Wells Fargo Assignment to Deutsche Bank violation CC 1095, attorney in fact violation.

Via: b.daviesmd6605

The assignment Wells Fargo did for Deutsche Bank. Note on the assignment it says, ” Wells Fargo N.A. Attorney-in-fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation” — this violated California Civil Code 1095. It is suppose to say, “New Century Mortgage Corporation, by Wells Fargo N.A. as Attorney In Fact”

California Civil Code says Civil Code Section 1095 says, ” “When an attorney in fact executes an instrument transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact.”
There is a case, Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (1967), which says that if this is not followed exactly, the transfer is void. And obviously the judge agreed (thank goodness).

They don’t have a power of attorney to go with this assignment either! In discovery they gave us one that was done three months after the assignment; and six months after the NOD.

Davies v. NDEX WEST LLC, Uamc-uamcc Demurrers to first amended complaint- moot since Second Amended was filed

This is moot however, this is the response most lenders will file for a foreclosure complaint. Well written and good law firm. The Demurrer was helpful for filing a nearly new Second Amended Complaint. This was not heard due to the filing of the second complaint prior to the hearing date. there are cases as addendum which will be filed separately.

Davies v. Ndex West Llc, Plaintiff Notice to Court–refusal to Comply With Discovery

Plaintiff is having difficulty in acquiring any documents with the discovery process. There is a Evidence Hearing on 4-26-10. Notice refers to attached letter from Defedants counsel.

Lets make this one FAMOUS!

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

One of the reasons homeowners have such a fear of being sued by their bank for a deficiency judgment after facing foreclosure is that nearly any lawyer they contact will bring up this possibility. Some attorneys may even use the threat of further litigation after foreclosure as a reason to file bankruptcy prematurely or otherwise pressure borrowers into retaining legal counsel throughout the process of disposing of the home. Lawyers, though, have a vested interest in keeping clients in fear of litigation, even for such a rare case as deficiency judgments.

Many in the real estate market are aware of the fact that banks rarely, if ever, sue former homeowners after a house has been lost to foreclosure. It is simply not in the bank’s financial interests to hire local attorneys to pursue another lawsuit in the courts and obtain a judgment when it was unable to collect on the initial foreclosure judgment except by selling the underlying asset, the real estate. Lenders know that it may be difficult even to locate the borrowers after a foreclosure in order to serve them properly with the lawsuit. As well, it will be even more difficult to collect the potentially tens of thousands of dollars owed from families who just lost their largest (and sometimes only) asset and who have no respectable credit score to maintain.

But none of this common sense matters when real estate or bankruptcy attorneys are threatening foreclosure victims with the potential of such a judgment and the possibility of having their wages garnished, retirement accounts seized, or similar implausible scenarios. It would seem that this is little more than fearmongering, lawyers attempting to wring a retainer fee out of homeowners or push them into paying a filing fee for bankruptcy. But there are a number of reasons that homeowners are threatened with a deficiency judgment every time they speak with a legal professional regarding foreclosure.

Obviously, in states where deficiency judgments are allowed, there is the possibility of the bank suing homeowners to obtain one. If lawyers did not mention the possibility, and the mortgage company then sued after foreclosure, the homeowners may feel they had been improperly advised. Thus, lawyers should mention any possibility of litigation relating to the foreclosure matter at hand, including future lawsuits even after the house has been auctioned off. From the lawyer’s perspective, past behavior is no indicator of future actions, and just because few banks have ever brought this lawsuit to court in the past does not mean financial firms will never use the law to go after former homeowners for even more money.

Homeowners , though, should evaluate the potential of being sued under such a case and not be afraid to ask their lawyers how many deficiency judgments they have had direct experience with and under what circumstances they occurred. A couple of such cases in decades of practice is a strong indication that banks may still be avoiding such lawsuits against former clients. Also, if the only homeowners the attorney is aware of who were sued after a foreclosure had clearly engaged in mortgage fraud or had substantial liquid assets they bank was aware of, and the current borrowers do not fit into such categories, then the fear of a deficiency may be unfounded.

There is little debate that America is now a society paranoid about being sued and knows that there is always the potential for a frivolous lawsuit by anyone against anyone else, and that the more resources one party has the more likely that party is to win. It should be no surprise that the legal profession is filled with some of the most unhappy people in the working world. Everyone fears a group of people who spend most of their time parsing words and phrases, looking for the simplest reasons to hang others on such legalese.

In foreclosure cases, in the best case a small local bank with tens of millions of dollars is suing a homeowner with little; in the worst case a multinational corporation with over a trillion dollars in assets is suing a homeowner with little. The deck is always stacked in favor of the mortgage companies in such instances in terms of financial resources and time available to go litigating for years. Unless homeowners wish to go down fighting on their own, there may be little money with which to mount their own legal defense with legal assistance.

Attorneys often find themselves in a difficult position in terms of discussing the real possibility of litigation with clients. Although the potential to be sued in any given situation is often quite minuscule, lawyers live in a world where everyone is always trying to get an advantage over everyone else and no one can solve a problem without the fine print and a judge to interpret it. To such eyes, the possibility of a deficiency judgment is a real one and one worth losing sleep over, just because the law is on the books allowing banks to go after former homeowners. Under the circumstances, it is borrowers who need to look a little closer and analyze the reality of the situation with some common sense and from the bank’s perspective; i.e., why would the lender sue a homeowner again after foreclosure?

Source: irslawyertaxattorney

SEC Inspector General to Launch Investigation on Timing of GOLDMAN SACHS Charges…

 

E-mails show Goldman boasting as meltdown unfolds

By DAN STRUMPF, AP

NEW YORK — E-mails released by a Senate committee investigating the financial crisis show top executives at Goldman Sachs Inc. boasting about money the firm was making as the housing market collapsed in 2007.

The documents suggest that Goldman benefited at least for a time from bets that subprime mortgage-backed securities would lose value. The e-mails appear to contradict previous statements by the investment bank that it lost money on such securities.

“Of course we didn’t dodge the mortgage mess,” CEO Lloyd Blankfein wrote in an e-mail dated Nov. 18, 2007, according to the documents released Saturday morning. “We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts.”

Short positions, in contrast to long positions, are bets that a financial security will lose value. Goldman is also the target of a civil fraud lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which alleges that the firm misled investors about how a subprime mortgage-backed security was created. Goldman has denied the charges.

The e-mails were released by Sen. Carl Levin’s office, who is presiding over an investigation into the financial crisis. Blankfein, along with other Goldman personnel, are scheduled to testify during a Senate hearing into the crisis on Tuesday.

In another e-mail, Goldman Chief Financial Officer David Viniar says that in one day the firm made more than $50 million on bets that the housing market would collapse, according to a statement from Levin’s office.

“Tells you what might be happening to people who don’t have the big short,” Viniar writes in the message dated July 25, 2007. Viniar is also scheduled to testify on Tuesday.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

DOCS-4u ISO employees with min. 4 years of Creative Resources

Docs-4u ISO back room clerical Vice President with minimum of 4 years of Creative Resource experience.

GA, MN, TX,FL and DC are a plus.

Must know photoshop 12.0 and commercial art! Be able to create any virtually any mortgage docs requested.

Please see tutorial video below: