Thursday, June 10, 2010
Quasi Makes Me Queasy But A Pro Se Litigant MUST Understand Subject Matter Jurisdiction!
ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. v. McGAHAN
ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., et al., Appellees,
v.
NONA L. McGAHAN et al., Appellants.
Docket No. 107954.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed June 4, 2010.
OPINION
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.
The question at issue here is whether a mortgagee must name a personal representative for a deceased mortgagor in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding in order for the circuit court to acquire subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it must.
Background
This appeal involves two cases, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. v. McGahan and Charter One Bank v. Hunter. The facts of each are set forth below.
ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. v. McGahan
In 2005, ABN AMRO (ABN) provided a loan to Nona McGahan, who executed a note secured by a mortgage on her property located in Chicago. On May 1, 2006, McGahan defaulted. On August 30, ABN filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County for foreclosure pursuant to the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15-1101 et seq. (West 2004)). The complaint named McGahan, unknown heirs, and unknown owners. Unbeknownst to ABN, McGahan had died prior to the filing of this complaint.
On October 11, 2006, after learning from a special process server that McGahan was deceased, ABN filed a motion requesting additional time to determine whether a probate estate had been opened on behalf of McGahan. Thereafter, ABN was granted leave to file a petition to name a personal representative on behalf of McGahan.
On November 29, 2006, ABN advised the court that, upon further consideration, it did not intend to name a personal representative and requested leave to withdraw its earlier motion. Thereafter, the circuit court dismissed ABN's complaint pursuant to its order entered on November 2, 2006, in Wells Fargo v. McQueen, No. 05-CH-12846 (November 2, 2006).
Wells Fargo v. McQueen was a mortgage foreclosure action. As in this case, the mortgagor, Allen McQueen, died prior to the filing of the complaint. In its decision in the Wells Fargo case, the circuit court noted that, generally, a circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when a lawsuit is filed against a deceased person because such a suit is a nullity. To avoid this rule and confer jurisdiction on the circuit court, a plaintiff may proceed under section 13-209 of the Code of Civil Procedure and substitute the deceased party's personal representative. 735 ILCS 5/13-209(c) (West 2004). However, Wells Fargo, the mortgagee, argued this rule did not apply because foreclosure proceedings are in rem actions and it is unnecessary to name a human defendant, i.e., the mortgagor, in such actions.
The circuitcourt acknowledged there were cases in Illinois, dating back to 1835, holding that foreclosure proceedings are in rem actions. However, the court noted that in most cases this conclusion was reached without discussion or explanation. The circuit court also noted that, in a true in rem proceeding, the property itself is the defendant. The court then gave modern-day examples of a true in rem action, including civil forfeiture and proceedings against vessels under maritime law.
The circuit court then discussed quasi in rem proceedings, and citing Austin v. Royal League, 316 Ill. 188 (1925), found that a quasi in rem proceeding describes the modern-day foreclosure action. The circuit court noted that no authority had reconciled the discussion of the differences between in rem and quasi in rem actions, set forth in Austin, with older cases stating foreclosures were in rem. The circuit court concluded that foreclosure actions are better characterized as quasi in rem.
The circuit court then addressed the consequences of concluding that a foreclosure is quasi in rem. First, the court noted that mortgage foreclosures were adversarial and, pursuant to the Mortgage Foreclosure Law, the mortgagor is a necessary party who has the right to defend against the action. See 735 ILCS 5/15-1501 (West 2004). However, the circuit court found that the Mortgage Foreclosure Law does not address the consequences of a mortgagor's death and, therefore, it had to look to the rules applicable to civil actions generally. The court revisited the rule that a lawsuit against a deceased person is a nullity. The circuit court found there was nothing in Illinois law to indicate foreclosure actions were exempt from this general rule.
Turning to section 13-209 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 4/13-209(c) (West 2004)), the provision governing the appointment of personal representatives, the circuit court considered whether a foreclosure was an "action" within the meaning of section 13-209, and found that previous cases had answered this question in the affirmative. Thus, the circuit court concluded that a mortgagee is required to name a personal representative for a deceased mortgagor in order for the circuit court to obtain subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit court noted also that a mortgagee could, alternatively, proceed under the Probate Act as it was an "interested person" like any other creditor. See 755 ILCS 5/1-2.11(West 2004).
In light of the decision in the Wells Fargo case, the circuit court held in the McGahan case that, because ABN failed to name a personal representative as a substitute for McGahan, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, ABN's complaint was dismissed.
Charter One Bank v. Hunter
The pertinent facts of the Hunter case are essentially the same as in the McGahan case. Margaret Hunter executed a note securing a mortgage on her property in 2002. Charter One Bank (Charter One) filed a complaint for foreclosure in 2006. After learning that Hunter was deceased, Charter One was granted leave to file an amended complaint to name as defendants unknown owners, nonrecord claimants, and unknown heirs and devisees. Subsequently, the circuit court entered a judgment of default against defendants and an order for foreclosure and sale. However, thereafter, pursuant to its decision in the Wells Fargo case, the circuit court vacated those orders and dismissed Charter One's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ABN and Charter One appealed and the cases were consolidated. No one appeared on behalf of McGahan, Hunter, or any other appellee. However, the appellate court granted leave to the Chicago Volunteer Legal Service Foundation (Foundation) to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the trial court's decision.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that this court had "consistently" labeled foreclosures as in rem actions, and that it was bound by these determinations. 388 Ill. App. 3d 900, 902. The appellate court further concluded that foreclosure proceedings determine rights as against the whole world, not merely against certain individuals, and, therefore, logically are in rem actions. Although the appellate court acknowledged that several of our past cases have stated that foreclosure proceedings are quasi in rem actions, the appellate court found the discussions in those cases dicta and, therefore, not controlling. Accordingly, the appellate court held that, because a foreclosure is an in rem action, plaintiffs' failure to name a personal representative in the foreclosure action did not divest the circuit court of jurisdiction and the circuit court erred in dismissing ABN and Charter One's complaints.
On February 23, 2009, we granted the Foundation's motion for leave to file a petition for leave to appeal instanter as amicus curiae.[ 1 ] We later granted the Cook County public guardian leave to file an amicus brief.
Analysis
Section 15-1501 of the Mortgage Foreclosure Law identifies those who must be joined as party defendants in foreclosure proceedings. Relevant here, the mortgagor is a "necessary party." 735 ILCS 5/15-1501(a)(i) (West 2004). Although the Mortgage Foreclosure Law mandates that a mortgagor must be made a party in any foreclosure action, it fails to address what procedure a mortgagee must follow or who must be named, if anyone, in lieu of the mortgagor, when the mortgagor is deceased. Because the act is silent as to the requirements to follow in the event the mortgagor is deceased, we would normally look to the general rules of civil procedure to ascertain what would be required. However, Charter One and ABN contend this is not appropriate because foreclosure proceedings are in rem actions and, therefore, neither a deceased mortgagor's estate nor a personal representative need be named.
"In rem" jurisdiction is "[a] court's power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property, including the power to seize and hold it." Black's Law Dictionary 856 (7th ed. 1999). "[A] proceeding in rem is one which is taken directly against property or one which is brought to enforce a right in the thing itself." Austin v. Royal League, 316 Ill. 188, 193 (1925). The legal fiction underlying an in rem proceeding is that the "property, not the owner of the property, is liable to the complainant. It treatsproperty, therefore, as the defendant, susceptible of being tried and condemned, while the owner merely gets notice, along with the rest of the world, and may appear for his property or not." R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem, §1, at 2 (1882).
A proceeding quasi in rem "has been characterized as an in rem action which affects only the interests of particular persons in a certain thing." 1 Am. Jur. 2d Actions §30, at 817 (2005); see also Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185, 188, 30 L. Ed. 372, 373, 7 S. Ct. 165, 167 (1886). A quasi in rem action is "brought against the defendant personally, with jurisdiction based on an interest in property, the objective being to deal with the particular property or to subject the property to the discharge of the claims asserted." Black's Law Dictionary 30 (7th ed. 1999). Unlike an in rem action, a quasi in rem action operates only as between the parties to the proceedings. 1 Am. Jur. 2d Actions §30, at 817-18 (2005).
There are two types of quasi in rem actions, only one of which is relevant here. In this type, the plaintiff seeks "to secure a pre-existing [sic] claim in the subject property and to extinguish or establish the nonexistence of similar interests of particular persons." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n.12, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283, 1293 n.12, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 1235 n.12 (1958).
Prior decisions from this court have inconsistently characterized a foreclosure as both in rem and quasi in rem actions. The following cases have identified foreclosure proceedings as in rem actions: Markus v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 373 Ill. 557, 561 (1940) (foreclosure is "of the nature of a proceeding in rem"); Waughop v. Bartlett, 165 Ill. 124, 129-30 (1896) (same); Bickerdike v. Allen, 157 Ill. 95, 99-100 (1895) (stating foreclosures may be "regarded" as in rem); Karnes v. Harper, 48 Ill. 527 (1868); White v. Murphy, 23 Ill. 426 (1860); Woodbury v. Manlove, 14 Ill. 213 (1852).[ 2 ] See also Pfaff v. Chrysler Corp., 155 Ill. 2d 35 (1992) (stating that an injunction may be appropriate in in rem proceedings, "such as the mortgage foreclosure action here"). On the other hand, the following cases have identified foreclosure proceedings as quasi in rem actions: McCallum v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 379 Ill. 60 (1942); Austin v. Royal League, 316 Ill. 188 (1925); Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis R.R. Co., 314 Ill. 96 (1924); Lohmeyer v. Durbin, 213 Ill. 498 (1904). None of these cases analyze the rationale for characterizing a foreclosure action as either in rem or quasi in rem. We do so now.
We begin by noting that in Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185, 30 L. Ed. 372, 7 S. Ct. 165 (1886), the United States Supreme Court characterized a mortgage foreclose as a quasi in rem proceeding. Freeman involved an action in trespass to try title to property. There, the Court discussed the two types of proceedings and their distinguishing characteristics. The Court described an in rem proceeding as one brought against the property alone, which is considered responsible for the claims asserted by the plaintiff. The property itself is treated as the defendant because it is the instrumentality of the wrong. The Supreme Court also noted that a court acquires jurisdiction over the property by seizing it and giving public citation to the world and that the owner of the property may appear and protect his interest. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166.
The Court then went on to state, "[t]here is, however, a large class of cases which are not strictly actions in rem, but are frequently spoken of as actions quasi in rem, because, though brought against persons, they only seek to subject certain property of those persons to the discharge of the claims asserted." Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166-67. The Court noted that these actions differ from actions strictly in rem because the interest of the defendant alone is sought to be affected, Accordingly, citation to the defendant is required, and the judgment is only conclusive between the parties to the proceedings. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 188, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 167. The Court observed that, though such actions deal with property and seek its sale, they are not strict actions in rem because they are against the named parties and the action is personal in nature. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 188, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 167. The Supreme Court concluded, "[s]uch are *** actions for the enforcement of mortgages and other liens." Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166-67.
Further, other authorities have stated that mortgage foreclosure proceedings are quasi in rem actions. See R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem §606, at 758 (1882) ("[m]ortgage procedure against property well illustrates" a quasi in rem action); Black's Law Dictionary 714 (5th ed. 1979) (defining "in rem mortgage" as "[f]oreclosure of mortgage is in the nature of an in rem proceeding but it approximates more closely a quasi in rem action"). See also 59A C.J.S. Mortgages §§874, 390 (2009); 50 C.J.S. Judgments §1389 (2009).
Consistent with the foregoing authorities, we conclude that a mortgage foreclosure proceeding must be deemed a quasi in rem action. One of the pivotal differences between in rem and quasi in rem actions is whether the defendant is the property or a named person. See, e.g., Austin, 316 Ill. 2d at 193. In in rem actions, the property itself is the defendant, while in quasi in rem actions, a named party is the defendant. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187-88, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 167. In a foreclosure action, the property is not the defendant. Rather, the mortgagor, the person whose interest in the real estate is the subject of the mortgage, is a necessary party defendant to the foreclosure proceedings. 735 ILCS 5/15-1501(a)(i) (West 2004); Lane v. Erskine, 13 Ill. 501, 503-04 (1851) (mortgagor is an indispensable party in a foreclosure action). As such, the proceeding must be brought against a named party and a foreclosure action must be a quasi in rem action. R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem §72, at 99 (1882) ("It should ever be borne in mind that there are no personal defendants to proceedings in rem").
Moreover, in foreclosure actions, the property is not the instrumentality of the wrong, nor is it responsible for the plaintiff's injury. The mortgagor is the instrumentality of the wrong. It was he or she who breached the contract by defaulting on the note secured by the mortgage. The foreclosure action is based on the note, the vehicle which gives the plaintiff the legal right to proceed against the property. The object of the foreclosure action is to enforce the obligation created by that contract, through the property, but against a specific person. Lohmeyer, 213 Ill. at 501 ("The object is to reach and dispose of property, but the proceeding is for the enforcement of an obligation ex contractu against a specific person").
Likewise, because the mortgagor is a necessary party in a foreclosure action, it is necessarily true that there must be personal service on the mortgagor, i.e., "citation" to him or her. Rockwell v. Jones, 21 Ill. 279, 285 (1859) (defendant to scire facias proceeding to foreclose mortgage must be given notice of proceeding). In in rem actions, personal service is not required on any person, not even the owner. R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem §64, at 88 (1882) ("No personal citation is served upon the owner of the thing seized, even when he is known"). In in rem actions, there is public citation to the world. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166. This distinction also supports the conclusion that a foreclosure proceeding is quasi in rem.
Further, contrary to the appellate court's finding, a mortgage foreclosure proceeding does not bind the whole world. Case law, dating to at least 1863, demonstrates this fact. Ohling v. Luitjens, 32 Ill. 23, 30-31 (1863) (foreclosure decree null and void against owner of equity of redemption because not made a party). See also Gregory v. Suburban Realty Co., 292 Ill. 568 (1920) (senior mortgagee not bound by junior mortgagee foreclosure); Rose v. Walk, 149 Ill. 60 (1894) (junior mortgagee not bound by foreclosure where not a party to the action); Kepley v. Jansen, 107 Ill. 79 (1883) (nonparty owner of equity of redemption not bound by foreclosure decree); Cutter v. Jones, 52 Ill. 84 (1869) (nonparty owner of equity of redemption not bound by foreclosure decree); React Financial v. Long, 366 Ill. App. 3d 231 (2006) (junior mortgagee not bound by senior mortgagee foreclosure if not made a party); Applegate Apartments Ltd. Partnership v. Commercial Coin Laundry Systems, 276 Ill. App. 3d 433 (1995) (tenant in possession); Baldi v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 113 Ill. App. 3d 29 (1983) (junior mortgagee not bound by senior mortgagee foreclosure if not made a party); Silverstein v. Schak, 107 Ill. App. 3d 641 (1982) (tenant in possession).
The Mortgage Foreclosure Law, too, makes clear that the entire world is not bound by a foreclosure judgment. It states: "The court may proceed to adjudicate their respective interests, but any disposition of the mortgaged real estate shall be subject to (i) the interests of all other persons not made a party or (ii) interests in the mortgaged real estate not otherwise barred or terminated in the foreclosure." 725 ILCS 5/15-1501(a) (West 2004).
In reaching a conclusion that a foreclosure proceeding is an in rem action, the appellate court below relied on Financial Freedom v. Kirgis, 377 Ill. App. 3d 107 (2007). In Financial Freedom, the mortgagee filed a foreclosure action against the deceased mortgagor and her son. The defendant/son argued that the action was barred because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the suit was filed against a deceased person and (2) the case was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations period set forth in section 18-12 of the Probate Act as incorporated by section 13-209. Financial Freedom, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 109. The circuit court concluded that it did not lack subject matter jurisdiction since the foreclosure proceeding was an in rem action. Financial Freedom, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 121. The circuit court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and ordered a foreclosure. Financial Freedom, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 119-20. The appellate court affirmed, relying on statements made by this court that a foreclosure proceeding is in rem in Waughop and Marcus.
We are not persuaded by Financial Freedom. As noted above, Waughop and Marcus did not engage in any analysis in reaching the conclusion that foreclosures were in rem actions. We have found, however, that the nature of a foreclosure proceeding mandates our conclusion that foreclosure actions are quasi in rem proceedings. Accordingly, we reject Financial Freedom, and to the extent that decision and any statements in our prior cases are contrary to our holding here, they are hereby overruled.
In sum, we hold that, based on the well-settled principles distinguishing in rem and quasi in rem actions and the requirements of the Mortgage Foreclosure Law, a foreclosure proceeding is a quasi in rem action. Accordingly, we reverse the appellate court's judgment and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Appellate court judgment reversed; circuit court judgment affirmed.
ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., et al., Appellees,
v.
NONA L. McGAHAN et al., Appellants.
Docket No. 107954.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed June 4, 2010.
OPINION
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.
The question at issue here is whether a mortgagee must name a personal representative for a deceased mortgagor in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding in order for the circuit court to acquire subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it must.
Background
This appeal involves two cases, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. v. McGahan and Charter One Bank v. Hunter. The facts of each are set forth below.
ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. v. McGahan
In 2005, ABN AMRO (ABN) provided a loan to Nona McGahan, who executed a note secured by a mortgage on her property located in Chicago. On May 1, 2006, McGahan defaulted. On August 30, ABN filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County for foreclosure pursuant to the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15-1101 et seq. (West 2004)). The complaint named McGahan, unknown heirs, and unknown owners. Unbeknownst to ABN, McGahan had died prior to the filing of this complaint.
On October 11, 2006, after learning from a special process server that McGahan was deceased, ABN filed a motion requesting additional time to determine whether a probate estate had been opened on behalf of McGahan. Thereafter, ABN was granted leave to file a petition to name a personal representative on behalf of McGahan.
On November 29, 2006, ABN advised the court that, upon further consideration, it did not intend to name a personal representative and requested leave to withdraw its earlier motion. Thereafter, the circuit court dismissed ABN's complaint pursuant to its order entered on November 2, 2006, in Wells Fargo v. McQueen, No. 05-CH-12846 (November 2, 2006).
Wells Fargo v. McQueen was a mortgage foreclosure action. As in this case, the mortgagor, Allen McQueen, died prior to the filing of the complaint. In its decision in the Wells Fargo case, the circuit court noted that, generally, a circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when a lawsuit is filed against a deceased person because such a suit is a nullity. To avoid this rule and confer jurisdiction on the circuit court, a plaintiff may proceed under section 13-209 of the Code of Civil Procedure and substitute the deceased party's personal representative. 735 ILCS 5/13-209(c) (West 2004). However, Wells Fargo, the mortgagee, argued this rule did not apply because foreclosure proceedings are in rem actions and it is unnecessary to name a human defendant, i.e., the mortgagor, in such actions.
The circuitcourt acknowledged there were cases in Illinois, dating back to 1835, holding that foreclosure proceedings are in rem actions. However, the court noted that in most cases this conclusion was reached without discussion or explanation. The circuit court also noted that, in a true in rem proceeding, the property itself is the defendant. The court then gave modern-day examples of a true in rem action, including civil forfeiture and proceedings against vessels under maritime law.
