PORTLAND, OREGON JUDGE DENIES WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY’S MOTION TO DISMISS HOMEOWNERS DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNTERCLAIM RELATED TO UNILATERAL MODIFICATION OF MORTGAGE LOAN

July 21, 2017

This afternoon, a Multnomah County (Portland) Oregon Judge denied a Motion to Dismiss the homeowners’ Counterclaim (to a judicial foreclosure action) for Declaratory Relief in connection with what the homeowners have claimed to be an illegal unilateral modification of a mortgage loan contract by the downline alleged “successor” to the Note and Deed of Trust. The homeowners are represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. together with local Oregon counsel Elizabeth Lemoine, Esq. As those of you who historically follow this website may be aware, Mr. Barnes and Mrs. Lemoine were the attorneys who prevailed n the Niday v. GMAC case in both the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Oregon, which decisions established that MERS is not the beneficiary of a Deed of Trust despite claiming to be so.

The foreclosing Plaintiff is an entity which styles itself Wilmington Savings Fund Society as the (alleged) “trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust. The case involves a defunct original lender and multiple “Allonges” which are undated and unauthenticated.

The homeowners have alleged that as a result of the loan being securitized that numerous rights were lost which was not disclosed to the homeowners notwithstanding the “your loan may be sold” language in the mortgage loan documents, which the homeowners have contended is an incomplete and misleading disclosure. The homeowners have also taken the position that Wilmington’s “sale” of the loan to an unregulated commercial investment entity with the concomitant loss of rights and protections afforded to residential mortgage loans issued by Federally-regulated mortgage lenders resulted in the unilateral modification of the mortgage loan contract . As in all states, unilateral modification of contracts, without consent and any required additional consideration for the modification, is illegal.

Mr. Barnes is advancing this claim in several states, including Oregon, Florida, New York, and Tennessee. There is currently no case law on the issues or as to this particular claim, so the issues are not precluded by any existing law and are ripe for advancement.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

FDN TO GIVE FREE FORECLOSURE SEMINAR IN NEW YORK OFFICE ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 18, 2017

July 17, 2017

FDN’s New York foreclosure defense team will be giving a free, 90-minute seminar on Friday, August 18, 2017 at 745 5th Avenue, 5th Floor, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and holding an open Q&A from 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. following the seminar. Written materials will be provided to all who register in advance.

Advance registration is required so that we may secure the proper number of seats and packages of written materials for distribution at the seminar.You may register by contacting William Younghans via e-mail at Willyounghans@gmail.com, or Mr. Barnes’ office by e-mailing to Tiffany@wjbarneslaw.com.

There is no fee for registration or attendance. The seminar is open to homeowners and paralegals. We will have more information as August 18 approaches.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

EVICTION REVERSED IN COLORADO; COUNTY COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED

July 7, 2017

A Colorado County Court Judge has granted the homeowner’s motions for reconsideration and to transfer an eviction case from County Court to the District Court to be consolidated with an action which was filed before the eviction case was filed. Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowners. Mr. Barnes had filed an independent action under CRCP 60(b) seeking the vacatur of an Order dismissing the homeowners’ previously filed challenge to the foreclosure. The 60(b) action was pending in the District Court when the foreclosing party filed an “FED” (forcible entry and detainer, a/k/a eviction) action in County Court, as the County Court generally has jurisdiction over FED actions.

Mr. Barnes argued at the FED trial that the County Court had no jurisdiction to proceed given that the homeowners had raised defenses to the foreclosing party’s claim of title to the property, which issues are outside of the County Court’s jurisdiction. The Judge who conducted the trial disagreed and proceeded, but advised that a Motion for Reconsideration would be reviewed if filed.

Although there is no requirement to file a Motion to Transfer an FED case to the District Court under this procedural situation, Mr. Barnes filed such a Motion and a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial Judge’s decision to proceed with the FED action. The presiding Judge in the FED action granted both of Mr. Barnes’ Motions, finding that the County Court had no jurisdiction to continue with the FED trial (which was held on June 28, 2017), and transferred the FED action to the District Court to be consolidated with the previously filed District Court case.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com