Once again it’s clear Neil Garfield doesn’t understand who can foreclose and how. It’s also clear he can’t read and understand the law, or is just using his factually and incorrect interpretations to sell his worthless consulting services and chain of title audits.
In a post on his blog he stated:
Under the laws of all states that adopted Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code (all 50 states) a condition precedent to enforcement of the mortgage is that the claimant must have paid value for the debt. Such payment is often presumed from the apparent facial validity of (a) the original loan documentation and (b) transfer and apparent delivery of the promissory note and mortgage or deed of trust.
Here is one of dozens of cases that prove him wrong:
“Because a foreclosure case is an action to enforce a negotiable instrument, standing in a foreclosure case IS NOT BASED UPON OWNERSHIP of the note; it is based instead on whether the plaintiff is a “person entitled to enforce.” § 673.3011. The term “person entitled to enforce” is a technical, defined term in all versions of the Uniform Commercial Code, including Florida’s. Id. An entity may qualify as a “person entitled to enforce” for several reasons, but the most common reason is that the entity is “the holder of the instrument.” Id. In a case where the plaintiff is asserting standing based upon its status as a “person entitled to enforce” because it is the holder of the instrument, PROOF OF WHO OWNS THE NOTE IS NOT NECESSARY OR EVEN RELEVANT to the issue of standing. Id. (“A person may be a person ENTITLED TO ENFORCE the instrument EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON IS NOT THE OWNER of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.”).” See, HSBC Bank USA v. Buset, 16-1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). (emphasis mine).
From a recent blog post by scammer Garfield: “In virtually all cases where a loan is subject to any claim of securitization, the scheme employed by the investment banks is not recognized by law or nor should it be.”
As usual, he makes another moronic statement the courts have found, factually and legally incorrect. Why anyone listens to this fraudster is beyond comprehension.
RODENHURST V. BANK OF AM., 773 F. Supp. 2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) (“The overwhelming authority does not support a [claim] based upon improper securitization.”) “[S]ince the securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the Note and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way, plaintiffs’ claims arising out of securitization fail.” LAMB V. MERS, INC., 2011 WL 5827813, *6 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (citing cases); BHATTI, 2011 WL 6300229, *5 (citing cases); IN RE VEAL, 450 B.R. at 912 (“[Plaintiffs] should not care who actually owns the Note-and it is thus irrelevant whether the Note has been fractionalized or securitized-so long as they do know who they should pay.”); HORVATH V. BANK OF NY, N.A., 641 F.3d 617, 626 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011) (securitization irrelevant to debt); COMMONWEALTH PROP. ADVOCATES, LLC V. MERS, 263 P.3d 397, 401-02 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (securitization has no effect on debt); HENKELS V. J.P. MORGAN CHASE, 2011 WL 2357874, at *7 (D.Ariz. June 14, 2011) (denying the plaintiff’s claim for unauthorized securitization of his loan because he “cited no authority for the assertion that securitization has had any impact on [his] obligations under the loan, and district courts in Arizona have rejected similar arguments”); JOHNSON V. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, 2011 WL 4373975, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Sep.20, 2011) (refusing to recognize the “discredited theory” that a deed of trust ” ‘split’ from the note through securitization, render[s] the note unenforceable”); FRAME V. CAL-W. RECONVEYANCE CORP., 2011 WL 3876012, *10 (D. Ariz. 2011) (granting motion to dismiss: “Plaintiff’s allegations of promissory note destruction and securitization are speculative and unsupported. Plaintiff has cited no authority for his assertions that securitization has any impact on his obligations under the loan”).”The Court also rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that securitization in general somehow gives rise to a cause of action – Plaintiffs point to no law or provision in the mortgage preventing this practice, and cite to no law indicating that securitization can be the basis of a cause of action. Indeed, courts have uniformly rejected the argument that securitization of a mortgage loan provides the mortgagor a cause of action.” See JOYNER V. BANK OF AM. HOME LOANS, No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ, 2010 WL 2953969, at *2 (D. Nev. July 26, 2010) (rejecting breach of contract claim based on securitization of loan); HASKINS V. MOYNIHAN, No. CV-10-1000-PHX-GMS, 2010 WL 2691562, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2010) (rejecting claims based on securitization because plaintiffs could point to no law indicating that securitization of a mortgage is unlawful, and “[p]laintiffs fail to set forth facts suggesting that Defendants ever indicated that they would not bundle or sell the note in conjunction with the sale of mortgage-backed securities”); LARIVIERE V. BANK OF N.Y. AS TR., Civ. No. 9-515-P-S, 2010 WL 2399583, at *4 (D. Me. May 7, 2010) (“Many people in this country are dissatisfied and upset by [the securitization] process, but it does not mean that the [plaintiffs] have stated legally cognizable claims against these defendants in their amended complaint.”); UPPERMAN V. DEUTSCHE BANK NAT’L TRUST CO., No. 01:10-cv-149, 2010 WL 1610414, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2010) (rejecting claims because they are based on an “erroneous legal theory that the securitization of a mortgage loan renders a note and corresponding security interest unenforceable and unsecured”) POWELL V. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTG., No. 14- CV-04248-MEJ, 2017 WL 840346, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2017) (contention that defendant lacked authority to make assignments because the note and deed of trust were split during the securitization process is not a viable theory of recovery under California law); SILVAS V. GMAC MORTG., LLC, No. CV-09-265-PHX-GMS, 2009 WL 4573234, at *5 (D.Ariz. Dec. 1, 2009) (rejecting a claim that a lending institution breached a loan agreement by securitizing and cross-collateralizing a borrower’s loan).The overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon
improper securitization. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim that “improper restrictions resulting from securitization leaves the note and mortgage unenforceable); SUMMERS V. PENNYMAC CORP. (N.D.Tex. 11-28-2012) (any securitization of Plaintiffs’ Note did not affect their obligations under the Note or PennyMac’s authority as mortgagee to enforce the Note and foreclose on the property if Plaintiffs defaulted).; NGUYEN V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANk (N.D.Cal. 10-17-2012) (“Numerous courts have recognized that a defendant bank does not lose its ability to enforce the terms of its deed of trust simply because the loan is assigned to a trust pool. In fact, ‘securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from [p]laintiffs[‘] debt obligations under the note, and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way. Therefore, such an argument would fail as a matter of law”);
On March 3rd, 2020 a jury found Anthony Williams GUILTY of all 32 counts in the Superseding Indictment in the case of United States v. Anthony Williams in Federal District Court in the District Of Hawaii, case number 2017-cr-00101.
Williams was charged with wire fraud and mail fraud in connection with a fake foreclosure rescue scam on the islands of Hawaii. Williams targeted homeowners facing foreclosure and promised them that he would stop the foreclosure of their homes and cut their monthly mortgage payments in half if they would pay him an up front fee plus an amount equal to half of their mortgage payment every month thereafter. So, Williams simply replaced his victims’ mortgage holder with HIMSELF on the receiving end of his victims’ mortgage payments every month. Williams provided his victims with a written money-back guarantee that he would be successful in this endeavor.
Thereafter, Williams did nothing to stop the foreclosure on his victims’ homes, except to file worthless “VOODOO” documents in public record which had no effect whatsoever on the foreclosure or on the property in question. Williams did not honor a single written money-back guarantee. Williams sent the money he stole from his victims in Hawaii to his mother in Texas to hide it from his victims and from law enforcement authorities in Hawaii.
Williams is scheduled to be sentenced on July 24th, 2020. Williams was ordered to be held in custody until sentencing. Williams was previously convicted in Florida for a similar scam in that state and was sentenced to 15 years in prison there. Williams will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Someone sent me this post and I couldn’t sit by and allow such B.S. to stand.
This is why Garfield has NEVER won a foreclosure case he clearly doesn’t know or understand foreclosure law.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. V. VALERIE J. SLOTKE (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (“it is the holder of a note who is entitled to enforce it. It is not necessary for the holder to establish that it is also the owner of the note secured by the deed of trust.); TROTTER V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 275 P.3d 857 (Idaho 2012). (“a trustee may initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on a deed of trust without first proving ownership of the underlying note….”); BROWN V. DEP’T OF COMMERCE, 184 Wn.2d 509, 514, 359 P .3d 771 (2015); BAIN V. METRO. MORTG. GRP., INC.. 175 Wn.2d 83, 104, 285 P.3d 34 (2012); TRUIILLOV. NW. TR. SERVS., INC., 181 Wn. App. 484, 502, 326 P.3d 768 (2014), rev’d on other grounds, 183 Wn.2d 820, 355 P.3d 1100 (2015); (“Ownership of a note is irrelevant to the power to enforce that note.”); U.S. BANK, N.A. V. KNIGHT, 90 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“to have standing, an owner OR holder of a note, indorsed in blank, need only show that he possessed the note at the institution of a foreclosure suit; the mortgage necessarily and equitable follows the note.”)
For years Mortgage Fraud Examiners has been warning the public about these stall attorneys ripping off homeowners. Finally, the evidence is coming to light.
Foreclosure defense attorney outs chain of title auditor, Mortgage Compliance Investigators, Joseph Esquivel. “I bumped into this con artist back in 2013 and wrote the attached article about his con game… in case you want to see how totally looney the guy is”: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDYwMDAzOTAyMzU3OTcyMzc4MzgBMDYyODYyNjc3NDQyNTA2MDEyOTgBZ1kwRkdvMUJCQUFKATAuMS4xAQF2Mg
It was founded by Ed Vallejo, an alleged pedophile, https://www.facebook.com/…/alert-danger-in…/873731129371575/ and is inundated with forensic/chain of title/securitization audit scammers, the disgraced and disbarred “stall” attorney Mark Stopa, other nitwits, and “useful idiots” who parrot wild claims and nonsense.
Any distressed homeowner that listens to or follows any of the nonsensical advice these losers propagate are guaranteed to lose their home. Unfortunately, many already have!