.jpg)
Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe.....
Another scenario, is the generation of a false deed of trust naming the debtor as co-beneficiary of deed of trust and then filing a POC for the amount of the mortgage. The debtor knows nothing about the deed of trust.
Patricia S. Depew, Esq.
Law Offices of Patricia S. Depew
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 284-8494 -- Telephone
(310) 288-8180 -- Fax
www.depewlaw.com
NOTICE RE CONFIDENTIALITY AND RELIANCE -- The information contained in this message and attachment is confidential, it may be privileged and protected from disclosure by law. It is intended for the designated recipient(s) only. If you are not the designated recipient you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately and delete it from your computer system. FURTHER TAKE NOTICE -- E-mail is an informal means of communication of limited reliability. No agreement or binding signature, express or implied, is authorized or intended by the above message unless expressly stated. Formal communications warrant handwritten signatures. Thank you.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Margaret:
Bad people are deeding houses to people, like our clients, who are already in bankruptcy, then claiming the tenants (or other bad peopls) cannot be evicted due to the automatic stay.
Then banks file poc's in the case, when the debtor's never had an interst in the property.
This can severly mess up a 13 or an 11.
I haven't checked, but I suspect the banks are also making bad reports on these debtor's credit reports.
dennis
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe..... [1 Attachment]
[Attachment(s) from Margaret Norman included below]
Could you explain a little more about the fraudulent deeds of trust and proofs of claim? Are those POC filed by banks? I would like to know what to look for. I have certainly seen deeds of trust to a caregiver signed by elderly people who didn't know what they were signing, butMargaret Norman, Attny
111 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #355
310-376-7873
Fax 310-798-0846
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patricia Depew
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:12 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe.....
I have a client who also had a proof of claim filed in her case based on a bogus/fraudulent deed of trust by a law firm in San Diego. The case chapter 7 trustee was informed of the fraudulent nature of the proof of claim ( POC) but appeared uninterested. I filed an objection as to the POC and I called the law firm in San Diego and raised the specter of fraud, negligence, elder abuse, etc.
The proof of claim was withdrawn within a week. In my conversations with the law firm employees, the impression was that they were well aware of the fraudulent nature of the POC they filed. The owner of the property called me about the claim. She claimed she knew nothing about the deed of trust. She claimed she learned of the proof of claim when she went to her bank to get a refi and could not because of the bankruptcy filing which attached to her property because of the fraudulent POC filed.
It is my understanding the U.S. Trustee's office is very aware of the wide use of fraudulent POCs. I do not know what action, if any, is being taken by the U.S. Trustee. Does anyone have information on this?tion with the US Trustee.
Patricia S. Depew, Esq.
Law Offices of Patricia S. Depew
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
(310) 284-8494 -- Telephone
(310) 288-8180 -- Fax
www.depewlaw.com
NOTICE RE CONFIDENTIALITY AND RELIANCE -- The information contained in this message and attachment is confidential, it may be privileged and protected from disclosure by law. It is intended for the designated recipient(s) only. If you are not the designated recipient you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately and delete it from your computer system. FURTHER TAKE NOTICE -- E-mail is an informal means of communication of limited reliability. No agreement or binding signature, express or implied, is authorized or intended by the above message unless expressly stated. Formal communications warrant handwritten signatures. Thank you.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
From:John D. Faucher [mailto:j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:12 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe.....
you want to object in a limited manner to the findings of bad faith only. stay.
ent of non-opposition is more likely to be construed as going along with everything the creditor wants. The hijacked debtor doesn't want the bad faith findings sought by the creditor.
John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
On 1/6/12 8:54 AM, "Larry Webb" wrote:
>Why object to something the debtor has no interest in? What if you won the objection?
>
>Why not file a notice of non- opposition stating that the debtor has no interest and has never had any interest in the property.
>
>
>Best regards
>
>
>Larry Webb
>State Bar of California 229344
>Central District California
>"A Debt Relief Agency"
>
>Larry@webbklaw. com
>Law Offices of Larry Webb
>484 Mobi! l Ste 43
>Camarillo Ca 93010
>
>P 805.987.1400
>F 805.987.2866
>C 805.750.2150
>
>
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John D. Faucher
>Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:46 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe.....