The circuit court then discussed quasi in rem proceedings, and citing Austin v. Royal League, 316 Ill. 188 (1925), found that a quasi in rem proceeding describes the modern-day foreclosure action. The circuit court noted that no authority had reconciled the discussion of the differences between in rem and quasi in rem actions, set forth in Austin, with older cases stating foreclosures were in rem. The circuit court concluded that foreclosure actions are better characterized as quasi in rem.
The circuit court then addressed the consequences of concluding that a foreclosure is quasi in rem. First, the court noted that mortgage foreclosures were adversarial and, pursuant to the Mortgage Foreclosure Law, the mortgagor is a necessary party who has the right to defend against the action. See 735 ILCS 5/15-1501 (West 2004). However, the circuit court found that the Mortgage Foreclosure Law does not address the consequences of a mortgagor's death and, therefore, it had to look to the rules applicable to civil actions generally. The court revisited the rule that a lawsuit against a deceased person is a nullity. The circuit court found there was nothing in Illinois law to indicate foreclosure actions were exempt from this general rule.
Turning to section 13-209 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 4/13-209(c) (West 2004)), the provision governing the appointment of personal representatives, the circuit court considered whether a foreclosure was an "action" within the meaning of section 13-209, and found that previous cases had answered this question in the affirmative. Thus, the circuit court concluded that a mortgagee is required to name a personal representative for a deceased mortgagor in order for the circuit court to obtain subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit court noted also that a mortgagee could, alternatively, proceed under the Probate Act as it was an "interested person" like any other creditor. See 755 ILCS 5/1-2.11(West 2004).
In light of the decision in the Wells Fargo case, the circuit court held in the McGahan case that, because ABN failed to name a personal representative as a substitute for McGahan, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, ABN's complaint was dismissed.
Charter One Bank v. Hunter
The pertinent facts of the Hunter case are essentially the same as in the McGahan case. Margaret Hunter executed a note securing a mortgage on her property in 2002. Charter One Bank (Charter One) filed a complaint for foreclosure in 2006. After learning that Hunter was deceased, Charter One was granted leave to file an amended complaint to name as defendants unknown owners, nonrecord claimants, and unknown heirs and devisees. Subsequently, the circuit court entered a judgment of default against defendants and an order for foreclosure and sale. However, thereafter, pursuant to its decision in the Wells Fargo case, the circuit court vacated those orders and dismissed Charter One's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ABN and Charter One appealed and the cases were consolidated. No one appeared on behalf of McGahan, Hunter, or any other appellee. However, the appellate court granted leave to the Chicago Volunteer Legal Service Foundation (Foundation) to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the trial court's decision.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that this court had "consistently" labeled foreclosures as in rem actions, and that it was bound by these determinations. 388 Ill. App. 3d 900, 902. The appellate court further concluded that foreclosure proceedings determine rights as against the whole world, not merely against certain individuals, and, therefore, logically are in rem actions. Although the appellate court acknowledged that several of our past cases have stated that foreclosure proceedings are quasi in rem actions, the appellate court found the discussions in those cases dicta and, therefore, not controlling. Accordingly, the appellate court held that, because a foreclosure is an in rem action, plaintiffs' failure to name a personal representative in the foreclosure action did not divest the circuit court of jurisdiction and the circuit court erred in dismissing ABN and Charter One's complaints.
On February 23, 2009, we granted the Foundation's motion for leave to file a petition for leave to appeal instanter as amicus curiae.[ 1 ] We later granted the Cook County public guardian leave to file an amicus brief.
Analysis
Section 15-1501 of the Mortgage Foreclosure Law identifies those who must be joined as party defendants in foreclosure proceedings. Relevant here, the mortgagor is a "necessary party." 735 ILCS 5/15-1501(a)(i) (West 2004). Although the Mortgage Foreclosure Law mandates that a mortgagor must be made a party in any foreclosure action, it fails to address what procedure a mortgagee must follow or who must be named, if anyone, in lieu of the mortgagor, when the mortgagor is deceased. Because the act is silent as to the requirements to follow in the event the mortgagor is deceased, we would normally look to the general rules of civil procedure to ascertain what would be required. However, Charter One and ABN contend this is not appropriate because foreclosure proceedings are in rem actions and, therefore, neither a deceased mortgagor's estate nor a personal representative need be named.
"In rem" jurisdiction is "[a] court's power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property, including the power to seize and hold it." Black's Law Dictionary 856 (7th ed. 1999). "[A] proceeding in rem is one which is taken directly against property or one which is brought to enforce a right in the thing itself." Austin v. Royal League, 316 Ill. 188, 193 (1925). The legal fiction underlying an in rem proceeding is that the "property, not the owner of the property, is liable to the complainant. It treatsproperty, therefore, as the defendant, susceptible of being tried and condemned, while the owner merely gets notice, along with the rest of the world, and may appear for his property or not." R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem, §1, at 2 (1882).
A proceeding quasi in rem "has been characterized as an in rem action which affects only the interests of particular persons in a certain thing." 1 Am. Jur. 2d Actions §30, at 817 (2005); see also Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185, 188, 30 L. Ed. 372, 373, 7 S. Ct. 165, 167 (1886). A quasi in rem action is "brought against the defendant personally, with jurisdiction based on an interest in property, the objective being to deal with the particular property or to subject the property to the discharge of the claims asserted." Black's Law Dictionary 30 (7th ed. 1999). Unlike an in rem action, a quasi in rem action operates only as between the parties to the proceedings. 1 Am. Jur. 2d Actions §30, at 817-18 (2005).
There are two types of quasi in rem actions, only one of which is relevant here. In this type, the plaintiff seeks "to secure a pre-existing [sic] claim in the subject property and to extinguish or establish the nonexistence of similar interests of particular persons." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 n.12, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283, 1293 n.12, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 1235 n.12 (1958).
Prior decisions from this court have inconsistently characterized a foreclosure as both in rem and quasi in rem actions. The following cases have identified foreclosure proceedings as in rem actions: Markus v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 373 Ill. 557, 561 (1940) (foreclosure is "of the nature of a proceeding in rem"); Waughop v. Bartlett, 165 Ill. 124, 129-30 (1896) (same); Bickerdike v. Allen, 157 Ill. 95, 99-100 (1895) (stating foreclosures may be "regarded" as in rem); Karnes v. Harper, 48 Ill. 527 (1868); White v. Murphy, 23 Ill. 426 (1860); Woodbury v. Manlove, 14 Ill. 213 (1852).[ 2 ] See also Pfaff v. Chrysler Corp., 155 Ill. 2d 35 (1992) (stating that an injunction may be appropriate in in rem proceedings, "such as the mortgage foreclosure action here"). On the other hand, the following cases have identified foreclosure proceedings as quasi in rem actions: McCallum v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 379 Ill. 60 (1942); Austin v. Royal League, 316 Ill. 188 (1925); Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis R.R. Co., 314 Ill. 96 (1924); Lohmeyer v. Durbin, 213 Ill. 498 (1904). None of these cases analyze the rationale for characterizing a foreclosure action as either in rem or quasi in rem. We do so now.
We begin by noting that in Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185, 30 L. Ed. 372, 7 S. Ct. 165 (1886), the United States Supreme Court characterized a mortgage foreclose as a quasi in rem proceeding. Freeman involved an action in trespass to try title to property. There, the Court discussed the two types of proceedings and their distinguishing characteristics. The Court described an in rem proceeding as one brought against the property alone, which is considered responsible for the claims asserted by the plaintiff. The property itself is treated as the defendant because it is the instrumentality of the wrong. The Supreme Court also noted that a court acquires jurisdiction over the property by seizing it and giving public citation to the world and that the owner of the property may appear and protect his interest. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166.
The Court then went on to state, "[t]here is, however, a large class of cases which are not strictly actions in rem, but are frequently spoken of as actions quasi in rem, because, though brought against persons, they only seek to subject certain property of those persons to the discharge of the claims asserted." Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166-67. The Court noted that these actions differ from actions strictly in rem because the interest of the defendant alone is sought to be affected, Accordingly, citation to the defendant is required, and the judgment is only conclusive between the parties to the proceedings. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 188, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 167. The Court observed that, though such actions deal with property and seek its sale, they are not strict actions in rem because they are against the named parties and the action is personal in nature. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 188, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 167. The Supreme Court concluded, "[s]uch are *** actions for the enforcement of mortgages and other liens." Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166-67.
Further, other authorities have stated that mortgage foreclosure proceedings are quasi in rem actions. See R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem §606, at 758 (1882) ("[m]ortgage procedure against property well illustrates" a quasi in rem action); Black's Law Dictionary 714 (5th ed. 1979) (defining "in rem mortgage" as "[f]oreclosure of mortgage is in the nature of an in rem proceeding but it approximates more closely a quasi in rem action"). See also 59A C.J.S. Mortgages §§874, 390 (2009); 50 C.J.S. Judgments §1389 (2009).
Consistent with the foregoing authorities, we conclude that a mortgage foreclosure proceeding must be deemed a quasi in rem action. One of the pivotal differences between in rem and quasi in rem actions is whether the defendant is the property or a named person. See, e.g., Austin, 316 Ill. 2d at 193. In in rem actions, the property itself is the defendant, while in quasi in rem actions, a named party is the defendant. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187-88, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 167. In a foreclosure action, the property is not the defendant. Rather, the mortgagor, the person whose interest in the real estate is the subject of the mortgage, is a necessary party defendant to the foreclosure proceedings. 735 ILCS 5/15-1501(a)(i) (West 2004); Lane v. Erskine, 13 Ill. 501, 503-04 (1851) (mortgagor is an indispensable party in a foreclosure action). As such, the proceeding must be brought against a named party and a foreclosure action must be a quasi in rem action. R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem §72, at 99 (1882) ("It should ever be borne in mind that there are no personal defendants to proceedings in rem").
