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.