, payment of the excess of interest due over the monthly payment will be deferred

Pennsylvania "Judicial" Mortgages

Foreclosure of a mortgage is generally accomplished by
judicial action. The action is initiated by the service of legal pleadings upon
all parties having an interest in the real property. Delays in completion of the
foreclosure may occasionally result from difficulties in locating necessary
parties. Judicial foreclosure proceedings are sometimes not contested by any of
the parties. 

When the mortgagee's right to foreclosure is contested, the legal
proceedings necessary to resolve the issue can be time consuming. After the
completion of a judicial foreclosure proceeding, the court generally issues a
judgment of foreclosure and appoints a referee or other court officer to conduct
the sale of the property. 

In general, the borrower, or any other person having a
junior encumbrance on the real estate, may, during a statutorily prescribed
reinstatement period, cure a monetary default by paying the entire amount in
arrears plus other designated costs and expenses incurred in enforcing the
obligation. Generally, state law controls the amount of foreclosure expenses and
costs, including attorney's fees, which may be recovered by a lender. After the
reinstatement period has expired without the default having been cured, the
borrower or junior lienholder no longer has the right to reinstate the loan and
must pay the loan in full to prevent the scheduled foreclosure sale. 

If the deed of trust is not reinstated, a notice of sale must be posted in a public place
and, in most states, published for a specific period of time in one or more
newspapers. In addition, some state laws require that a copy of the notice of
sale be posted on the property and sent to all parties having an interest in the
real property.

REMIC residual interest

Any purchase of Issuing Entity Assets and property acquired in respect of Issuing Entity Assets evidenced by a series of securities will be made at the option of the servicer or the party specified in the related prospectus supplement, including the holder of the REMIC residual interest, at a price, and in accordance with the procedures, specified in the related prospectus supplement. The exercise of that right will effect early retirement of the securities of that series, but the right of the servicer or the other party or, if applicable, the holder of the REMIC residual interest, to so purchase is subject to the principal balance of the related Issuing Entity Assets being less than the percentage specified in the related prospectus supplement of the aggregate principal balance of the Issuing Entity Assets at the cut-off date for the series. The foregoing is subject to the provision that if a REMIC election is made with respect to an issuing entity, any repurchase pursuant to the second bulleted item above will be made only in connection with a "qualified liquidation" of the REMIC within the meaning of Code Section 860F(a)(4). Indenture. The indenture will be discharged with respect to a series of notes (except with respect to certain continuing rights specified in the indenture) upon the delivery to the trustee for cancellation of all the notes of such series or, with certain limitations, upon deposit with the trustee of funds sufficient for the payment in full of all of the notes of such series. In addition to such discharge with certain limitations, the indenture will provide that, if so specified with respect to the notes of any series, the related issuing entity will be discharged from any and all obligations in respect of the notes of such series (except for certain obligations relating to temporary notes and exchange of notes, to register the transfer of or exchange notes of such series, to replace stolen, lost or mutilated notes of such series, to maintain paying agencies and to hold monies for payment in trust) upon the deposit with the trustee, in trust, of money and/or direct obligations of or obligations guaranteed by the United States of America which through the payment of interest and principal in respect of them in accordance with their terms will provide money in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and each installment of interest on the notes of such series on the last scheduled distribution date for such notes and any installment of interest on such notes in accordance with the terms of the indenture and the notes of such series. In the event of any defeasance and discharge of notes of such series, holders of notes of such series would be able to look only to such money and/or direct obligations for payment of principal and interest, if any, on their notes until maturity. The applicable prospectus supplement for a series of notes may also provide that when the principal balance of such notes is reduced to a specified percentage of the original principal balance as of the cut-off date, the depositor, the indenture trustee or the holder of a call right may, at its option, redeem one or more classes of notes at a price equal to 100% of the outstanding principal balance of the notes plus accrued interest thereon plus the amount due and owing to the surety provider, if any. Such redemption will have the same effect as a prepayment on the notes.