Moreover, in foreclosure actions, the property is not the instrumentality of the wrong, nor is it responsible for the plaintiff's injury. The mortgagor is the instrumentality of the wrong. It was he or she who breached the contract by defaulting on the note secured by the mortgage. The foreclosure action is based on the note, the vehicle which gives the plaintiff the legal right to proceed against the property. The object of the foreclosure action is to enforce the obligation created by that contract, through the property, but against a specific person. Lohmeyer, 213 Ill. at 501 ("The object is to reach and dispose of property, but the proceeding is for the enforcement of an obligation ex contractu against a specific person").
Likewise, because the mortgagor is a necessary party in a foreclosure action, it is necessarily true that there must be personal service on the mortgagor, i.e., "citation" to him or her. Rockwell v. Jones, 21 Ill. 279, 285 (1859) (defendant to scire facias proceeding to foreclose mortgage must be given notice of proceeding). In in rem actions, personal service is not required on any person, not even the owner. R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem §64, at 88 (1882) ("No personal citation is served upon the owner of the thing seized, even when he is known"). In in rem actions, there is public citation to the world. Freeman, 119 U.S. at 187, 30 L. Ed. at 373, 7 S. Ct. at 166. This distinction also supports the conclusion that a foreclosure proceeding is quasi in rem.
Further, contrary to the appellate court's finding, a mortgage foreclosure proceeding does not bind the whole world. Case law, dating to at least 1863, demonstrates this fact. Ohling v. Luitjens, 32 Ill. 23, 30-31 (1863) (foreclosure decree null and void against owner of equity of redemption because not made a party). See also Gregory v. Suburban Realty Co., 292 Ill. 568 (1920) (senior mortgagee not bound by junior mortgagee foreclosure); Rose v. Walk, 149 Ill. 60 (1894) (junior mortgagee not bound by foreclosure where not a party to the action); Kepley v. Jansen, 107 Ill. 79 (1883) (nonparty owner of equity of redemption not bound by foreclosure decree); Cutter v. Jones, 52 Ill. 84 (1869) (nonparty owner of equity of redemption not bound by foreclosure decree); React Financial v. Long, 366 Ill. App. 3d 231 (2006) (junior mortgagee not bound by senior mortgagee foreclosure if not made a party); Applegate Apartments Ltd. Partnership v. Commercial Coin Laundry Systems, 276 Ill. App. 3d 433 (1995) (tenant in possession); Baldi v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 113 Ill. App. 3d 29 (1983) (junior mortgagee not bound by senior mortgagee foreclosure if not made a party); Silverstein v. Schak, 107 Ill. App. 3d 641 (1982) (tenant in possession).
The Mortgage Foreclosure Law, too, makes clear that the entire world is not bound by a foreclosure judgment. It states: "The court may proceed to adjudicate their respective interests, but any disposition of the mortgaged real estate shall be subject to (i) the interests of all other persons not made a party or (ii) interests in the mortgaged real estate not otherwise barred or terminated in the foreclosure." 725 ILCS 5/15-1501(a) (West 2004).
In reaching a conclusion that a foreclosure proceeding is an in rem action, the appellate court below relied on Financial Freedom v. Kirgis, 377 Ill. App. 3d 107 (2007). In Financial Freedom, the mortgagee filed a foreclosure action against the deceased mortgagor and her son. The defendant/son argued that the action was barred because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the suit was filed against a deceased person and (2) the case was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations period set forth in section 18-12 of the Probate Act as incorporated by section 13-209. Financial Freedom, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 109. The circuit court concluded that it did not lack subject matter jurisdiction since the foreclosure proceeding was an in rem action. Financial Freedom, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 121. The circuit court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and ordered a foreclosure. Financial Freedom, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 119-20. The appellate court affirmed, relying on statements made by this court that a foreclosure proceeding is in rem in Waughop and Marcus.
We are not persuaded by Financial Freedom. As noted above, Waughop and Marcus did not engage in any analysis in reaching the conclusion that foreclosures were in rem actions. We have found, however, that the nature of a foreclosure proceeding mandates our conclusion that foreclosure actions are quasi in rem proceedings. Accordingly, we reject Financial Freedom, and to the extent that decision and any statements in our prior cases are contrary to our holding here, they are hereby overruled.
In sum, we hold that, based on the well-settled principles distinguishing in rem and quasi in rem actions and the requirements of the Mortgage Foreclosure Law, a foreclosure proceeding is a quasi in rem action. Accordingly, we reverse the appellate court's judgment and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Appellate court judgment reversed; circuit court judgment affirmed.
Gotta Love Those David Stern Smackdowns!
David Stern SMACKDOWN- 4th DCA Appellate Court Reversal of Summary Judgment of Foreclosure!
Posted on June 10, 2010 by Neil Garfield
Somebody get me the full text of this opinion
David Stern SMACKDOWN
4th DCA Appellate Court Reversal
of Summary Judgment of Foreclosure!
June 10, 2010
Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
My thanks to the superstars at Ice Legal in West Palm for sharing the latest good decision out of the 4th DCA which covers Broward County, West Palm and other counties on the East Coast of Florida.
Read this opinion carefully, it is yet another repudiation of the summary judgment of foreclosure procedures widely being used in courtrooms across the state.
This opinion and others should make it absolutely clear that circuit courts cannot grant summary judgment when any objection is made whatsoever. It’s not up for the defendant to prover her case at summary judgment, only to put into question the Plaintiff’s case. At that point, summary judgment is no longer on the table for Plaintiffs.
As a practical matter, I don’t see how they proceed with final judgments and the high evidentiary burdens a real trial would create.
Posted on June 10, 2010 by Neil Garfield
Somebody get me the full text of this opinion
David Stern SMACKDOWN
4th DCA Appellate Court Reversal
of Summary Judgment of Foreclosure!
June 10, 2010
Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
My thanks to the superstars at Ice Legal in West Palm for sharing the latest good decision out of the 4th DCA which covers Broward County, West Palm and other counties on the East Coast of Florida.
Read this opinion carefully, it is yet another repudiation of the summary judgment of foreclosure procedures widely being used in courtrooms across the state.
This opinion and others should make it absolutely clear that circuit courts cannot grant summary judgment when any objection is made whatsoever. It’s not up for the defendant to prover her case at summary judgment, only to put into question the Plaintiff’s case. At that point, summary judgment is no longer on the table for Plaintiffs.
As a practical matter, I don’t see how they proceed with final judgments and the high evidentiary burdens a real trial would create.
HOMES FOR CASH! HOMES FOR CASH! HOMES FOR CASH! WELLS FARGO BANK, NA JUST REFUSES TO GIVE UP THE LIQUIDITY THAT CASHING IN THEIR HOMEOWNER CHIPS BRINGS
MORE HOMEOWNERS TURN
TO MEDIATION...
AS STARVING WELLS FARGO
RACES AGAINST THEIR OWN
TO WIN
HOMES FOR CASH
JUST AS FAST AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN.
RISE, FALL AND REBOUND? : Charts show the housing industry's boom and bust this decade and forecast the possible course of its recovery the next three years.
MORTGAGE RATES
National overnight averages Today +/-
30 yr fixed mtg 4.82%
15 yr fixed mtg 4.26%
5/1 ARM 3.82%
$30K home equity loan 7.48%
$30K HELOC 5.08%
By Jeff Schweers, USA TODAY
PORT ST. JOHN, Fla. — When Mark Weeks was laid off from his $90,000-a-year construction job 2½ years ago,he vowed to hang onto his family's house here, where he'd lived with his wife, their three children and two dogs for the last six years.
But his new job as a safety officer for a Cocoa, Fla., crane rental company barely paid a third of what he used to make, and he wound up unable to pay his mortgage. At first, he tried, unsuccessfully, to get mortgage-holder Wells Fargo to defer or lower his payments.
Wells Fargo filed foreclosure proceedings in December, when Weeks was six months behind on his payments. Weeks hired a lawyer to fight it and move the case to a court-appointed mediator — which he sees as the best last hope for getting Wells Fargo to agree to lower his monthly payments.
All foreclosures on primary residences in Florida automatically go to mediation."We just want them to work with us because we can't make it right now," Weeks said. "We weren't asking them to give us a home for free."
Teri Schrettenbrunner, head of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Communication, said the bank is committed to helping homeowners facing true financial hardship stay in their homes they can afford (the proof is in the pudding, Teri), but, as is the case with all lending institutions, it has to honor the terms of its contract with the investors. "We are bound by the contracts we have with ... whoever owns the loan on the back end to do what they find acceptable in modification," Schrettenbrunner said. (Blah, blah, blah.)
Kelly's Note: Forgive me Teri, I know you've got a job to do. But excuse me while I gag. I really can't stand all the lies. Over and over again, when taken to task (most often in Court) Wells Fargo admits their mortgage loans are owned NOT BY INVESTORS but by mortgage backed securities which in turn are backed by a list of "loans" which may or may not exist, and which certainly have at least in part been paid in whole or in part through insurance, credit default swaps and federal bailout.
There is so much fraud in this industry it is unbelievable.
1. Look at your Promissory Note.
The name of the lender on your CURRENT Note must match the name of the lender on your CURRENT Mortgage or Deed of Trust or Assignment of Mortgage or Assignment of Deed of Trust for the current mortgage or deed of trust to be an enforceable document. If they do not match, the Promissory Note is null and void.
