In his LivingLies Blog entry of 2016-04-27, Foreclosure Pretender Defender and Kool-Aid Drinker Neil Garfield wrote this, correct for a change:
“… you need a thorough analysis of everything that happened with your alleged loan and a careful examination of the pleadings if you are already in court. We readily understand the reluctance to spend more money on what has been a frustrating experience, but the ONLY way you can select a strategy that will or might get traction is by having an experienced eye do a thorough review and report.”
Garfield FAILS to tell his readers that he and his crew don’t have a clue about doing mortgage examinations. They only do securitization and forensic loan audits, not full-bore examinations. And because Garfield has spouted bogus legal theories for years, THOUSANDS of people have lost their homes to foreclosure by relying upon his advice.
So DON’T rely upon it. Instead, rely upon the court opinions that I have cited in the Articles section of this site. They prove nearly everything Garfield promotes is a band-aid, at best.
The ONLY reliable place to get a comprehensive mortgage examination that finds all the ways a borrower got injured in the loan is at Mortgage Attack.
Go to the Contact page in the MortgageAttack.com site menu and explain your situation. Then submit the form. The Mortgage Attack Maven will show you exactly how to get a comprehensive mortgage examination AND how to use it for best results.
If you feel time pressure, call 727 669 5511 RIGHT NOW.
LivingLiesTheTruth 
“…but the ONLY way you can select a strategy that will or might get traction is by having an experienced eye do a thorough review and report.”
Is Garfield an expert? Does Garfield know what an expert look like? Aside from recommending himself (which is a real laugh, considering that he used to recommend Maher Solomon and some others such con artists), is there ONE single case where his self-proclaimed expertise has helped anyone get:
1) A lousy modification, when getting one was, although excruciatingly painful, fashionable and the government favorite solution for homeowners (Obama’s first term);
2) A settlement, where the homeowner got to remain in the house while owing nothing more;
3) A verdict to hang one’s hat on? (That would be public records… Can’t find any. Odd, huh? Especially for “the attorney of record”.
Nope. He’s been asked ad nauseam, he’s failed to prove otherwise. If there is no record of it, it simply doesn’t exist. Evidence 101.
Garfield is no expert. Except in the eyes of his groupies (websites reposting over and over his baseless prose while delivering nothing more) and cult followers. And in his own eyes.
He makes a bundle though…
“Filed 11/13/14 Krause v. Aurora Loan Services CA2/4
The Krauses contend the trial court erred in sustaining defendants’ objections to the Garfield declaration because declarations offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be liberally construed, and an expert declaration in opposition to a summary judgment motion need not be detailed. We find no error.
Before a witness may testify as an expert, evidence must be presented to establish that he or she “has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him [or her] as an expert on the subject to which his [or her] testimony relates.” (Evid. Code, § 720, subd. (a).) In addition, an expert witness’s declaration is not admissible unless it discloses the matters relied upon in forming his or her opinion. (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 524.)
In this case, as noted, Garfield provided no information about his background or experience; he simply stated that he was “an expert in securitization of debt, the application of property law, securities law and the law of contracts.” He also failed to describe the matters he relied upon in forming his opinion, stating only that he “studied the relevant documents in the public domain together with direct experience with the parties seeking foreclosure in this case.” While the Krauses are correct that declarations offered in opposition to a summary judgment motion must be liberally construed (Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Adoptions, supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 866), liberal construction of the Garfield declaration cannot overcome its lack of foundation. “[C]ourts have the obligation to contain expert testimony within the area of the professed expertise, and to require adequate foundation for the opinion.” (Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1523.) Thus, the trial court properly sustained defendants’ foundation objection to the declaration.”
LikeLike