What An Attoney is Looking For in Testimony

M. Soliman

Expert Witness

711 South Olive Street 

Los Angele's, CA 90014

  

June 16th 2009

Name of

Attorney at Law

Address

City, State Postal

Dear Counsel;

Everything communicated to the client to date is provided as evidentiary and is available for production. Counsel was eventually coming to the table to affirm the information as exemplar to submit with the case. I shall keep my word with you for production to date while I scratch my head and try not to understand this recent development in line with the clients panic. 

We do not have a case number, no opposing counsel information referred to my neither office nor court docket and all of this in consideration of a valuable status change in the matter favoring the client. It’s his move to determine what to do here and he needs to retain counsel.

 

We need to consider where the client is out of budget and appears to never have qualified. These facts are supported by  him being employed as an "broker" or industry insider. 

Brokers are unfairly viewed by courts and jury as the cause f our dilemma and that’s not true. My discovery shows the client is still living at a substandard income level.  He is not capable of affording a modification even if the offers to provide such come to fruition. His condition precedent looms while  subsequent condition is now discoverable. 

The lender non the less is committing a verifiable tort. The foreclosure sale was unenforceable and I beleive my discussion with the broker of record may have an interesting twist as for the sudden decision to rescission (of the sale).

The objective remains for allowing counsel to manage the matter upon my raw data and findings. I shall argue the affordability has no bearing on the borrower’s rights and where the lender servicing agent is seen having  circumvented your client using secretive and unlawful business practices.

One concern is for having provided him the trust indenture where I found multiple material misrepresentations. The lender has problems especially where they have provided as investor assurances and counter parties reps and warrants. 

The problems are in the covenants I read which appear to be circumventing a borrower’s right such as David. He has yet to affirm the detail while pointing out the problems with formatting. Under the deed exists more than one instance of breach including, deceptive, unlawful conveyances and business practices considered fraud. His recorded instruments are defect and therein lay the focus for his claim. Our expert review of the matter suggests objectionable procedural errors and lender practices by the trustee deemed to be malfeasance.Unethical servicing practices using deceptive recovery efforts by a host of parties who lack joinder are in addition to evidence of unlawful estoppels, by deed and by silence including tortuous interference by parties claiming to have an interest.

The sale reversal threw a wrench into everything and for that he is a very lucky man. I do have clients who have paid their attorneys $25,000 to date to ask for the same thing. Upon the title having been transferred out and back into his name emerges the actual tort versus a allegation of fraud. Consider the added pressure of punitive damages for pain and suffering and wrongful conveyances under a slander of title .  We discovered significant violations considered deemed material causing “defect “ in title and that will suggests any future sale of the home must fail. David’s home cannot sell whereby the deed as a security rests disturbed and challenges should address the successors and assigns who now lack sufficient standing to enforce any conveyance under a power of sale. 

Our discovery to date, albeit four or four hundred pages are substance and the facts I gather are subject to my testimony in a courtroom. What does he know about my work and task at hand that causes this need for a churlish outcry and public outrage and panic.

His home has been saved from a trustee sale I deem unenforceable. Trustee has reversed the sale and the client is a very lucky man. Therefore he needs to consider counsels engagement and his next move.

I am subject to rules and instructions of the local court including a subpoena by the lender as plaintiff subject to demand for production. Rules of evidence afford the opposition’s right to receive the information as provide to date if he remains “Pro Per”.

I will assume upon you receiving the information I  will hear from you accordingly.

Respectfully;

Maher Soliman

Expert Witness

Collateral Estoppel and the Third President of the United States?

Doctrine of nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel:

'Only a final judgment that is 'sufficiently firm' can be issue preclusive.' Luben Indus. v. U.S., 707 F.2d 1037, 40 (9th Cir.'83). To ascertain the 'firmness' of a judgment, courts look to various factors, including whether the decision was tentative, whether the parties were fully heard, whether the court supported its decision with a reasoned opinion, and whether the decision was subject to appeal or was actually reviewed on appeal. Luben, at 1040 (quoting Restatement(2d) of Judgments S 13 cmt. g (1982)). Luben affirmed the district court's determination that an interlocutory order issued by another judge in the same district was not 'sufficiently firm' because 'it could not have been the subject of an appeal. ' Id.