2. Look at your Mortgage or Deed of Trust.
The name of the lender on your CURRENT Mortgage or Deed of Trust must match the name of the lender on your CURRENT Promissory Note for the current mortgage or deed of trust to be an enforceable document. If they do not match, the Promissory Note is null and void.
3. Look at your Notice of Default. Is the date on the notice before the date of default?
4. Look at your Promissory Note Assignment. Is the date it was assigned after the date it was sold?
5. Look at your Mortgage or Deed of Trust Assignment. Is the date it was assigned after the date it was sold?
As a matter of law, the right to foreclose goes away when the promissory note is “split” from the mortgage or the deed of trust that it is supposed to secure.
A pattern with Wells Fargo is they tell you they can't modify your loan because the investor won't allow it BEFORE YOU TAKE THEM TO COURT. ONCE IN COURT, they make the representation that they are the holder of the note and the investor, which is a blatant lie in most cases. Then AFTER they get the order they want, they admit that through “inadvertence” they misrepresented the facts to the court. Then they say it is not a material misrepresentation and they produce some additional fabricated documents like a limited power of attorney which upon close reading grants nothing to anyone, is subject to many conditions that are not readily determinable and is signed by party of dubious authority and dated under questionable circumstances, if the document existed before why didn’t they use it?
IF WELLS FARGO CAN'T MODIFY YOUR LOAN, WELLS FARGO CAN'T FORECLOSE UPON YOUR LOAN. If they do not own your note, they are only the "Servicer" of your mortgage. Your servicer CAN NOT FORECLOSE!! Wells Fargo MUST own your note to foreclose upon your loan. And if they own your note, they can modify your loan. END OF STORY.
DO NOT GIVE WELLS FARGO ONE SINGLE CENT WITHOUT THEM GIVING YOU A CONTRACT, OR AT THE VERY MINIMUM A SIGNED LETTER (NOT AN E-MAIL) ON THEIR LETTERHEAD, OUTLINING THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.
I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN WELLS FARGO DO MODIFICATIONS IN 30 MINUTES. IT DOES NOT TAKE THEM 30 DAYS. THAT IS COMPLETE CRAZINESS. IF WELLS FARGO WANTS TO DO A MODIFICATION THEY WILL DO IT. IF THEY WANT TO SQUEEZE EVERY LIVING PENNY OUT OF A DESPERTATE HOMEOWNER THEY WILL DO IT.
DO NOT BE A DESPERATE HOMEOWNER.
Millions of working and middle-class homeowners are facing a similar predicament. An estimated 10% of all home loans are delinquent by 60 days or more, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported this month.In Florida and Nevada, two of the states where the housing crisis has hit hardest, the rate was over 20%, the MBA said.
Court-ordered mediation may be the best last option for thousands of homeowners in the foreclosure pipeline, as programs targeting the estimated 6 million delinquent home loans have been slow to put a dent in the crisis.
"Foreclosure mediations hold out the hope of removing major obstacles that have hindered efforts to slow the spread of the foreclosure epidemic," says Geoff Walsh, a staff attorney specializing in housing, foreclosure and bankruptcy issues for the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) in Washington, D.C.
The Home Affordable Modification Program, President Obama's $75 billion initiative to prevent foreclosures begun last March, has granted 300,000 permanent modifications through April, according to the program's latest report, released May 17. The report also estimates 3.275 million delinquent loans are eligible for the program.
In addition, HOPE NOW, an alliance of 38 private lenders started in 2007, reported in April that 2.9 million permanent home loan modifications had been offered since the program began.
While foreclosure starts dropped 5% in the past year, the number of home loans that were delinquent by 60 days or more increased 40%, from 2.85 million to 3.99 million, says Faith Schwartz, executive director at HOPE NOW.
The biggest hurdle to getting a loan modified has been getting the loan servicer or lender to actually sit down and negotiate with the homeowner, says Sean DeVries, an Orlando-based loan workout specialist.
"There is no established path to get a good, sustainable modification," he says, noting that he went through nine fax numbers for a recent SunTrust client.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., introduced legislation in December that would require any lender receiving federal insurance to go into mediation. It has been assigned to a committee, but no further action has been taken.
Many states have already passed similar measures.
"It's been very mixed, because it depends on the way the state mediation program is set up," says Walsh.
NCLC looked at 12 new or pending state statutes, he says, and "The range is incredible." Some require nothing more than the servicer checking a box on a form that says they attempted to contact the borrower. Others require servicers to show on paper their calculations comparing what they'd lose by foreclosing on a house vs. modifying the loan, he says.
"That gives the homeowner the basis for challenging whether it's a reasonable foreclosure," he says.
According to a January NCLC report:
•The Nevada Assembly approved a mediation program that took effect July 1, allowing homeowners to request mediation on non-judicial foreclosures and appointing more than 150 mediators for the program. It requires the servicer to produce several documents, including evidence that it has the right to sue and documents showing how they calculated eligibility for a loan modification.
•Maine started a foreclosure diversion program in January, setting guidelines for scheduling sessions, granting stays of proceedings and determining good-faith participation. It also authorizes sanctions on the lenders if they don't follow the newly imposed rules, including dismissal of the lawsuit.
•The New York Legislature in November amended its mandatory settlement conference law "to include all foreclosures of loans secured by borrowers' residences."
It also requires the lender to bring documents to the conferences, including payment history and itemization of the amounts needed to catch up on and pay off the loan.
Florida is consistently in the top five states for foreclosure filings, with 350,000 a year. The Florida Supreme Court issued an administrative order in December requiring all its 20 circuit courts to adopt rules for mandatory mediation on all residential foreclosures, based on a task force's recommendations.
The 18th Circuit Court in Brevard County, Fla., made mediation mandatory in March 2009, before the state Supreme Court's order. In the ensuing 12 months, 59 of the 317 cases referred to mediation have reached a modified loan payment plan, said Ollie Lyons, the manager of the mediation program there.
"The main thing we've done is, people are able to sit down at the table and actually talk to other people," she said.
But it's stressful, she said. The state hasn't added money to the mediation programs, and there are not a lot of mediators for the overwhelming number of foreclosures, she said. "I am overwhelmed and burned out, like all mediation supervisors," Lyons said.
Eric Hammonds, a Fort Lauderdale attorney representing Weeks, said mediation forces the lenders to the table. "That's a good thing, because what happens in mediation (is) we get the actual contact person.
TO MEDIATION...
AS STARVING WELLS FARGO
RACES AGAINST THEIR OWN
TO WIN
HOMES FOR CASH
JUST AS FAST AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN.
RISE, FALL AND REBOUND? : Charts show the housing industry's boom and bust this decade and forecast the possible course of its recovery the next three years.
MORTGAGE RATES
National overnight averages Today +/-
30 yr fixed mtg 4.82%
15 yr fixed mtg 4.26%
5/1 ARM 3.82%
$30K home equity loan 7.48%
$30K HELOC 5.08%
By Jeff Schweers, USA TODAY
PORT ST. JOHN, Fla. — When Mark Weeks was laid off from his $90,000-a-year construction job 2½ years ago,he vowed to hang onto his family's house here, where he'd lived with his wife, their three children and two dogs for the last six years.
But his new job as a safety officer for a Cocoa, Fla., crane rental company barely paid a third of what he used to make, and he wound up unable to pay his mortgage. At first, he tried, unsuccessfully, to get mortgage-holder Wells Fargo to defer or lower his payments.
Wells Fargo filed foreclosure proceedings in December, when Weeks was six months behind on his payments. Weeks hired a lawyer to fight it and move the case to a court-appointed mediator — which he sees as the best last hope for getting Wells Fargo to agree to lower his monthly payments.
All foreclosures on primary residences in Florida automatically go to mediation."We just want them to work with us because we can't make it right now," Weeks said. "We weren't asking them to give us a home for free."
Teri Schrettenbrunner, head of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Communication, said the bank is committed to helping homeowners facing true financial hardship stay in their homes they can afford (the proof is in the pudding, Teri), but, as is the case with all lending institutions, it has to honor the terms of its contract with the investors. "We are bound by the contracts we have with ... whoever owns the loan on the back end to do what they find acceptable in modification," Schrettenbrunner said. (Blah, blah, blah.)
Kelly's Note: Forgive me Teri, I know you've got a job to do. But excuse me while I gag. I really can't stand all the lies. Over and over again, when taken to task (most often in Court) Wells Fargo admits their mortgage loans are owned NOT BY INVESTORS but by mortgage backed securities which in turn are backed by a list of "loans" which may or may not exist, and which certainly have at least in part been paid in whole or in part through insurance, credit default swaps and federal bailout.
There is so much fraud in this industry it is unbelievable.
1. Look at your Promissory Note.
The name of the lender on your CURRENT Note must match the name of the lender on your CURRENT Mortgage or Deed of Trust or Assignment of Mortgage or Assignment of Deed of Trust for the current mortgage or deed of trust to be an enforceable document. If they do not match, the Promissory Note is null and void.
2. Look at your Mortgage or Deed of Trust.
The name of the lender on your CURRENT Mortgage or Deed of Trust must match the name of the lender on your CURRENT Promissory Note for the current mortgage or deed of trust to be an enforceable document. If they do not match, the Promissory Note is null and void.
3. Look at your Notice of Default. Is the date on the notice before the date of default?
4. Look at your Promissory Note Assignment. Is the date it was assigned after the date it was sold?
5. Look at your Mortgage or Deed of Trust Assignment. Is the date it was assigned after the date it was sold?
As a matter of law, the right to foreclose goes away when the promissory note is “split” from the mortgage or the deed of trust that it is supposed to secure.
