First Yvanova, Now Hernandez—Courts Warming Up to Homeowner Arguments

California homeowner advocate Sherry Hernandez is feeling great these days about her efforts to fight her wrongful foreclosure by Penny Mac (i.e., PNMAC). “I’m trying to enjoy my time because I know that it’s not going to be easy going ahead, but I’m just trying to bask in the moment for now,” Hernandez said.

LRM-Sherry Hernandez

Sherry Hernandez and her husband Fred.

And Hernandez has every reason to be excited, because in a very fortuitous and unexpected turn of events, her now three-year-old lawsuit against Penny Mac (née Countrywide) has suddenly gone from lost cause to cause for celebration. Indeed, just a few short weeks ago, the California Supreme Court overturned an appeals court’s December 2015 decision against Hernandez, and the appeals court in turn vacated its own decision against Hernandez and remanded the case back to the trial court, a move which not only gives Hernandez a more level playing field in the trial court this time around, but also places a few more arrows in her quiver that the court wouldn’t let her use in her first battle with the banks. To make a long story short, Hernandez v. PNMAC was the unstoppable force that met the immovable object of the typically bank-friendly courts and the immovable object…moved.

But this motion of the immovable object did not happen overnight, nor did it happen in a vacuum. David Seal–a Southern California litigation attorney who handles wrongful foreclosure cases and appeals–represented Hernandez in the appeals court and wrote her Petition for Review to the Supreme Court, and he summarized the history of Hernandez’s case thusly:

“In the trial court, she lost on a demurrer to the second amended complaint and no leave to amend was granted, so she filed an appeal. Her opening brief she did in pro per, then she hired me for the reply brief. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, meaning they didn’t grant us any relief, but they did include a footnote to the effect that one of the issues in Sherry’s case was identical to the Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage case which hadn’t been ruled on yet.

And as history well tell, Yvanova turned out favorable for the homeowners and it disapproved of a lot of the case authority that the court of appeal had cited in ruling against us. Because of that, our Petition for Review was granted at the Supreme Court level and they ordered the court of appeal’s decision vacated and sent it back to the court of appeal for a rehearing and for proceedings consistent with the Yvanova decision. I think it was actually the first of the Yvanova-related cases which did that. In fact, it was sent back before Yvanova was. I don’t even think the court of appeals issued its new ruling on Yvanova. But it’s already issued one on ours.

So we got sent back to the court of appeals. There was another round of briefing, another round of oral argument and frankly Penny Mac’s attorney just argued a lot of redundant things. She was arguing as if Yvanova was never decided. She tried to argue, you know, turn the clock back. And then she tried to argue that Sherry wasn’t the borrower, which didn’t go over well. The opinion pretty much speaks for itself as to the merit of their argument—they lost. And so the decision is going to be final in a few days and it’ll be sent back to the trial court where they’re going to give Sherry leave to amend to plead a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure in accordance with the court’s ruling from last month.”

And what a beautiful ruling it is.  A sample quote: “…our reading of the operative complaint along with the additional facts [Hernandez] now represents she can plead establishes a reasonable possibility [Hernandez] can go beyond mere allegations and present a specific wrongful foreclosure theory on which she intends to rely.”  Such language leaves no doubt that the game has changed, which understandably pleases Hernandez to no end as she explained:

“You know why I love our ruling so much? Because I knew there were issues with the declaration by Rita Garcia [NOTE: a PennyMac employee] and with the allonge. But I had not brought it up at the trial level. I simply said that the documents from the bankruptcy weren’t correct. But I didn’t bring up the issues.

And when that judge sat there and he read off exactly what I knew was wrong with it–there were no dates, no proof that they had transferred it to anybody, no loan numbers—I was sitting there with my jaw dropped. I said, ‘Is he really saying that? I wish he would put it in the opinion,’ because I didn’t even think they would put it in the opinion, and they did! Wow!”

