July 26, 2018

This month, FDN celebrates ten consecutive years of representing homeowners nationwide who are fighting foreclosure. The attorneys in our network continue to work tirelessly and diligently to challenge foreclosures in more than 35 states at the trial and appellate levels in both state and Federal courts, and will continue to do so especially as we have been advised from many sources that another 2008 mortgage debacle is on the horizon.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com


July 26, 2018

Today, during a deposition of the designated representative of the Bank of New York as Trustee for a Countrywide CWMBS securitization, the representative (who is an attorney and employee of the servicer Shellpoint) admitted under oath that MERS is not the true beneficiary of a Deed of Trust (DOT) despite claiming to do so, as the Beneficiary is the lender and MERS is not and was never the lender. The representative also admitted that the Substitution of Trustee filed by a law Firm and signed by Shellpoint (as a dba of New Penn Financial) contained a false statement that the Note was payable to MERS. The representative further admitted that two letters sent to the homeowner which stated that the loan was owned by a CWALT Trust were also incorrect.

As those of you who follow this website know, the Supreme Courts of Oregon, Washington, and Montana issued opinions that MERS is not the beneficiary of a DOT despite claiming to be so, and the Washington case even permitted MERS to be sued for misrepresenting that it is the beneficiary. Today’s testimony is in line with these decisions. As MERS is not the beneficiary, it cannot act as such for purposes of executing Assignments of Deeds of Trust or Substitutions of Trustee in non-judicial foreclosure cases.

The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. of W.J. Barnes, P.A. Mr. Barnes took the deposition of the representative this afternoon in Nashville, TN.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com


July 24, 2018

In just the last few weeks, we have seen more and more instances of unethical “bank” lawyers engaging in unprofessional and fraudulent conduct and actions designed to frustrate the homeowners’ defense of foreclosure actions. Of particular note:

(a)  In a case in Oregon where Mr. Barnes’ Firm represents the homeowners, the “bank” claimed for years that the original Note was lost, and confirmed this through a Lost Note Affidavit from a prior servicer and sworn deposition testimony of the “bank’s” representative. Three days before the trial, counsel for the “bank” advised that all of the sudden, the “original” Note had been located, but did not send a copy to the homeowners’ attorneys until the day before trial was to begin. The Court continued the trial, but the “bank’s” attorney has not yet provided the names of all persons who were involved in the miraculous discovery of the Note 72 hours before trial nor have they advised of the circumstances of the discovery,

(b)  In a case in New Mexico where Mr. Barnes’ Firm represents the Plaintiff homeowner, one of the attorneys in a fraud case who represents one of the Defendants is a material witness in the case as he signed Quitclaim Deeds in connection with the alleged fraud. His counsel agreed that he and his Firm must thus be disqualified from representing the Defendant client. He agreed in writing to have his deposition taken on August 22, but just now filed a “Motion for Protective Order” claiming that the deposition date was never discussed or agreed to. The New Mexico rules of professional conduct provide for the assessment of sanctions against attorneys who make frivolous claims. The homeowner will be seeking such sanctions.

(c)  In a case pending in New Jersey where the homeowners have retained Mr. Barnes’ Firm and his local NJ counsel, an Answer to the foreclosure Complaint was filed months ago and copied to counsel for the “Bank”. Notwithstanding this, the law Firm representing the “Bank” has just moved for a default judgment against the homeowners. Despite the homeowners’ local counsel bringing this error to the attention of the “bank’s” attorneys; they refused to withdraw their Motion and are seeking the entry of a foreclosure judgment without either a Motion for Summary Judgment being filed or a trial.

These are just a few examples of the kind of incredibly arrogant and dishonest conduct being engaged in by law Firms representing “banks” and servicers. It is time that the Courts begin assessing severe and punitive sanctions against these wrongdoers, who apparently have no respect for the rules of professional conduct.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com



July 17, 2018

Moments ago, a Colorado District Court Judge entered an Order cancelling a Trustee’s (foreclosure) sale which was scheduled for tomorrow morning (July 18) in Douglas County, Colorado. The foreclosing party is Deutsche Bank as claimed Trustee of an American Home Mortgage securitization trust which closed in 2006. It is public knowledge that AHM filed for Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in 2007 which proceeding remains active to this day.

The case involves issues as to a MERS Assignment of the Deed of Trust and Deutsche Bank’s alleged legal ability to seek enforcement of the Note (issued in favor of the bankrupt American Brokers Conduit, which was a subsidiary of the bankrupt AHM).

The homeowners, who have lived in their home for over 18 years, are represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. of W.J. Barnes, P.A. The homeowners were given less than 7 days’ notice of the sale of their home. Mr. Barnes filed a new action with supporting papers including an Emergency Motion for a TRO last Friday. The matter was assigned to the Judge yesterday, who just entered the TRO minutes before this post with a detailed ruling citing case law and factually that the homeowners had satisfied all of the necessary elements, both procedural and substantive, to be entitled to a TRO.

The matter now proceeds into discovery and the conversion of the TRO into a preliminary injunction so that no sale can occur while the matter is being litigated.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com