A pattern with Wells Fargo is they tell you they can't modify your loan because the investor won't allow it BEFORE YOU TAKE THEM TO COURT. ONCE IN COURT, they make the representation that they are the holder of the note and the investor, which is a blatant lie in most cases. Then AFTER they get the order they want, they admit that through “inadvertence” they misrepresented the facts to the court. Then they say it is not a material misrepresentation and they produce some additional fabricated documents like a limited power of attorney which upon close reading grants nothing to anyone, is subject to many conditions that are not readily determinable and is signed by party of dubious authority and dated under questionable circumstances, if the document existed before why didn’t they use it?
IF WELLS FARGO CAN'T MODIFY YOUR LOAN, WELLS FARGO CAN'T FORECLOSE UPON YOUR LOAN. If they do not own your note, they are only the "Servicer" of your mortgage. Your servicer CAN NOT FORECLOSE!! Wells Fargo MUST own your note to foreclose upon your loan. And if they own your note, they can modify your loan. END OF STORY.
DO NOT GIVE WELLS FARGO ONE SINGLE CENT WITHOUT THEM GIVING YOU A CONTRACT, OR AT THE VERY MINIMUM A SIGNED LETTER (NOT AN E-MAIL) ON THEIR LETTERHEAD, OUTLINING THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.
I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN WELLS FARGO DO MODIFICATIONS IN 30 MINUTES. IT DOES NOT TAKE THEM 30 DAYS. THAT IS COMPLETE CRAZINESS. IF WELLS FARGO WANTS TO DO A MODIFICATION THEY WILL DO IT. IF THEY WANT TO SQUEEZE EVERY LIVING PENNY OUT OF A DESPERTATE HOMEOWNER THEY WILL DO IT.
DO NOT BE A DESPERATE HOMEOWNER.
Millions of working and middle-class homeowners are facing a similar predicament. An estimated 10% of all home loans are delinquent by 60 days or more, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported this month.In Florida and Nevada, two of the states where the housing crisis has hit hardest, the rate was over 20%, the MBA said.
Court-ordered mediation may be the best last option for thousands of homeowners in the foreclosure pipeline, as programs targeting the estimated 6 million delinquent home loans have been slow to put a dent in the crisis.
"Foreclosure mediations hold out the hope of removing major obstacles that have hindered efforts to slow the spread of the foreclosure epidemic," says Geoff Walsh, a staff attorney specializing in housing, foreclosure and bankruptcy issues for the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) in Washington, D.C.
The Home Affordable Modification Program, President Obama's $75 billion initiative to prevent foreclosures begun last March, has granted 300,000 permanent modifications through April, according to the program's latest report, released May 17. The report also estimates 3.275 million delinquent loans are eligible for the program.
In addition, HOPE NOW, an alliance of 38 private lenders started in 2007, reported in April that 2.9 million permanent home loan modifications had been offered since the program began.
While foreclosure starts dropped 5% in the past year, the number of home loans that were delinquent by 60 days or more increased 40%, from 2.85 million to 3.99 million, says Faith Schwartz, executive director at HOPE NOW.
The biggest hurdle to getting a loan modified has been getting the loan servicer or lender to actually sit down and negotiate with the homeowner, says Sean DeVries, an Orlando-based loan workout specialist.
"There is no established path to get a good, sustainable modification," he says, noting that he went through nine fax numbers for a recent SunTrust client.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., introduced legislation in December that would require any lender receiving federal insurance to go into mediation. It has been assigned to a committee, but no further action has been taken.
Many states have already passed similar measures.
"It's been very mixed, because it depends on the way the state mediation program is set up," says Walsh.
NCLC looked at 12 new or pending state statutes, he says, and "The range is incredible." Some require nothing more than the servicer checking a box on a form that says they attempted to contact the borrower. Others require servicers to show on paper their calculations comparing what they'd lose by foreclosing on a house vs. modifying the loan, he says.
"That gives the homeowner the basis for challenging whether it's a reasonable foreclosure," he says.
According to a January NCLC report:
•The Nevada Assembly approved a mediation program that took effect July 1, allowing homeowners to request mediation on non-judicial foreclosures and appointing more than 150 mediators for the program. It requires the servicer to produce several documents, including evidence that it has the right to sue and documents showing how they calculated eligibility for a loan modification.
•Maine started a foreclosure diversion program in January, setting guidelines for scheduling sessions, granting stays of proceedings and determining good-faith participation. It also authorizes sanctions on the lenders if they don't follow the newly imposed rules, including dismissal of the lawsuit.
•The New York Legislature in November amended its mandatory settlement conference law "to include all foreclosures of loans secured by borrowers' residences."
It also requires the lender to bring documents to the conferences, including payment history and itemization of the amounts needed to catch up on and pay off the loan.
Florida is consistently in the top five states for foreclosure filings, with 350,000 a year. The Florida Supreme Court issued an administrative order in December requiring all its 20 circuit courts to adopt rules for mandatory mediation on all residential foreclosures, based on a task force's recommendations.
The 18th Circuit Court in Brevard County, Fla., made mediation mandatory in March 2009, before the state Supreme Court's order. In the ensuing 12 months, 59 of the 317 cases referred to mediation have reached a modified loan payment plan, said Ollie Lyons, the manager of the mediation program there.
"The main thing we've done is, people are able to sit down at the table and actually talk to other people," she said.
But it's stressful, she said. The state hasn't added money to the mediation programs, and there are not a lot of mediators for the overwhelming number of foreclosures, she said. "I am overwhelmed and burned out, like all mediation supervisors," Lyons said.
Eric Hammonds, a Fort Lauderdale attorney representing Weeks, said mediation forces the lenders to the table. "That's a good thing, because what happens in mediation (is) we get the actual contact person.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
HOMEOWNERS STOP, STOP, STOP GIVING WELLS FARGO YOUR MONEY!
IF YOU ARE STILL IN YOUR HOME NOW, YOU ARE IN MORE POWER TO KEEP IT. I SUGGEST YOU BEGIN PLANNING NOW ON HOW YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP IT. ASK YOURSELF "HOW DO I PLAN TO KEEP MY HOME WHEN WELLS FARGO BEGINS TO TAKE IT FROM ME?" THEN MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, YOU'LL BEAT THE ODDS.
YH
Victory Human Services
Case Worker
HOW MUCH MONEY DOES WELLS FARGO HAVE TO TAKE FROM YOU FOR YOU TO STOP BLINDLY GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY?
HOW MANY HOMES DO THEY HAVE TO STEAL BEFORE YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL GLADLY STEAL YOUR HOME?
IF YOU HAVE NEVER MISSED A PAYMENT, IF YOU HAVE PERFECT CREDIT, IF YOU HAVE NO EQUITY, NO DEBT, 100 ACRES, 2 SQUARE FEET, HAPPY NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD PAY TO BE RID OF YOU, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU'VE GOT, WELLS FARGO WILL TAKE IT FROM YOU.
WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE ME?
Hi YH,
I will advise you, and everyone dealing with Wells Fargo, do not pay Wells Fargo another dime UNTIL THEY FIRST GIVE YOU IN WRITING A CONFIRMATION LETTER THAT THEY WILL SAY WHAT THEY DO IF YOU PAY WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED YOU TO PAY.
Wells Fargo is bilking millions of homeowners out of their every last dime (and all of their relatives last dimes) with empty promises. HOMEOWNERS THEY HAVE INTENTIONS OF KEEPING ONLY YOUR MONEY -- NOT THEIR PROMISES.
I do not care how much money you give them, IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO KEEP A PROMISE TO YOU TO NOT TAKE YOUR HOME. They are greedy.
Please, please, demand they give you a CONTRACT, before you give them money.
My heart breaks for your family, all families, who are in your position. My prayers are with you. I suggest you contact the Wells Fargo contacts I've listed on the home page. Many homeowners have been helped, although not most, by the people listed there. I pray your home will be saved.
God Bless You,
Kelly L. Hansen
Please, please, demand they give you a CONTRACT, before you give them money.
My heart breaks for your family, all families, who are in your position. My prayers are with you. I suggest you contact the Wells Fargo contacts I've listed on the home page. Many homeowners have been helped, although not most, by the people listed there. I pray your home will be saved.
God Bless You,
Kelly L. Hansen
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
WOULD YOU LIKE A GREAT REASON TO STOP MAKING YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS?
JP Morgan: 8 people, 18,000 signed affidavits per month
Posted on June 8, 2010 by Neil Garfield
The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.
In a 35 hour workweek, 18,000 affidavits per month computes as 74.23 affidavits per JPM signor per hour and 1.23 per minute. Try that. See if you can review a file, verify the accounting, execute the affidavit and get it notarized in one minute. It isn’t possible. It can only be done with a system that incorporates automation, fabrication and forgery.
Editor’s Note: Besides the entertaining writing, there is a message here. And then a hidden message. The deponent is quoted as saying she has personal knowledge of what her fellow workers have as personal knowledge. That means the witness is NOT competent in ANY court of law to give testimony that is allowed to be received as evidence. Here is the kicker: None of these loans were originated by JPM. Most of them were the subject of complex transactions. The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.
In these transactions, even though the investors were the owners of the loan, the servicing and other rights were rights were transferred acquired from WAMU et al and then redistributed to still other entities. This was an exercise in obfuscation. By doing this, JPM was able to control the distribution of profits from third party payments on loan pools like insurance contracts, credit defaults swaps and other credit enhancements.
Having that control enabled JPM to avoid allocating such payments to the investors who put up the bad money and thus keep the good money for itself. You see, the Countrywide settlement with the FTC focuses on the pennies while billions of dollars are flying over head.