>
>
>I like the idea of a stipulation, but the creditors don't want to take them.
>
>Here's the contribution of a colleague:
>
>Ive had a horrible time trying to get the creditor to accept my stipulation. Its more work for them.
>
>I think the best solution is to file a qualified objection stating that the debtor has no interest in the property and request that no bad faith be found as to the debtor. The cdcbaa could put their collective heads together and devise a nice template that could be used as a quasi-local form.>
>
>John D. Faucher
>Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
>5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
>Westlake Village, CA 91362
>(818) 889-8080
>Fax: (805) 367-4154
>http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>
>3324 State Street, Suite O
>Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>(805) 963-9111
>
>This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 818/889-8080orjohn@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for! your cooperation.
>
>Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
>
>On 1/5/12 11:36 AM, "R Grace Rodriguez" wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Members:
>>
>>By now many of you know that there are criminal elements about that
>>
>>1. search on PACER for your client's bankruptcy and then
>>2. manufacture dummy grant deeds which may or may not be recorded
>>3. Putting the property in the name of your client without your clients' knowledge
>>3. Doing this for the people they are representing (and often times unknown to these same people
>>4. Submit the proof of bankruptcy filing of your client along with a purported grant deed to stop a foreclosure sale.
>>
>>It seems Judge Tighe likes my characterization and naming of this process "BANKRUPTCY HIJACKING."
>>
>>There is an abundance of problems for your clients if you simply ignore the relief from stay motion.
>>
>>1. Taints your client's bankruptcy with a MFR such that if your clients' case gets dismissed it could be with a 180 day bar. SO you your clients are forced to say something to either oppose the motion or at least show up to make sure that there is no FINDING OF BAD FAITH!!!! Even though our retainers usually don't require us to def! end relief from stay, I feel some obligation to do something so your clients are not prejudiced by the MFR. I have seen one case where the judge dismissed case with a 180 day bar. In this case the client's bankruptcy had been hijacked 3 times!!!!
>>
>>2. Also, if you don't do anything, then the homeowners who may not even know that their "representative" is filing these fraudulent claims may receive an IN REM order. THIS MEANS that if they go to file their bankruptcy themselves, the property could be sold anyway. I had this happen to one of my clients. Before coming to see me they hired a company in Irvine.... (why are they always in Irvine?) to do loan modification and to stop a foreclosure. Unbeknownst to them, a fake deed was created and given to the Trustee and stops the foreclosure sale. Downtown Judge issues an IN REM order that MY CLIENTS know nothing about because they are not the debtors in that bankruptcy case. They never hear anything about. After the IN REM order is granted, the "Loan Mod" people call my client (Before they were my client) to tell them they can't get a modification and that the house is going to sale in a couple of days. book. We file emergency 13. House sells two days later. I have proof of giving notice..... etc.....I send letter asking not to record the Trustee's Notice of Sale because there is bankruptcy in place.se my deaf & Mute and I mean that literally tell me via text that they know nothing about any deed being given to anyone. After months of fighting with the lender we got the property back, but ONLY because the lender "felt like it." Worse would have been had the property been sold to third party. NOW the tenant at the property hasn't been paying and doesn't want to because doesn't feel secure. SO NOW no money ! in budget to pay for the house temporarily lost. GEESH.... Horrible outcome for these debtors because of the criminal element of 3rd party.
>>
>>How do we work together to fix this problem. This only gives me more questions. Maybe you all can help?
>>
>>1. I was thinking that maybe have your debtor go down to court on hearing date and tell the court they have no involvement and not to give a finding of bad faith?
>>
>>2. File an opposition but charge client to do it when its really not their fault it happened? I hate to cost client money because of crime they didn't commit.
>>Oppose the orders on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over real estate that is not in Debtor's Schedule "A" and the creditor is not listed on Schedule "D" and that the deed is fake? What happens when deed is not fake and it really got recorded. I had one of those this week.
>>
>>3. Can we as CDCBAA send message to Creditor BAR to at LEAST CALL us for a stipulation.
