Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Fellow members:

In my experience, MERS has been an acceptable MOVANT before all Judges --
except for Judge Bufford.

Keith Higginbotham




In a message dated 1/22/2008 9:52:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stolchard@yahoo.com writes:
Excuse me for jumping in at this late hour on the topic, but I just had a
conversation with an attorney for Countrywide who filed the claim in a Ch 13 on
behalf of CW but filed a MFR on behalf of MERS. The creditor's attorney
claims that because MERS is the "beneficiary" under the note, it is a party in
interest. Is that correct?

In most cases I have seen, MERS is a beneficiary. Obviously if they are not
we can put them to the task of proving that they are a party in interest. I
am not sure though when they are named beneficiaries.

Also, I have been going through several of our judges calendars to see what,
if any, responses have been filed by debtors' attorney on MFR and have found
none. Is anyone actually filing these? Do you ask for attorneys fees? I hate
to think that my client has to pay for filing a meritless MFR?

I don't see a form either. If anyone has a sample willing to share that
would be appreciated

Thanks.

Susana B. Tolchard, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SUSANA B. TOLCHARD & ASSOCIATES
23734 Valencia Blvd., Suite 304
Valencia, CA 91355
Telephone: (661) 287-9986
Facsimile: (661) 287-9662

Member National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA)

We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States
Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt
problems, including, where appropriate, assisting them with the filing
of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
This does not constitute an electronic signature.
This message contains confidential information which may also be
privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the intended recipient) you may not copy, use or distribute the
information contained in this message.
Jon Hayes wrote:
That's Bufford's point.
Green" wrote:
>
> Is MERS the moving party in these things? If not who is purporting
to have
> the authority to file the motion?
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green
>
> 1010 E. Union Street
>
> Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: 626-449-8433
>
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
> pat@...
>
>
>
[mailto:_cdcbaa@yahoogroups.cdc_ (mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com) ] On
Behalf Of
> Jon Hayes
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:08 PM
> To: _cdcbaa@yahoogroups.cdc_ (mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com)
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Motions for Relief - Judge Bufford
>
>
>
> Keith Higginbotham today made a comment at the LACBA Bankruptcy
> Committee meeting that Judge Bufford announced today that he will
> require moving parties on Motions for Relief from now on to bring
to
> court the actual signed Promissory Note before he will grant relief.
>
> Keith also said that the chapter 13 judges are going to require a
> response by counsel for the debtor to all Motions for Relief even
if
> it is a no-opposition.
>
> Keith do I have that right?
>
> Here are the tentatives on Judge Bufford's calendar for today re
MFR.
>
> Hearing required - unexplained costs of $4,169.50; no assignment of
> note to movant
>
> Hearing required - signature page is unchanged, but declaration
> purports to be new. In addition, signature page is incomplete - it
> purports to be page 18 of a 34-page document, the rest of which is
> missing
>
> Deny - no debt owing to movant, so is not real party in interest;
no
> evidence that declarant is competent to present any relevant
> evidence; no explanation for how declarant has competent evidence
of
> movant's books and records
>
> Hearing required - signature page is page 38 - remaining pages
> missing; still no assignment to movant; no explanation for how
> declarant has competent evidence of movant's books and records
>
> Continue - no evidence that declarant is competent to testify as to
> Countrywide records; unidentified movants; testimony of Jae Min
> required
>
> Deny - still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Deny - still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Continue - no evidence of position of declarant; exhibits not
> paginated
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; unidentified
> movants
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; position of
> declarant unspecified; no evidence as to how declarant has
competent
> knowledge of movants records; signature page is page 7 - other
pages
> missing
>
> Deny - no assignment of note to movant
>
> Deny - no assignment of note to movant; undisclosed movants
>
> Deny - pages upside down and unnumbered
>
> Continue - no evidence of how declarant has competent evidence of
> movant's records
>
____________________________________
Never miss a thing. _Make Yahoo your homepage._

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Excuse me for jumping in at this late hour on the topic, but I just had a conversation with an attorney for Countrywide who filed the claim in a Ch 13 on behalf of CW but filed a MFR on behalf of MERS. The creditor's attorney claims that because MERS is the "beneficiary" under the note, it is a party in interest. Is that correct?