The simple refusal to allocate third party payments achieves the following:
Denial of any hope of repayment to the investors
Denial of any proper accounting for all receipts and disbursements that are allocable to each loan account
97% success rate in sustaining Claims of default that are fatally defective being both wrong and undocumented.
97% success rate on Claims for balances that don’t exist
97% success rate in getting a home in which JPM has no investment
(THE DEPONENT’S NAME IS COTRELL NOT CANTREL)
JPM: Cantrel deposiition reveals 18,000 affidavits signed per month
HEY, CHASE! YEAH, YOU… JPMORGAN CHASE! One of Your Customers Asked Me to Give You a Message…
Hi JPMorgan Chase People!
Thanks for taking a moment to read this… I promise to be brief, which is so unlike me… ask anyone.
My friend, Max Gardner, the famous bankruptcy attorney from North Carolina, sent me the excerpt from the deposition of one Beth Ann Cottrell, shown below. Don’t you just love the way he keeps up on stuff… always thinking of people like me who live to expose people like you? Apparently, she’s your team’s Operations Manager at Chase Home Finance, and she’s, obviously, quite a gal.
Just to make it interesting… and fun… I’m going to do my best to really paint a picture of the situation, so the reader can feel like he or she is there… in the picture at the time of the actual deposition of Ms. Cottrell… like it’s a John Grisham novel…
FADE IN:
SFX: Sound of creaking door opening, not to slowly… There’s a ceiling fan turning slowly…
It’s Monday morning, May 17th in this year of our Lord, two thousand and ten, and as we enter the courtroom, the plaintiff’s attorney, representing a Florida homeowner, is asking Beth Ann a few questions… We’re in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.
Deposition of Beth Ann Cottrell – Operations Manager of Chase Home Finance LLC
Q. So if you did not review any books or records or electronic records before signing this affidavit of payments default, how is it that you had personal knowledge of all of the matters stated in this sworn document?
A. Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge. That is how our process works.
Q. So, when signing an affidavit, you stated you have personal knowledge of the matters contained therein of Chase’s business records yet you never looked at the data bases or anything else that would contain those records; is that correct?
A. That is correct. I rely on my staff to do that part.
Q. And can you tell me in a given week how many of these affidavits you might sing?
A. Amongst all the management on my team we sign about 18,000 a month.
Q. And how many folks are on what you call the management?
A. Let’s see, eight.
And… SCENE.
Isn’t that just irresistibly cute? The way she sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way she’s answering the questions? It’s really quite marvelous. Truth be told, although I hadn’t realized it prior to reading Beth Ann’s deposition transcript, I had never actually seen obtuse before.
In fact, if Beth’s response that follows with in a movie… well, this is the kind of stuff that wins Oscars for screenwriting. I may never forget it. She actually said:
“Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge. That is how our process works.”
No you didn’t.
Isn’t she just fabulous? Does she live in a situation comedy on ABC or something?
ANYWAY… BACK TO WHY I ASKED YOU JPMORGAN CHASE PEOPLE OVER…
Well, I know a homeowner who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona… lovely couple… wouldn’t want to embarrass them by using their real names, so I’ll just refer to them as the Campbell’s.
So, just the other evening Mr. Campbell calls me to say hello, and to tell me that he and his wife decided to strategically default on their mortgage. Have you heard about this… this strategic default thing that’s become so hip this past year?
It’s when a homeowner who could probably pay the mortgage payment, decides that watching any further incompetence on the part of the government and the banks, along with more home equity, is just more than he or she can bear. They called you guys at Chase about a hundred times to talk to you about modifying their loan, but you know how you guys are, so nothing went anywhere.
Then one day someone sent Mr. Campbell a link to an article on my blog, and I happened to be going on about the topic of strategic default. So… funny story… they had been thinking about strategically defaulting anyway and wouldn’t you know it… after reading my column, they decided to go ahead and commence defaulting strategically.
So, after about 30 years as a homeowner, and making plenty of money to handle the mortgage payment, he and his wife stop making their mortgage payment… they toast the decision with champagne.
You see, they owe $865,000 on their home, which was just appraised at $310,000, and interestingly enough, also from reading my column, they came to understand the fact that they hadn’t done anything to cause this situation, nothing at all. It was the banks that caused this mess, and now they were expecting homeowners like he and his wife, to pick up the tab. So, they finally said… no, no thank you.
Luckily, she’s not on the loan, so she already went out and bought their new place, right across the street from the old one, as it turns out, and they figure they’ve got at least a year to move, since they plan to do everything possible to delay you guys from foreclosing. They’re my heroes…
Okay, so here’s the message I promised I’d pass on to as many JPMorgan Chase people as possible… so, Mr. Campbell calls me one evening, and tells me he’s sorry to bother… knows I’m busy… I tell him it’s no problem and ask how he’s been holding up…
He says just fine, and he sounds truly happy… strategic defaulters are always happy, in fact they’re the only happy people that ever call me… everyone else is about to pop cyanide pills, or pop a cap in Jamie Dimon’s ass… one or the other… okay, sorry… I’m getting to my message…
He tells me, “Martin, we just wanted to tell you that we stopped making our payments, and couldn’t be happier. Like a giant burden has been lifted.”
I said, “Glad to hear it, you sound great!”
And he said, “I just wanted to call you because Chase called me this evening, and I wanted to know if you could pass a message along to them on your blog.”
I said, “Sure thing, what would you like me to tell them?”
He said, “Well, like I was saying, we stopped making our payments as of April…”
“Right…” I said.
“So, Chase called me this evening after dinner.”
“Yes…” I replied.
He went on… “The woman said: Mr. Campbell, we haven’t received your last payment. So, I said… OH YES YOU HAVE!”
Hey, JPMorgan Chase People… LMAO. Keep up the great work over there.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
CALL TO ACTION- GET ME BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS
Posted on June 8, 2010 by Neil Garfield
The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.
In a 35 hour workweek, 18,000 affidavits per month computes as 74.23 affidavits per JPM signor per hour and 1.23 per minute. Try that. See if you can review a file, verify the accounting, execute the affidavit and get it notarized in one minute. It isn’t possible. It can only be done with a system that incorporates automation, fabrication and forgery.
Editor’s Note: Besides the entertaining writing, there is a message here. And then a hidden message. The deponent is quoted as saying she has personal knowledge of what her fellow workers have as personal knowledge. That means the witness is NOT competent in ANY court of law to give testimony that is allowed to be received as evidence. Here is the kicker: None of these loans were originated by JPM. Most of them were the subject of complex transactions. The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.
In these transactions, even though the investors were the owners of the loan, the servicing and other rights were rights were transferred acquired from WAMU et al and then redistributed to still other entities. This was an exercise in obfuscation. By doing this, JPM was able to control the distribution of profits from third party payments on loan pools like insurance contracts, credit defaults swaps and other credit enhancements.
Having that control enabled JPM to avoid allocating such payments to the investors who put up the bad money and thus keep the good money for itself. You see, the Countrywide settlement with the FTC focuses on the pennies while billions of dollars are flying over head.
The simple refusal to allocate third party payments achieves the following:
Denial of any hope of repayment to the investors
Denial of any proper accounting for all receipts and disbursements that are allocable to each loan account
97% success rate in sustaining Claims of default that are fatally defective being both wrong and undocumented.
97% success rate on Claims for balances that don’t exist
97% success rate in getting a home in which JPM has no investment
(THE DEPONENT’S NAME IS COTRELL NOT CANTREL)
JPM: Cantrel deposiition reveals 18,000 affidavits signed per month
HEY, CHASE! YEAH, YOU… JPMORGAN CHASE! One of Your Customers Asked Me to Give You a Message…
Hi JPMorgan Chase People!
Thanks for taking a moment to read this… I promise to be brief, which is so unlike me… ask anyone.
My friend, Max Gardner, the famous bankruptcy attorney from North Carolina, sent me the excerpt from the deposition of one Beth Ann Cottrell, shown below. Don’t you just love the way he keeps up on stuff… always thinking of people like me who live to expose people like you? Apparently, she’s your team’s Operations Manager at Chase Home Finance, and she’s, obviously, quite a gal.
Just to make it interesting… and fun… I’m going to do my best to really paint a picture of the situation, so the reader can feel like he or she is there… in the picture at the time of the actual deposition of Ms. Cottrell… like it’s a John Grisham novel…
FADE IN:
SFX: Sound of creaking door opening, not to slowly… There’s a ceiling fan turning slowly…
It’s Monday morning, May 17th in this year of our Lord, two thousand and ten, and as we enter the courtroom, the plaintiff’s attorney, representing a Florida homeowner, is asking Beth Ann a few questions… We’re in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.
Deposition of Beth Ann Cottrell – Operations Manager of Chase Home Finance LLC
Q. So if you did not review any books or records or electronic records before signing this affidavit of payments default, how is it that you had personal knowledge of all of the matters stated in this sworn document?
A. Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge. That is how our process works.
Q. So, when signing an affidavit, you stated you have personal knowledge of the matters contained therein of Chase’s business records yet you never looked at the data bases or anything else that would contain those records; is that correct?
A. That is correct. I rely on my staff to do that part.
Q. And can you tell me in a given week how many of these affidavits you might sing?
A. Amongst all the management on my team we sign about 18,000 a month.
Q. And how many folks are on what you call the management?
A. Let’s see, eight.
And… SCENE.
Isn’t that just irresistibly cute? The way she sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way she’s answering the questions? It’s really quite marvelous. Truth be told, although I hadn’t realized it prior to reading Beth Ann’s deposition transcript, I had never actually seen obtuse before.
In fact, if Beth’s response that follows with in a movie… well, this is the kind of stuff that wins Oscars for screenwriting. I may never forget it. She actually said:
“Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge. That is how our process works.”