>>
>>4. Can we get the Court to do a local rule streamline process of STIP & ORDER for Bankruptcy Hijacking cases? Maybe include something where the Creditor has to give notice MAILED at least to the address of the property directed to the granting homeowner in case they are not even aware of the fraud?
>>
>>5. How do we educate public?
>>
>>What say all of you?
>>
>>
>>
>>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 messa! ge. 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.
Manhattan Beach, Ca. 90266
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Could you explain a little more about the fraudulent deeds of trust and proofs of claim? Are those POC filed by banks? I would like to know what to look for. I have certainly seen deeds of trust to a caregiver signed by elderly people who didn't know what they were signing, but the people who did those would not have filed proofs of claim.
Margaret Norman, Attny
111 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #355
Manhattan Beach, Ca. 90266
310-376-7873
Fax 310-798-0846
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
You still have to review the courts order carefully, often boxes are checked that shouldn't be when you have a hijacked case.
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe.....
Why object to something the debtor has no interest in? What if you won the objection?
Why not file a notice of non- opposition stating that the debtor has no interest and has never had any interest in the property.
Best regards
Larry Webb
State Bar of California 229344
Central District California
"A Debt Relief Agency"
Larry@webbklaw. com
Law Offices of Larry Webb
484 Mobil Ste 43
Camarillo Ca 93010
P 805.987.1400
F 805.987.2866
C 805.750.2150
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John D. Faucher
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:46 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe.....
I like the idea of a stipulation, but the creditors don't want to take them.
Here's the contribution of a colleague:
Ive had a horrible time trying to get the creditor to accept my stipulation. Its more work for them.
I think the best solution is to file a qualified objection stating that the debtor has no interest in the property and request that no bad faith be found as to the debtor. The cdcbaa could put their collective heads together and devise a nice template that could be used as a quasi-local form.John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
Westlake Village, CA 91362
(818) 889-8080
Fax: (805) 367-4154
http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
3324 State Street, Suite O
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
(805) 963-9111
This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 818/889-8080orjohn@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your cooperation.
Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
On 1/5/12 11:36 AM, "R Grace Rodriguez" wrote:
>Dear Members:
>
>By now many of you know that there are criminal elements about that
>
>1. search on PACER for your client's bankruptcy and then
>2. manufacture dummy grant deeds which may or may not be recorded
>3. Putting the property in the name of your client without your clients' knowledge
>3. Doing this for the people they are representing (and often times unknown to these same people
>4. Submit the proof of bankruptcy filing of your client along with a purported grant deed to stop a foreclosure sale.
>
>It seems Judge Tighe likes my characterization and naming of this process "BANKRUPTCY HIJACKING."
>
>There is an abundance of problems for your clients if you simply ignore the relief from stay motion.
>
>1. Taints your client's bankruptcy with a MFR such that if your clients' case gets dismissed it could be with a 180 day bar. SO you your clients are forced to say something to either oppose the motion or at least show up to make sure that there is no FINDING OF BAD FAITH!!!! Even though our retainers usually don't require us to defend relief from stay, I feel some obligation to do something so your clients are not prejudiced by the MFR. I have seen one case where the judge dismissed case with a 180 day bar. In this case the client's bankruptcy had been hijacked 3 times!!!!
>
>2. Also, if you don't do anything, then the homeowners who may not even know that their "representative" is filing these fraudulent claims may receive an IN REM order. THIS MEANS that if they go to file their bankruptcy themselves, the property could be sold anyway. I had this happen to one of my clients. Before coming to see me they hired a company in Irvine.... (why are they always in Irvine?) to do loan modification and to stop a foreclosure. Unbeknownst to them, a fake deed was created and given to the Trustee and stops the foreclosure sale. Downtown Judge issues an IN REM order that MY CLIENTS know nothing about because they are not the debtors in that bankruptcy case. They never hear anything about. After the IN REM order is granted, the "Loan Mod" people call my client (Before they were my client) to tell them they can't get a modification and that the house is going to sale in a couple of days. book. We file emergency 13. House sells two days later. I have proof of giving notice..... etc.....I send letter asking not to record the Trustee's Notice of Sale because there is bankruptcy in place.se my deaf & Mute and I mean that literally tell me via text that they know nothing about any deed being given to anyone. After months of fighting with the lender we got the property back, but ONLY because the lender "felt like it." Worse would have been had the property been sold to third party. NOW the tenant at the property hasn't been paying and doesn't want to because doesn't feel secure. SO NOW no money in budget to pay for the house temporarily lost. GEESH.... Horrible outcome for these debtors because of the criminal element of 3rd party.