In most cases I have seen, MERS is a beneficiary. Obviously if they are not we can put them to the task of proving that they are a party in interest. I am not sure though when they are named beneficiaries.

Also, I have been going through several of our judges calendars to see what, if any, responses have been filed by debtors' attorney on MFR and have found none. Is anyone actually filing these? Do you ask for attorneys fees? I hate to think that my client has to pay for filing a meritless MFR?

I don't see a form either. If anyone has a sample willing to share that would be appreciated

Thanks.

Susana B. Tolchard, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SUSANA B. TOLCHARD & ASSOCIATES
23734 Valencia Blvd., Suite 304
Valencia, CA 91355
Telephone: (661) 287-9986
Facsimile: (661) 287-9662

Member National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA)

We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States
Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt
problems, including, where appropriate, assisting them with the filing
of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
This does not constitute an electronic signature.
This message contains confidential information which may also be
privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the intended recipient) you may not copy, use or distribute the
information contained in this message.
Jon Hayes wrote:
That's Bufford's point.
>
> Is MERS the moving party in these things? If not who is purporting
to have
> the authority to file the motion?
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green
>
> 1010 E. Union Street
>
> Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: 626-449-8433
>
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
> pat@...
>
>
>
Behalf Of
> Jon Hayes
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:08 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Motions for Relief - Judge Bufford
>
>
>
> Keith Higginbotham today made a comment at the LACBA Bankruptcy
> Committee meeting that Judge Bufford announced today that he will
> require moving parties on Motions for Relief from now on to bring
to
> court the actual signed Promissory Note before he will grant relief.
>
> Keith also said that the chapter 13 judges are going to require a
> response by counsel for the debtor to all Motions for Relief even
if
> it is a no-opposition.
>
> Keith do I have that right?
>
> Here are the tentatives on Judge Bufford's calendar for today re
MFR.
>
> Hearing required - unexplained costs of $4,169.50; no assignment of
> note to movant
>
> Hearing required - signature page is unchanged, but declaration
> purports to be new. In addition, signature page is incomplete - it
> purports to be page 18 of a 34-page document, the rest of which is
> missing
>
> Deny - no debt owing to movant, so is not real party in interest;
no
> evidence that declarant is competent to present any relevant
> evidence; no explanation for how declarant has competent evidence
of
> movant's books and records
>
> Hearing required - signature page is page 38 - remaining pages
> missing; still no assignment to movant; no explanation for how
> declarant has competent evidence of movant's books and records
>
> Continue - no evidence that declarant is competent to testify as to
> Countrywide records; unidentified movants; testimony of Jae Min
> required
>
> Deny - still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Deny - still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Continue - no evidence of position of declarant; exhibits not
> paginated
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; unidentified
> movants
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; position of
> declarant unspecified; no evidence as to how declarant has
competent
> knowledge of movants records; signature page is page 7 - other
pages
> missing
>
> Deny - no assignment of note to movant
>
> Deny - no assignment of note to movant; undisclosed movants
>
> Deny - pages upside down and unnumbered
>
> Continue - no evidence of how declarant has competent evidence of
> movant's records
>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Excuse me for jumping in at this late hour on the topic, but I just had a conversation with an attorney for Countrywide who filed the claim in a Ch 13 on behalf of CW but filed a MFR on behalf of MERS. The creditor's attorney claims that because MERS is the "beneficiary" under the note, it is a party in interest. Is that correct? In most cases I have seen, MERS is a beneficiary. Obviously if they are not we can put them to the task of proving that they are a party in interest. I am not sure though when they are named beneficiaries. Also, I have been going through several of our judges calendars to see what, if any, responses have been filed by debtors' attorney on MFR and have found none. Is anyone actually filing these? Do you ask for attorneys fees? I hate to think that my client has to pay for filing a meritless MFR? I don't see a form either. If anyone has a sample
willing to share that would be appreciated Thanks. Susana B. Tolchard, Esq.LAW OFFICES OF SUSANA B. TOLCHARD & ASSOCIATES23734 Valencia Blvd., Suite 304Valencia, CA 91355Telephone: (661) 287-9986Facsimile: (661) 287-9662 Member National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United StatesBankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debtproblems, including, where appropriate, assisting them with the filingof petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. This does not constitute an electronic signature. This message contains confidential information which may also beprivileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receivefor the intended recipient) you may not
copy, use or distribute theinformation contained in this message. Jon Hayes <Jhayes@polarisnet.net> wrote: That's Bufford's point. --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Green" <pat@...> wrote:>> Is MERS the moving party in these things? If not who is purporting to have> the authority to file the motion?> > > > Patrick T. Green> > 1010 E. Union Street> > Suite 206> >
for the debtor to all Motions for Relief even if > it is a no-opposition.> > Keith do I have that right?> > Here are the tentatives on Judge Bufford's calendar for today re MFR.> > Hearing required - unexplained costs of $4,169.50; no assignment of > note to movant> > Hearing required - signature page is unchanged, but declaration > purports to be new. In addition, signature page is incomplete - it > purports to be page 18 of a 34-page document, the rest of which is > missing> > Deny - no debt owing to movant, so is not real party in interest; no > evidence that declarant is competent to present any relevant > evidence; no explanation for how declarant has competent evidence of > movant's books and records> > Hearing required - signature page is page 38 - remaining pages > missing; still no assignment to movant;
no explanation for how > declarant has competent evidence of movant's books and records> > Continue - no evidence that declarant is competent to testify as to > Countrywide records; unidentified movants; testimony of Jae Min > required> > Deny - still no assignment of note to movant> > Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized> > Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized> > Deny - still no assignment of note to movant> > Continue - no evidence of position of declarant; exhibits not > paginated> > Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; unidentified > movants> > Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; position of > declarant unspecified; no evidence as to how declarant has competent > knowledge of movants records; signature page is page 7 - other pages
> missing> > Deny - no assignment of note to movant> > Deny - no assignment of note to movant; undisclosed movants> > Deny - pages upside down and unnumbered> > Continue - no evidence of how declarant has competent evidence of > movant's records>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have a case right now where a servicer has filed for relief "for MERS." BUT, as Pat says, MERS is not the holder. My clientis 8 months in arrears - not the facts that I want to fight on - but we are seeing this a lot.
Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Keith:
The reason I asked is that in some non-judicial foreclosure states, MERS, that nominee, but not holder, that is integral to the once vaunted securitization process, has tried to institute foreclose procedures in its own name. In FL, MERS has been shot down state wide, mostly by a very smart legal aid attorney named April Charney (sp?) and is longer able to bring foreclosure actions there. I am wondering if we are seeing them here.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

That's Bufford's point.
>
> Is MERS the moving party in these things? If not who is purporting
to have
> the authority to file the motion?
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green
>
> 1010 E. Union Street
>
> Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: 626-449-8433
>
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
> pat@...
>
>
>
Behalf Of
> Jon Hayes
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:08 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Motions for Relief - Judge Bufford
>
>
>
> Keith Higginbotham today made a comment at the LACBA Bankruptcy
> Committee meeting that Judge Bufford announced today that he will
> require moving parties on Motions for Relief from now on to bring
to
> court the actual signed Promissory Note before he will grant relief.
>
> Keith also said that the chapter 13 judges are going to require a
> response by counsel for the debtor to all Motions for Relief even
if
> it is a no-opposition.
>
> Keith do I have that right?
>
> Here are the tentatives on Judge Bufford's calendar for today re
MFR.
>
> Hearing required - unexplained costs of $4,169.50; no assignment of
> note to movant
>
> Hearing required - signature page is unchanged, but declaration
> purports to be new. In addition, signature page is incomplete - it
> purports to be page 18 of a 34-page document, the rest of which is
> missing
>
> Deny - no debt owing to movant, so is not real party in interest;
no
> evidence that declarant is competent to present any relevant
> evidence; no explanation for how declarant has competent evidence
of
> movant's books and records
>
> Hearing required - signature page is page 38 - remaining pages
> missing; still no assignment to movant; no explanation for how
> declarant has competent evidence of movant's books and records
>
> Continue - no evidence that declarant is competent to testify as to
> Countrywide records; unidentified movants; testimony of Jae Min
> required
>
> Deny - still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Deny - still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Continue - no evidence of position of declarant; exhibits not
> paginated
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; unidentified
> movants
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; position of
> declarant unspecified; no evidence as to how declarant has
competent
> knowledge of movants records; signature page is page 7 - other
pages
> missing
>
> Deny - no assignment of note to movant
>
> Deny - no assignment of note to movant; undisclosed movants
>
> Deny - pages upside down and unnumbered
>
> Continue - no evidence of how declarant has competent evidence of
> movant's records
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="US-ASCII"
Is MERS the moving party in these things? If not who is purporting to have
the authority to file the motion?
Patrick T. Green
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="US-ASCII"
If debtor is surrendering a house or car (and that's not uncommon these
days), these responses can become burdensome.

