.jpg)
IMPORTANT! ------ Bk Hijacking Issues
Renay your argument falls on one key point. The deeds presented all
have recorder's stamps on them; they're not undelivered. In addition,
for a lender or counsel to file a MFRS once they've been notified by
Debtor's counsel that the deed is false.well that's a Rule 9011
violation, isn't it. These creeps are trying to shove their (a)
criminality; (2) baseless caution, and (3) laziness back on us.
Someone has to say HELL NO, I won't take it any more.
Gerry
McNally Bus Card Smaller
Gerald McNally
McNally & Associates, P.C.
517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
Glendale, CA 91206
818.507.5100
Fax: 818.507.5001
Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended
recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privileged by
law. If you received this email in error, and review, use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly
prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email
and please delete this message and any and all duplicates of this
message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S.
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hey Gerald: I felt the same way about it.... but another attorney raised a
good point. The deed doesn't have to be recorded to create an interest in
the property. An unrecorded deed is as valid, until proven otherwise, as
to any noticed person. So once the foreclosure trustee gets this fake deed
with a fake recorder's number on it, its possible then that there really
could have been created an equity interest in said property. They need our
client(s) declaration that there was no delivery of the deed, and therefore
the deed is invalid. Based upon that declaration, then I think the lenders
and foreclosure trustee's would be quite safe in foreclosing even without
an MFR.
This would be a less burdensome (especially on the court) approach to
solving this problem with respect to our court resources. Think about how
many MFR's are filed for this sort of stuff. If I was a bank with
thousands of these, I would have to pay my attorneys to do thousands of
MFRs. As a creditor attorney I would have a financially vested interest in
being very conservative and encouraging my lender to go ahead and get the
MFRs. BUT think of the alternative.
Get a declaration from the Debtor of non-deliver. Foreclose. Wait for the
Motion for violation of the automatic stay (which isn't likely to happen
because what property owner would have the courage to walk into court with
a forged instrument, which is a felony and the Debtor's declaration of
non-delivery, and try to use that as the basis of proof that the lender
foreclosed in violation of the stay. I don't think there is a bankruptcy
court in this country that would find a violation of stay under those
circumstances.
So let's see....... 200 MFR's a month vs. 1 or 2 motions for Violation
of Automatic Stay....... I think every wins if they just went with the
Non-Delivery declaration.
just my two cents.
Renay
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
Hey Gerald: I felt the same way about it.... but another attorney raised a good point. The deed doesn't have to be recorded to create an interest in the property. An unrecorded deed is as valid, until proven otherwise, as to any noticed person. So once the foreclosure trustee gets this fake deed with a fake recorder's number on it, its possible then that there really could have been created an equity interest in said property. They need our client(s) declaration that there was no delivery of the deed, and therefore the deed is invalid. Based upon that declaration, then I think the lenders and foreclosure trustee's would be quite safe in foreclosing even without an MFR.
This would be a less burdensome (especially on the court) approach to solving this problem with respect to our court resources. Think about how many MFR's are filed for this sort of stuff. If I was a bank with thousands of these, I would have to pay my attorneys to do thousands of MFRs. As a creditor attorney I would have a financially vested interest in being very conservative and encouraging my lender to go ahead and get the MFRs. BUT think of the alternative.
Get a declaration from the Debtor of non-deliver. Foreclose. Wait for the Motion for violation of the automatic stay (which isn't likely to happen because what property owner would have the courage to walk into court with a forged instrument, which is a felony and the Debtor's declaration of non-delivery, and try to use that as the basis of proof that the lender foreclosed in violation of the stay. I don't think there is a bankruptcy court in this country that would find a violation of stay under those circumstances.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
........just babbling into my beard below, I mean "mustache"....., not to be taking seriously,
I am contemplating a full opposition to an MFR and to proclaim the Movant's shortcommoing in identifying the fraudulent claim with my clients bankruptcy case
and I will ask for Sanctions against the Movant for my fees, for the opposition,
I have a client in a 2007 ch13 case who's been Hijacked about 10 times, the Mortgage company is not doing their job by KNOWINGLY filing a MFR when they have been e-mailed that the Debtor has no stake in the
distressed property, they nevertheless file the MFR, Lender usually knows something is wrong, yet does not want to spent the expense to prosecute the property owner.
imagine the property owner who gets a civil law suit (lol, who's going to pay for this) filed against him for allegedly using someone elses bankruptcy case to prevent their foreclosure, this property owner
now needs to diclosure to whom he paid lots of money for using someone elses BK case, however
It's easier to let debtor's counsel do the work for the mortgage company without compensation.
....huh.. in babbling above about my frustration, WHAT IF.... under what legal principle could we get the property owner , who has hired someone to stall his foreclosure by using our client's bankruptcy case, subpoenaed into court, let him or her redfaced explain to the bankruptcy judge why he or she is stealing my client's identity, What is the FBI doing about this bankruptcy fraud?
The mortgage company has the name and address of the borrower, has the name of the notary public who signed of on purported identity, unless I (or you) try to get the Movant to produce these bodies
I guess I am (or you) will still be working pro bono for the Movant.
axel
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] IMPORTANT! ------ Bk Hijacking Issues
Good. I'm glad that the creditor's attorney doesn't have to do anything, e.g., provide a certified copy. I was beginning to worry.
Cameron
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:08 PM, higginbothamlaw@aol.com wrote:
>Dear Colleagues!
>
> Due to the current rampant bankruptcy "hijacking" problem that is occurring within the Central District, where real property is "transferred" to your debtor without their knowledge, the Court wanted me to let our members know that if a RFS motion with a request for Extraordinary Relief is then filed against one of your debtors and your debtor(s) have no knowledge or interest in the real property, it STRONGLY recommends that you file a Response to the Motion (even if you do not plan to attend the hrg) providing evidence (a Declaration of the Debtor) of the fact that the debtor has no interest or knowledge of this transfer or of this real property. ify the Extraordinary Relief request in order to make it explicit that theis specific debtor was not involved in the scheme to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.
>
>
>
>
>
>KEITH ALAN HIGGINBOTHAM
>2012 cdcbaa President
>
>
>THE LAW OFFICES OF KEITH ALAN HIGGINBOTHAM
>255 S. Grand Avenue, Suite #2109
>Los Angeles, CA 90012-3045
>Phone: 213.620.0176
>Facsimile: 213.613.1200
>
>HigginbothamLaw@aol.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.