Prior litigation by the same parties on a different cause of action has a collateral estoppel effect only as to those issues litigated and determined in the prior action. (7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed.1985) Judgment, section 253, p.691.) The party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden to show from the record of the prior action that the asserted issue was previously litigated and determined. (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257-58.)

In Pelletier v. Alameda Yacht Harbor (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 1551, a prior unlawful detainer was resolved by a stipulated judgment. The appellate court rejected the collateral estoppel defense, saying, 'Here, the unlawful detainer action was resolved by stipulated judgment which made no mention of a relinquishment by the Pelletiers of claims arising from a retaliatory eviction. The retaliation defense was not fully and fairly litigated in an adversary hearing, and thus was not conclusively established.' (Id. at p.1557.)

  StateAuto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 658, 64, 67 held that 'a stipulated judgment may properly be given collateral estoppel effect, at least when the parties manifest an intent to be collaterally bound by its terms.' (Id. at 664, emphasis added.) 

The court held on the particular facts that 'by specifically stipulating to the issue of liability, the parties intended the ensuing judgment to collaterally estop further litigation on that issue.' (Id. at 664-65, fn.2.) By so limiting its holding the CSAA court avoided any conflict with the rule recognized in an annotation it cited, 

(1979) 91 A.L.R.3d 1170, 174, that a consent judgment is not usually given preclusive effect in subsequent litigation on a different cause of action, unless the parties manifest an intent in the consent judgment to give it such preclusive effect. (CSAA, supra, 50 Cal.3d at 664-65, fn. 2.) 

That general rule is based on reasoning that 'the parties to a consent judgment generally intend merely to put an end to the litigation at hand.' (91 A.L.R.3d at 1174.) It is supported also by comment  to section 27 of the Restatement Second of Judgments, at 257: 'In the case of a judgment entered by confession, consent, or default, none of the issues is actually litigated. 

Therefore, the rule of this Section does not apply with respect to any issue in a subsequent action. The judgment may be conclusive, however, with respect to one or more issues, if the parties have entered an agreement manifesting such an intention.' 'In such a case the effect results not from the rule of this Section but from an agreement manifesting an intention to be bound.' (Rest.2d Judgments, section 27, reporter's notes, p.269.)

A prior stipulated or consent judgment is subject to constructionas to the parties' intent, and if sufficiently ambiguous may be interpreted in light of extrinsic evidence. (United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Johansen (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 824, 837-39; see Larsen v. Beekmann (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 185, 91; Ellena v. State of California (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 245, 61.)

Another line of authority states that a party consenting to judgment against him admits those elements of the litigation 'which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto' (Code Civ.Proc., section 1911) and may suffer collateral estoppel effect unless the parties expressly reserved or withdrew that issue from the prior judgment. (In re Marriage of Buckley (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 927, 35; Ellena v. State of California, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 261.) 

For example, where the defendants in a foreclosure action withdrew a defense of fraud and consented to a judgment, they 'necessarily admitted the validity of the instruments' and were precluded from collaterally litigating their claim they were induced by fraud to execute the instruments (Wittman v. Chrysler Corp. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 586, 91); where an ex-husband consented to a prior judgment for alimony after raising a defense that his obligation was terminated by the wife's remarriage, he was precluded from relitigating whether her remarriage terminated the obligation. (Avery v. Avery (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 525, 529-30.)
 

Collateral estoppel does not apply to an issue which could not have been raised in the prior proceedings. (See Chern v. Bank of America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 871-72 ['different historical transaction']; Vella v. Hudgins, supra, 20 Cal.3d 251, 255 [limited nature of issues which may be asserted in unlawful detainer; cross-complaints generally not allowed].)

A prior judgment, arrived at by stipulation with no issues actually litigated, does not preclude another action, because the face of the judgment does not show the parties so intended. (See Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 263-64 [a judgment by stipulation does not cover matters not in the stipulation; failure to include sufficiently comprehensive language in compromise offer allowed additional relief to be granted against party who believed compromise amount excluded court costs].)You can raise this defense if there was no contract or agreement between you and the lender suing you, or the debt was not properly assigned to the party suing you.
.