> Keith also said that the chapter 13 judges are going to require a
> response by counsel for the debtor to all Motions for Relief even if
> it is a no-opposition.

If
charset="US-ASCII"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="US-ASCII"
They are realizing where the problems really lie. This is great news
Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
eclark@BLClaw.com
www.BLClaw.com
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages
of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury
Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter
addressed herein.
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Well, Judge Bufford was Judge of the Year for 2005!!
>
> Keith Higginbotham today made a comment at the LACBA Bankruptcy
> Committee meeting that Judge Bufford announced today that he will
> require moving parties on Motions for Relief from now on to bring to
> court the actual signed Promissory Note before he will grant relief.
>
> Keith also said that the chapter 13 judges are going to require a
> response by counsel for the debtor to all Motions for Relief even if
> it is a no-opposition.
>
> Keith do I have that right?
>
> Here are the tentatives on Judge Bufford's calendar for today re MFR.
>
> Hearing required unexplained costs of $4,169.50; no assignment of
> note to movant
>
> Hearing required signature page is unchanged, but declaration
> purports to be new. In addition, signature page is incomplete it
> purports to be page 18 of a 34-page document, the rest of which is
> missing
>
> Deny no debt owing to movant, so is not real party in interest; no
> evidence that declarant is competent to present any relevant
> evidence; no explanation for how declarant has competent evidence of
> movant's books and records
>
> Hearing required signature page is page 38 - remaining pages
> missing; still no assignment to movant; no explanation for how
> declarant has competent evidence of movant's books and records
>
> Continue no evidence that declarant is competent to testify as to
> Countrywide records; unidentified movants; testimony of Jae Min
> required
>
> Deny still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
>
> Deny still no assignment of note to movant
>
> Continue no evidence of position of declarant; exhibits not
> paginated
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; unidentified
> movants
>
> Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; position of
> declarant unspecified; no evidence as to how declarant has competent
> knowledge of movants records; signature page is page 7 - other pages
> missing
>
> Deny no assignment of note to movant
>
> Deny no assignment of note to movant; undisclosed movants
>
> Deny pages upside down and unnumbered
>
> Continue no evidence of how declarant has competent evidence of
> movant's records
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Keith Higginbotham today made a comment at the LACBA Bankruptcy
Committee meeting that Judge Bufford announced today that he will
require moving parties on Motions for Relief from now on to bring to
court the actual signed Promissory Note before he will grant relief.
Keith also said that the chapter 13 judges are going to require a
response by counsel for the debtor to all Motions for Relief even if
it is a no-opposition.
Keith do I have that right?
Here are the tentatives on Judge Bufford's calendar for today re MFR.
Hearing required unexplained costs of $4,169.50; no assignment of
note to movant
Hearing required signature page is unchanged, but declaration
purports to be new. In addition, signature page is incomplete it
purports to be page 18 of a 34-page document, the rest of which is
missing
Deny no debt owing to movant, so is not real party in interest; no
evidence that declarant is competent to present any relevant
evidence; no explanation for how declarant has competent evidence of
movant's books and records
Hearing required signature page is page 38 - remaining pages
missing; still no assignment to movant; no explanation for how
declarant has competent evidence of movant's books and records
Continue no evidence that declarant is competent to testify as to
Countrywide records; unidentified movants; testimony of Jae Min
required
Deny still no assignment of note to movant
Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized
Deny still no assignment of note to movant
Continue no evidence of position of declarant; exhibits not
paginated
Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; unidentified
movants
Hearing required on whether loan has been securitized; position of
declarant unspecified; no evidence as to how declarant has competent
knowledge of movants records; signature page is page 7 - other pages
missing
Deny no assignment of note to movant
Deny no assignment of note to movant; undisclosed movants
Deny pages upside down and unnumbered
Continue no evidence of how declarant has competent evidence of
movant's records

The post was migrated from Yahoo.