>
>How do we work together to fix this problem. This only gives me more questions. Maybe you all can help?
>
>1. I was thinking that maybe have your debtor go down to court on hearing date and tell the court they have no involvement and not to give a finding of bad faith?
>
>2. File an opposition but charge client to do it when its really not their fault it happened? I hate to cost client money because of crime they didn't commit.
>Oppose the orders on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over real estate that is not in Debtor's Schedule "A" and the creditor is not listed on Schedule "D" and that the deed is fake? What happens when deed is not fake and it really got recorded. I had one of those this week.
>
>3. Can we as CDCBAA send message to Creditor BAR to at LEAST CALL us for a stipulation.
>
>4. Can we get the Court to do a local rule streamline process of STIP & ORDER for Bankruptcy Hijacking cases? Maybe include something where the Creditor has to give notice MAILED at least to the address of the property directed to the granting homeowner in case they are not even aware of the fraud?
>
>5. How do we educate public?
>
>What say all of you?
>
>
>
>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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
My only problem with the Stipulation is that the homeowner who may not even
know about the fact that someone hijacked a bankruptcy to stop their
foreclosure sale doesn't get any notice. But if we had a local form
stipulation that required service at the physical address of the property
so if an in REM order is going to be granted then there is some chance at
notice being given to a homeowner who may also be a victim of fraud.
Renay.
On Jan 5, 2012 5:46 PM, "John D. Faucher" wrote:
> **
>
>
> I like the idea of a stipulation, but the creditors don't want to take
> them.
>
> Here's the contribution of a colleague:
>
> Ive had a horrible time trying to get the creditor to accept my
> stipulation. Its more work for them.****
>
> ** **
>
> I think the best solution is to file a qualified objection stating that
> the debtor has no interest in the property and request that no bad faith be
> found as to the debtor. The cdcbaa could put their collective heads
> together and devise a nice template that could be used as a quasi-local
> form. ****
>
> ** **
>
> John D. Faucher
> Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
> Westlake Village, CA 91362
> (818) 889-8080
> Fax: (805) 367-4154
> http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>
> 3324 State Street, Suite O
> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
> (805) 963-9111
>
> *This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
> contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
> entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at
> 818/889-8080 or john@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this
> message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
>
> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
> advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
> purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing
> or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
> *
>
> On 1/5/12 11:36 AM, "R Grace Rodriguez" wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Members:
>
> By now many of you know that there are criminal elements about that
>
> 1. search on PACER for your client's bankruptcy and then
> 2. manufacture dummy grant deeds which may or may not be recorded
> 3. Putting the property in the name of your client without your clients'
> knowledge
> 3. Doing this for the people they are representing (and often times
> unknown to these same people
> 4. Submit the proof of bankruptcy filing of your client along with a
> purported grant deed to stop a foreclosure sale.
>
> It seems Judge Tighe likes my characterization and naming of this process "
> *BANKRUPTCY HIJACKING*."
>
> There is an abundance of problems for your clients if you simply ignore
> the relief from stay motion.
>
> 1. Taints your client's bankruptcy with a MFR such that if your clients'
> case gets dismissed it could be with a 180 day bar. SO you your clients
> are forced to say something to either oppose the motion or at least show up
> to make sure that there is no FINDING OF BAD FAITH!!!! Even though our
> retainers usually don't require us to defend relief from stay, I feel some
> obligation to do something so your clients are not prejudiced by the MFR.
> I have seen one case where the judge dismissed case with a 180 day bar. In
> this case the client's bankruptcy had been hijacked 3 times!!!!