No you didn’t.
Isn’t she just fabulous? Does she live in a situation comedy on ABC or something?
ANYWAY… BACK TO WHY I ASKED YOU JPMORGAN CHASE PEOPLE OVER…
Well, I know a homeowner who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona… lovely couple… wouldn’t want to embarrass them by using their real names, so I’ll just refer to them as the Campbell’s.
So, just the other evening Mr. Campbell calls me to say hello, and to tell me that he and his wife decided to strategically default on their mortgage. Have you heard about this… this strategic default thing that’s become so hip this past year?
It’s when a homeowner who could probably pay the mortgage payment, decides that watching any further incompetence on the part of the government and the banks, along with more home equity, is just more than he or she can bear. They called you guys at Chase about a hundred times to talk to you about modifying their loan, but you know how you guys are, so nothing went anywhere.
Then one day someone sent Mr. Campbell a link to an article on my blog, and I happened to be going on about the topic of strategic default. So… funny story… they had been thinking about strategically defaulting anyway and wouldn’t you know it… after reading my column, they decided to go ahead and commence defaulting strategically.
So, after about 30 years as a homeowner, and making plenty of money to handle the mortgage payment, he and his wife stop making their mortgage payment… they toast the decision with champagne.
You see, they owe $865,000 on their home, which was just appraised at $310,000, and interestingly enough, also from reading my column, they came to understand the fact that they hadn’t done anything to cause this situation, nothing at all. It was the banks that caused this mess, and now they were expecting homeowners like he and his wife, to pick up the tab. So, they finally said… no, no thank you.
Luckily, she’s not on the loan, so she already went out and bought their new place, right across the street from the old one, as it turns out, and they figure they’ve got at least a year to move, since they plan to do everything possible to delay you guys from foreclosing. They’re my heroes…
Okay, so here’s the message I promised I’d pass on to as many JPMorgan Chase people as possible… so, Mr. Campbell calls me one evening, and tells me he’s sorry to bother… knows I’m busy… I tell him it’s no problem and ask how he’s been holding up…
He says just fine, and he sounds truly happy… strategic defaulters are always happy, in fact they’re the only happy people that ever call me… everyone else is about to pop cyanide pills, or pop a cap in Jamie Dimon’s ass… one or the other… okay, sorry… I’m getting to my message…
He tells me, “Martin, we just wanted to tell you that we stopped making our payments, and couldn’t be happier. Like a giant burden has been lifted.”
I said, “Glad to hear it, you sound great!”
And he said, “I just wanted to call you because Chase called me this evening, and I wanted to know if you could pass a message along to them on your blog.”
I said, “Sure thing, what would you like me to tell them?”
He said, “Well, like I was saying, we stopped making our payments as of April…”
“Right…” I said.
“So, Chase called me this evening after dinner.”
“Yes…” I replied.
He went on… “The woman said: Mr. Campbell, we haven’t received your last payment. So, I said… OH YES YOU HAVE!”
Hey, JPMorgan Chase People… LMAO. Keep up the great work over there.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
CALL TO ACTION- GET ME BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Post Sale List (PDF File)
May 5, 2010 ... Purchaser Address: 3815 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT, ... ABS. Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-HE2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series .... MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-NCW Mortgage Pass-Through ...
elpasopublictrustee.com/Temp/WeeklyReports/20100505%20P...
SEC Info - GE Commercial Mortgage Corporation/Series 2007-C1 Trust ...
Periodic Distribution Report by an Asset-Backed Issuer · Form 10-D ... Mortgage Corporation Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-C1 ..... 16 228792616.33 5.79 106 5.7403 1.302506 Utah 2 7137714.29 0.18 104 5.7450 ...
www.secinfo.com/d1Z7kr.u4Z3.htm
Post Sale List (PDF File)
Dec 5, 2007 ... December 05, 2007. El Paso County Public Trustee makes no representation or warranties about the ..... 3815 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 84115-4412 ... MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-7 ...
elpasopublictrustee.com/Temp/WeeklyReports/20071205%20P...
GMAC Bank in Midvale, Utah (UT), PA - Detailed Financial Reports ...
Asset Concentration Hierarchy: Consumer Lending Specialization .... Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Aggregated Statistics For Year 2007 ...
www.faqs.org/banks/GMAC-Bank-57803-Midvale-Utah.html
SEC Info - Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C34 ...
Dec 26, 2007 ... Periodic Distribution Report by an Asset-Backed Issuer · Form 10-D ... Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-C34 For ..... 268413742.20 18.15 93 5.9052 1.451868 Utah 2 8877777.35 0.60 118 6.7509 ...
www.secinfo.com/d1Z7kr.u416.htm
Mortgage performance. | Goliath Business News
"Seriously Delinquent" (SD) is defined as active mortgage loans that are 90 or more .... New York 3.5 14 Utah 3.4 14 Colorado 3.4 14 Minnesota 3.4 15 Massachusetts 3.3 ... data sourced from the First American LoanPerformance MBS/ ABS databases, ... indexes: Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).(Vit..., May 01, 2007 ...
goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6643689/Mortgage-perfo...
Post Sale List (PDF File)
Feb 27, 2008 ... Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-7. Purchaser Address: ... Certificate of Purchase to: HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. Purchaser Address: ... 3815 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT, 841154412 ...
co.adams.co.us/ptforeclosuresearch/Temp/WeeklyReports/W...
Mortgage Guidelines,Rules and Regulations - Abvisory Board
She is a member of the Utah Mortgage Lenders Association (UMLA) and served as co-chair and chair for the UMLA Education Committee during 2006 and 2007. ... with Fannie Mae eventually ending up in their Mortgage Backed Securities team helping to ... thru CloseMore University Seminar Series and LoanOfficerSchool.com, ...
www.mortgagecurrentcy.com/advisory_board.php
SEC NEWS DIGEST Issue 2004-191 October 4 - US Securities and ...
Oct 4, 2004 ... Applicants propose to engage, through September 30, 2007, ..... Horizon ABS Notes Series 2004-H DE 9.01 09/25/04 FIRST HORIZON ASSET SEC MORT PAS .... Stanley ABS Capital I Inc CDC DE 8.01,9.01 09/27/04 MORTGAGE ASSET SEC .... INC DE 8.01,9.01 09/30/04 UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC UT 3.03 09/30/04 V I ...
www.sec.gov/news/digest/dig100404.txt
May 5, 2010 ... Purchaser Address: 3815 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT, ... ABS. Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-HE2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series .... MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-NCW Mortgage Pass-Through ...
elpasopublictrustee.com/Temp/WeeklyReports/20100505%20P...
SEC Info - GE Commercial Mortgage Corporation/Series 2007-C1 Trust ...
Periodic Distribution Report by an Asset-Backed Issuer · Form 10-D ... Mortgage Corporation Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-C1 ..... 16 228792616.33 5.79 106 5.7403 1.302506 Utah 2 7137714.29 0.18 104 5.7450 ...
www.secinfo.com/d1Z7kr.u4Z3.htm
Post Sale List (PDF File)
Dec 5, 2007 ... December 05, 2007. El Paso County Public Trustee makes no representation or warranties about the ..... 3815 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 84115-4412 ... MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-7 ...
elpasopublictrustee.com/Temp/WeeklyReports/20071205%20P...
GMAC Bank in Midvale, Utah (UT), PA - Detailed Financial Reports ...
Asset Concentration Hierarchy: Consumer Lending Specialization .... Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Aggregated Statistics For Year 2007 ...
www.faqs.org/banks/GMAC-Bank-57803-Midvale-Utah.html
SEC Info - Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C34 ...
Dec 26, 2007 ... Periodic Distribution Report by an Asset-Backed Issuer · Form 10-D ... Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-C34 For ..... 268413742.20 18.15 93 5.9052 1.451868 Utah 2 8877777.35 0.60 118 6.7509 ...
www.secinfo.com/d1Z7kr.u416.htm
Mortgage performance. | Goliath Business News
"Seriously Delinquent" (SD) is defined as active mortgage loans that are 90 or more .... New York 3.5 14 Utah 3.4 14 Colorado 3.4 14 Minnesota 3.4 15 Massachusetts 3.3 ... data sourced from the First American LoanPerformance MBS/ ABS databases, ... indexes: Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).(Vit..., May 01, 2007 ...
goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6643689/Mortgage-perfo...
Post Sale List (PDF File)
Feb 27, 2008 ... Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-7. Purchaser Address: ... Certificate of Purchase to: HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. Purchaser Address: ... 3815 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT, 841154412 ...
co.adams.co.us/ptforeclosuresearch/Temp/WeeklyReports/W...
Mortgage Guidelines,Rules and Regulations - Abvisory Board
She is a member of the Utah Mortgage Lenders Association (UMLA) and served as co-chair and chair for the UMLA Education Committee during 2006 and 2007. ... with Fannie Mae eventually ending up in their Mortgage Backed Securities team helping to ... thru CloseMore University Seminar Series and LoanOfficerSchool.com, ...
www.mortgagecurrentcy.com/advisory_board.php
SEC NEWS DIGEST Issue 2004-191 October 4 - US Securities and ...
Oct 4, 2004 ... Applicants propose to engage, through September 30, 2007, ..... Horizon ABS Notes Series 2004-H DE 9.01 09/25/04 FIRST HORIZON ASSET SEC MORT PAS .... Stanley ABS Capital I Inc CDC DE 8.01,9.01 09/27/04 MORTGAGE ASSET SEC .... INC DE 8.01,9.01 09/30/04 UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC UT 3.03 09/30/04 V I ...
www.sec.gov/news/digest/dig100404.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)