The satisfaction and sense of victory that Hernandez is currently feeling is made all the sweeter by the stark contrast between those emotions and the depths of the defeat, hopelessness, and frustration that Hernandez has endured since her fight against Penny Mac began.   Hernandez laid out the nature of the problems she has faced throughout this ordeal:

“We have been characterized as ‘deadbeats’ as we have had to sit back, unable to mount our replies and show our evidence.  It makes us crazy to hear PennyMac accuse us of having done something irresponsible and wrong when they are filing false documents into the County Recorder’s Office and using them as true.  Attorneys for the lenders and servicers take seminars on how to cheat homeowners, meanwhile, we are forced to go into court armed only with the truth of our own case, our knees knocking and hands shaking as we try to get heard.

More significant than a homeowner ‘getting a free home’ is the blatant theft by these servicers, especially PennyMac, a corporation born out of the ashes of Countrywide and allowed to prosper from their former fraudulent acts.  Ironically, we settled with our previous lender Countrywide due to their predatory lending practices. Now we face off against their illegitimate offspring, PennyMac.  These former Countrywide executives prosper in spite of Countrywide having been labeled the primary corporation responsible for the economic recession, and they make million dollar salaries while we–who have done nothing wrong–lose our home, our savings and our retirement benefits and plans.”

 

LRM-Sherry Hernandez house cropped

The Hernandez home in Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

The Hernandez case is clearly an important one as it is among the first post-Yvanova cases that will test the application of Yvanova‘s authority and possibly spearhead a revolution in the handling of wrongful foreclosure cases in which questionable—if not outright fraudulent—assignments typically play a starring role (LRM published an article on the significance of Yvanova here). Seal put it like this:

“I think it’s correct that there’s been a sea change in at least the appellate caselaw, and certainly the Supreme Court caselaw. And Yvanova was a huge victory that came about bit by bit. It’s very interesting seeing that the different courts don’t know what to do with it yet. And some are in denial.

The court has said, ‘You have to look at the prejudice rule and the tender rule differently now’ and has overruled the authority which was used to justify the way things have been done for a long time, frankly. And when you think about it, it’s monumental for California but it also affects, of course, federal cases in California because they’re applying California substantive law, so those are affected.

And other states are going to follow suit and really, the concept in Yvanova–as plain and logical and obvious as it seems to you and I—is a new thing for the world of Western finance, not just in California but in the whole world. I mean, Australia, England—they all do things much the same way. So it’s a very significant decision.”

Indeed, it’s fair to say that as far as the banks and their attempts to legitimize their foreclosure rampage are concerned, the times they are a-changin’ (in California, at least).  They may change even more if and when the appeals court’s recent reversal of its decision in Hernandez v. PNMAC is published by the appeals court, in which case it could be cited as precedent, and therefore more useful to homeowners and their attorneys in wrongful foreclosure cases.  Seal had this to say on the matter:

“We are seeking publication of Hernandez v. PNMAC for the reason that it expands on Yvanova, taking it outside the fact pattern of ‘late adding of a loan to a securitized trust,’ which is what makes this case so important. There are homeowners out there who have loans where there are bad assignments for various reasons, but no published decisions (yet) which deal with that issue. In Sherry’s case, at one point there was actually a different lender claiming ownership of the loan as well, a fact not pleaded by former counsel but one which could be important when she gets back to the trial court.”

About eggsistense

Writer, musician, cartoonist, human being
This entry was posted in Foreclosure, Foreclosure fraud, Securitization Fail and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to First Yvanova, Now Hernandez—Courts Warming Up to Homeowner Arguments

  1. Regrettably, Ms. Hernandez has false hope. Just like Yvanova, all the court is saying is that her case shouldn’t have been killed by demurrer. And just like Yvanova, she will lose at trial because she breached the contract by failing to make timely payments, and agreed the bank could have the house.