>
> 2. Also, if you don't do anything, then the homeowners who may not even
> know that their "representative" is filing these fraudulent claims may
> receive an IN REM order. THIS MEANS that if they go to file their
> bankruptcy themselves, the property could be sold anyway. I had this
> happen to one of my clients. Before coming to see me they hired a company
> in Irvine.... (why are they always in Irvine?) to do loan modification and
> to stop a foreclosure. Unbeknownst to them, a fake deed was created and
> given to the Trustee and stops the foreclosure sale. Downtown Judge issues
> an IN REM order that MY CLIENTS know nothing about because they are not the
> debtors in that bankruptcy case. They never hear anything about. After
> the IN REM order is granted, the "Loan Mod" people call my client (Before
> they were my client) to tell them they can't get a modification and that
> the house is going to sale in a couple of days. Client picks me out of
> phone book. We file emergency 13. House sells two days later. I have
> proof of giving notice..... etc.....I send letter asking not to record the
> Trustee's Notice of Sale because there is bankruptcy in place. I get back
> this nice IN REM order from downtown judge. Of course my deaf & Mute and I
> mean that literally tell me via text that they know nothing about any deed
> being given to anyone. After months of fighting with the lender we got the
> property back, but ONLY because the lender "felt like it." Worse would
> have been had the property been sold to third party. NOW the tenant at the
> property hasn't been paying and doesn't want to because doesn't feel
> secure. SO NOW no money in budget to pay for the house temporarily lost.
> GEESH.... Horrible outcome for these debtors because of the criminal
> element of 3rd party.
>
> How do we work together to fix this problem. This only gives me more
> questions. Maybe you all can help?
>
> 1. I was thinking that maybe have your debtor go down to court on hearing
> date and tell the court they have no involvement and not to give a finding
> of bad faith?
>
> 2. File an opposition but charge client to do it when its really not
> their fault it happened? I hate to cost client money because of crime they
> didn't commit.
> Oppose the orders on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over
> real estate that is not in Debtor's Schedule "A" and the creditor is not
> listed on Schedule "D" and that the deed is fake? What happens when deed
> is not fake and it really got recorded. I had one of those this week.
>
> 3. Can we as CDCBAA send message to Creditor BAR to at LEAST CALL us for
> a stipulation.
>
> 4. Can we get the Court to do a local rule streamline process of STIP &
> ORDER for Bankruptcy Hijacking cases? Maybe include something where the
> Creditor has to give notice MAILED at least to the address of the property
> directed to the granting homeowner in case they are not even aware of the
> fraud?
>
> 5. How do we educate public?
>
> What say all of you?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
My only problem with the Stipulation is that the homeowner who may not even know about the fact that someone hijacked a bankruptcy to stop their foreclosure sale doesn't get any notice. But if we had a local form stipulation that required service at the physical address of the property so if an in REM order is going to be granted then there is some chance at notice being given to a homeowner who may also be a victim of fraud.
Renay.
On Jan 5, 2012 5:46 PM, "John D. Faucher" <j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I like the idea of a stipulation, but the creditors
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I had a Chapter 13 case Hijacked. Twice.
The first time, I contacted creditor's counsel and we arranged for a
stip.
The second time I filed a Notice with the court (and served it on
Chase) that it was a phony deed (with a copy of the actually recorded
deed). I've attached a copy of the notice I filed.
Gerald McNally
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.
I have a client who also had a proof of claim filed in her case based on a
bogus/fraudulent deed of trust by a law firm in San Diego. The case
chapter 7 trustee was informed of the fraudulent nature of the proof of
claim ( POC) but appeared uninterested. I filed an objection as to the POC
and I called the law firm in San Diego and raised the specter of fraud,
negligence, elder abuse, etc.
The proof of claim was withdrawn within a week. In my conversations with
the law firm employees, the impression was that they were well aware of the
fraudulent nature of the POC they filed. The owner of the property called
me about the claim. She claimed she knew nothing about the deed of trust.
She claimed she learned of the proof of claim when she went to her bank to
get a refi and could not because of the bankruptcy filing which attached to
her property because of the fraudulent POC filed.
It is my understanding the U.S. Trustee's office is very aware of the wide
use of fraudulent POCs. I do not know what action, if any, is being taken
by the U.S. Trustee. Does anyone have information on this? I think this
would be a good issue for cdcbaa to work on in coordination with the US
Trustee.