    She will spend a ton of money and still lose her home: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/mortgage-fraud-examiners-warns-beware-of-the-latest-foreclosure-rescue-scam-foreclosure-stall-attorneys-676697.htm

    • eggsistense says:

      From your link: “Homeowners need to understand a promissory note; mortgage/deed of trust is a contract—Period! Foreclosure defenders should be identifying contract breaches, errors, setoffs, statutory/regulatory violations, fraudulent appraisals, and other fraudulent conduct, which cause most mortgages to be legally problematic. In most cases the homeowner has over a ninety percent chance or better of having something viable that puts them in the proverbial driver’s seat. Most often the demonstration of a strong cause of action will lead the bank to ask for a settlement. If not, a lawsuit could result in getting the house free and clear, and/or money for the foreclosure victim, plus fees and costs for the attorney. See, WV Judge Grants Homeowner Damages.” This is all well and good, but saying that Hernandez and others similarly situated are deluded by false hope is not helpful. I think you might be missing the point a little bit–it is not insignificant that the appeals court was forced to vacate its order against her at the behest of the Supreme Court. If that’s not cause for real hope, then nothing is. The trial court may try to not play along, but that remains to be seen. Given that both the Supreme Court and the appeals court have significantly changed their thinking, there is a much higher probability that the trial court will do the same.

      And as straightforward as your link suggests foreclosure defense ought to be–i.e., a simple matter of breach of contract–the courts don’t work like that, or haven’t in the vast majority of cases, when it comes to foreclosures. If we have learned nothing else from the foreclosure crisis, we have learned that the courts will bend the law and interpretations of the law in foreclosure cases in ways that would be all but inconceivable in any other type of case. Often, foreclosure cases are not even allowed to proceed to the discovery phase so that even if one could find a judge that might be sympathetic to a breach of contract defense or one of the other more mundane defenses mentioned in your link, chances are that the case will be ended on a demurrer/motion to dismiss before evidence of breach of contract can even be presented to the court.

    • Renoira says:

      You are wrong and have not read the case. I did not breach the contract nor fail to make timely payments. Are you trying to push your agenda again?

    • Renoira says:

      Storm, Obviously, you have not read the report or the opinion. You have an agenda…and have yet to offer any case law or examples to support your premise. Hernandez did NOT fail in making timely payments and she did not breach the contract. How is it that you feel qualified to read a single article and think you know about an entire case?

    • David Seal says:

      Storm Bradford is a name I have seen before, as I have a strange hobby of lampooning legal scam artists. If you want to know about him and his history of pseudo legal bloviating, do a search for him on the Fogbow forum. You’ll find him associated with a lot of real total losers who advocate questionable non-lawyer mortgage relief, with birtherism (i.e., the belief that Obama is from Keyna), and just about every other cesspool of bad thinking that persons who have too much time on their hands engage in.

      As for his prediction that Ms. Hernandez will “spend a ton of money and still lose her home”. She already lost her home. If he actually read the decision in Hernandez v. PNMAC, he would know that. But he didn’t, apparently. And as for “spending a ton of money” that isn’t something he would know about.

      The decision is potentially enormous for consumers in California. If it can get published, it would be the first citable case to apply Yvanova to a fact pattern outside of the “late addition of a loan to securitized trust fact pattern” which is the subject of Glaski, Yvanova and many other cases. And it would clarify the prejudice rule and the tender rule in wrongful foreclosure cases. As one who has handled these cases in actual courtrooms I can say those are significant hurdles and Hernandez’es case would (along with the Fourth District decision in Sciaratta) be very beneficial to consumers.

      But the world looks different when one actually knows what one is talking about.

      • eggsistense says:

        Thanks, David Seal!