Patricia S. Depew, Esq.
Law Offices of Patricia S. Depew
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 284-8494 -- Telephone
(310) 288-8180 -- Fax
www.depewlaw.com
NOTICE RE CONFIDENTIALITY AND RELIANCE -- The information contained in this
message and attachment is confidential, it may be privileged and protected
from disclosure by law. It is intended for the designated recipient(s) only.
If you are not the designated recipient you are hereby notified that
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us
immediately and delete it from your computer system. FURTHER TAKE NOTICE --
E-mail is an informal means of communication of limited reliability. No
agreement or binding signature, express or implied, is authorized or
intended by the above message unless expressly stated. Formal communications
warrant handwritten signatures. Thank you.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
I think you want to object in a limited manner to the findings of bad faith
only. If you win this limited objection, the judge doesn't deny relief from
stay.
A statement of non-opposition is more likely to be construed as going along
with everything the creditor wants. The hijacked debtor doesn't want the
bad faith findings sought by the creditor.
John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
On 1/6/12 8:54 AM, "Larry Webb" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Why object to something the debtor has no interest in? What if you won the
> objection?
>
> Why not file a notice of non- opposition stating that the debtor has no
> interest and has never had any interest in the property.
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Larry Webb
> State Bar of California 229344
> Central District California
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>
> Larry@webbklaw. com
> Law Offices of Larry Webb
> 484 Mobi! l Ste 43
> Camarillo Ca 93010
>
> P 805.987.1400
> F 805.987.2866
> C 805.750.2150
>
>
>
>
John
> D. Faucher
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:46 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Bankruptcy Hijacking and other tales of woe.....
>
>
>
> I like the idea of a stipulation, but the creditors don't want to take them.
>
>
>
> Here's the contribution of a colleague:
>
>
>
> Ive had a horrible time trying to get the creditor to accept my stipulation.
> Its more work for them.
>
>
> I think the best solution is to file a qualified objection stating that the
> debtor has no interest in the property and request that no bad faith be found
> as to the debtor. The cdcbaa could put their collective heads together and
> devise a nice template that could be used as a quasi-local form.
>
>
>
>
> John D. Faucher
> Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
>
> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
> Westlake Village, CA 91362
> (818) 889-8080
> Fax: (805) 367-4154
> http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>
> 3324 State Street, Suite O
> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
> (805) 963-9111
>
>
> This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain
> information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom
> it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 818/889-8080 or
> john@hf-bklaw.com ) indicating that you
> received this message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you
> for! your cooperation.
>
> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
> advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
> purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
> recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
>
>
>
> On 1/5/12 11:36 AM, "R Grace Rodriguez" wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Members:
>>
>> By now many of you know that there are criminal elements about that
>>
>> 1. search on PACER for your client's bankruptcy and then
>> 2. manufacture dummy grant deeds which may or may not be recorded
>> 3. Putting the property in the name of your client without your clients'
>> knowledge
>> 3. Doing this for the people they are representing (and often times unknown
>> to these same people
>> 4. Submit the proof of bankruptcy filing of your client along with a
>> purported grant deed to stop a foreclosure sale.
>>
>> It seems Judge Tighe likes my characterization and naming of this process
>> "BANKRUPTCY HIJACKING."
>>
>> There is an abundance of problems for your clients if you simply ignore the
>> relief from stay motion.
>>
>> 1. Taints your client's bankruptcy with a MFR such that if your clients'
>> case gets dismissed it could be with a 180 day bar. SO you your clients are
>> forced to say something to either oppose the motion or at least show up to
>> make sure that there is no FINDING OF BAD FAITH!!!! Even though our
>> retainers usually don't require us to def! end relief from stay, I feel some
>> obligation to do something so your clients are not prejudiced by the MFR. I
>> have seen one case where the judge dismissed case with a 180 day bar. In
>> this case the client's bankruptcy had been hijacked 3 times!!!!
>>
>> 2. Also, if you don't do anything, then the homeowners who may not even know
>> that their "representative" is filing these fraudulent claims may receive an
>> IN REM order. THIS MEANS that if they go to file their bankruptcy
>> themselves, the property could be sold anyway. I had this happen to one of
>> my clients. Before coming to see me they hired a company in Irvine.... (why
>> are they always in Irvine?) to do loan modification and to stop a
>> foreclosure. Unbeknownst to them, a fake deed was created and given to the
>> Trustee and stops the foreclosure sale. Downtown Judge issues an IN REM
>> order that MY CLIENTS know nothing about because they are not the debtors in
>> that bankruptcy case. They never hear anything about. After the IN REM
>> order is granted, the "Loan Mod" people call my client (Before they were my
>> client) to tell them they can't get a modification and that the house is
>> going to sale in a couple of days. Client picks me out of phone book. We
>> file emergency 13. House sells two days later. I have proof of giving
>> notice..... etc.....I send letter asking not to record the Trustee's Notice
>> of Sale because there is bankruptcy in place. I get back this nice IN REM
>> order from downtown judge. Of course my deaf & Mute and I mean that
>> literally tell me via text that they know nothing about any deed being given
>> to anyone. After months of fighting with the lender we got the property
>> back, but ONLY because the lender "felt like it." Worse would have been had
>> the property been sold to third party. NOW the tenant at the property hasn't
>> been paying and doesn't want to because doesn't feel secure. SO NOW no money
>> ! in budget to pay for the house temporarily lost. GEESH.... Horrible
>> outcome for these debtors because of the criminal element of 3rd party.
>>
>> How do we work together to fix this problem. This only gives me more
>> questions. Maybe you all can help?
>>
>> 1. I was thinking that maybe have your debtor go down to court on hearing
>> date and tell the court they have no involvement and not to give a finding of
>> bad faith?
>>
>> 2. File an opposition but charge client to do it when its really not their
>> fault it happened? I hate to cost client money because of crime they didn't
>> commit.
>> Oppose the orders on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over real
>> estate that is not in Debtor's Schedule "A" and the creditor is not listed on
>> Schedule "D" and that the deed is fake? What happens when deed is not fake
>> and it really got recorded. I had one of those this week.
>>
>> 3. Can we as CDCBAA send message to Creditor BAR to at LEAST CALL us for a
>> stipulation.
>>
>> 4. Can we get the Court to do a local rule streamline process of STIP &
>> ORDER for Bankruptcy Hijacking cases? Maybe include something where the
>> Creditor has to give notice MAILED at least to the address of the property
>> directed to the granting homeowner in case they are not even aware of the
>> fraud?
>>
>> 5. How do we educate public?
>>
>> What say all of you?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 messa! ge. 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.
>
>
>
>
>
charset="ISO-8859-1"
I think you want to object in a limited manner to the findings of bad faith only. If you win this limited objection, the judge doesn't deny relief from stay. A statement of non-opposition is more likely to be construed as going along with everything the creditor wants. The hijacked debtor doesn't want the bad faith findings sought by the creditor. John D. FaucherHurlbett & Faucher, LLP
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Why object to something the debtor has no interest in? What if you won the
objection?
Why not file a notice of non- opposition stating that the debtor has no
interest and has never had any interest in the property.
Best regards
Larry Webb
State Bar of California 229344
Central District California
"A Debt Relief Agency"
Larry@webbklaw. com
Law Offices of Larry Webb
484 Mobil Ste 43
Camarillo Ca 93010
P 805.987.1400
F 805.987.2866
C 805.750.2150
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
I like the idea of a stipulation, but the creditors don't want to take them.
Here's the contribution of a colleague:
Ive had a horrible time trying to get the creditor to accept my
stipulation. Its more work for them.
I think the best solution is to file a qualified objection stating that the
debtor has no interest in the property and request that no bad faith be
found as to the debtor. The cdcbaa could put their collective heads
together and devise a nice template that could be used as a quasi-local
form.
John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
Westlake Village, CA 91362
(818) 889-8080
Fax: (805) 367-4154
http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
3324 State Street, Suite O
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
(805) 963-9111
This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at
818/889-8080 or john@hf-bklaw.com )
indicating that you received this message and then delete the message
without delay. Thank you for your cooperation.
Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
On 1/5/12 11:36 AM, "R Grace Rodriguez" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Members:
>
> By now many of you know that there are criminal elements about that
>
> 1. search on PACER for your client's bankruptcy and then
> 2. manufacture dummy grant deeds which may or may not be recorded
> 3. Putting the property in the name of your client without your clients'
> knowledge
> 3. Doing this for the people they are representing (and often times unknown
> to these same people
> 4. Submit the proof of bankruptcy filing of your client along with a
> purported grant deed to stop a foreclosure sale.
>
> It seems Judge Tighe likes my characterization and naming of this process
> "BANKRUPTCY HIJACKING."
>
> There is an abundance of problems for your clients if you simply ignore the
> relief from stay motion.
>
> 1. Taints your client's bankruptcy with a MFR such that if your clients' case
> gets dismissed it could be with a 180 day bar. SO you your clients are forced
> to say something to either oppose the motion or at least show up to make sure
> that there is no FINDING OF BAD FAITH!!!! Even though our retainers usually
> don't require us to defend relief from stay, I feel some obligation to do
> something so your clients are not prejudiced by the MFR. I have seen one
> case where the judge dismissed case with a 180 day bar. In this case the
> client's bankruptcy had been hijacked 3 times!!!!
>
> 2. Also, if you don't do anything, then the homeowners who may not even know
> that their "representative" is filing these fraudulent claims may receive an
> IN REM order. THIS MEANS that if they go to file their bankruptcy themselves,
> the property could be sold anyway. I had this happen to one of my clients.
> Before coming to see me they hired a company in Irvine.... (why are they
> always in Irvine?) to do loan modification and to stop a foreclosure.
> Unbeknownst to them, a fake deed was created and given to the Trustee and
> stops the foreclosure sale. Downtown Judge issues an IN REM order that MY
> CLIENTS know nothing about because they are not the debtors in that bankruptcy
> case. They never hear anything about. After the IN REM order is granted, the
> "Loan Mod" people call my client (Before they were my client) to tell them
> they can't get a modification and that the house is going to sale in a couple
> of days. Client picks me out of phone book. We file emergency 13. House
> sells two days later. I have proof of giving notice..... etc.....I send
> letter asking not to record the Trustee's Notice of Sale because there is
> bankruptcy in place. I get back this nice IN REM order from downtown judge.
> Of course my deaf & Mute and I mean that literally tell me via text that they
> know nothing about any deed being given to anyone. After months of fighting
> with the lender we got the property back, but ONLY because the lender "felt
> like it." Worse would have been had the property been sold to third party.
> NOW the tenant at the property hasn't been paying and doesn't want to because
> doesn't feel secure. SO NOW no money in budget to pay for the house
> temporarily lost. GEESH.... Horrible outcome for these debtors because of the
> criminal element of 3rd party.
>
> How do we work together to fix this problem. This only gives me more
> questions. Maybe you all can help?
>
> 1. I was thinking that maybe have your debtor go down to court on hearing
> date and tell the court they have no involvement and not to give a finding of
> bad faith?
>
> 2. File an opposition but charge client to do it when its really not their
> fault it happened? I hate to cost client money because of crime they didn't
> commit.
> Oppose the orders on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over real
> estate that is not in Debtor's Schedule "A" and the creditor is not listed on
> Schedule "D" and that the deed is fake? What happens when deed is not fake
> and it really got recorded. I had one of those this week.
>
> 3. Can we as CDCBAA send message to Creditor BAR to at LEAST CALL us for a
> stipulation.
>
> 4. Can we get the Court to do a local rule streamline process of STIP & ORDER
> for Bankruptcy Hijacking cases? Maybe include something where the Creditor
> has to give notice MAILED at least to the address of the property directed to
> the granting homeowner in case they are not even aware of the fraud?
>
> 5. How do we educate public?
>
> What say all of you?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
charset="ISO-8859-1"
I like the idea of a stipulation, but the creditors don't want to take them. Here's the contribution of a colleague: I’ve had a horrible time trying to get the creditor to accept my stipulation. Its more work for them. I think the best solution is to file a qualified objection stating that the debtor has no interest in the property and request that no bad faith be found as to the debtor. The cdcbaa could put their collective heads together and devise a nice template that could be used as a quasi-local form.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.