      • David Seal says:

        Once again, Bradford claims to have won cases, when he isn’t an attorney. The most involvement you have is that you referred a case to an attorney, who did the real work. I will say this, from reading your stuff here. You seem to be able to write, and I actually think you might know the law fairly well, in a general sense. But one can’t be sure, as you are obfuscating what you do behind cheesy (and not very lawyer-like) slogans such as “attacking the mortgage” plus relying on anti-lawyer invective and your incorrect assumptions about my practice, to try to make your point. Of course, if you win a TILA case, you would get attorneys fees. Tell us the name of the case you won. I read about a supposed TILA victory that Bob Hurt attributed to you years ago, but strangely (or not) your name was not mentioned anywhere in the court’s opinion as counsel.

    • Pam Ragland says:

      Storm I have no clue who you are but I know one thing – you DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS OF SHERRY’s CASE!!! I have known Sherry many years, and I have read many of her case documents. When your notary is convicted of notary fraud – you have a case.

      I’m not sure if you are ignorant or a troll, but I am sure your opinion in your comment is an uneducated one from someone not actually familiar with the facts of Sherry’s case. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

      You know what they say – if you don’t have anything nice to say… Well… Just don’t.

      • Exactly my point, a win would be based on a possible tort or contract problems, not some stall argument.

      • David Seal says:

        Note in response to this, Storm Bradford claims this is “exactly his point” and that “a win would be possible on tort or contract” causes of action. A completely meaningless and disingenuous position. Bradford previously was arguing only breach of contract would work. Now he says both tort and contract claims. Hey Bradford, the whole case is about NOTHING BUT TORT AND CONTRACT CLAIMS. The appeal was successful because the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal agree should could state a TORT claim for wrongful foreclosure.

        As I am an expert in the cause of action for wrongful foreclosure under California law (as evidenced by this success, you really shouldn’t need more proof of that claim), you sound to me like a gigantic blowhard. You assume, wrongly, in your comments that we are trying to “stall a foreclosure” when the facts are this matter is post-foreclosure. You assume wrongly that by handling this appeal, I must’ve been peddling “forensic audits”. Never once have I suggested any client, ever, get a forensic audit. I also never once have suggested any client utilize any other supposedly magical non-lawyer foreclosure remedy, and that includes the b.s. that you and Mr. Bob Hurt are selling.

      • Where’s the beef, lyin Seal, haven’t seen you post a win yet.

        BTW, I never said that a breach of contract was the only remedy, I said foreclosures are breach of contract cases–big difference. I also provided press releases showing some of the problems that are identifiable in defeating foreclosure, which included tortious conduct, errors, set-offs, etc., etc.

        I can produce hundreds of cases that prove your arguments are worthless. Just reading the opinion from your case, its clear you don’t know foreclosure law, assignments of the DOT are irrelevant. Moreover, the court made it clear: “WE DO NOT HOLD PLAINTIFF NECESSARILY HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AGAINST PNMAC.”

        This is why people hate lawyers, because of pompous, self-aggrandizing asses like you, that think because they have a bar card they know it all, you’ve proven you know nothing about foreclosures, because you have never won!

        Moreover, to prove once again you have no clue, you stated: “And to think you just got done telling the world that homeowners who try to apply Jesinoski would get nothing but “an enormous legal bill.” Again, that’s not what I said. My statement was: “read the case and look at what the court expressed: “Plaintiffs claim over $800,000 in damages (namely, ATTORNEY FEES).” If you knew any law, you would know, If you win a TILA case, which we have, you get attorneys fees; not pay them.

        BTW, since you’ve never won a foreclosure case, how many tens of thousands have you ripped off your clients? Those poor homeowners really took it up the wazoo, didn’t they.

      • David Seal says:

        Oh, you want a win, here’s a newspaper article about my first jury trial, against a bank, represented by a huge law firm.http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/metro/20051218-9999-1m18jalal.html

        You made the erroneous assumption when you came here to post your crap that no one would call you on your lies and obfuscations, and that my practice is just like the practices of the lawyers you work with. Far from it. You made the assumption that you knew what Hernandez’es case was about, and didn’t bother to read the Opinion. You made a lot of bad assumptions.

      • Once again, you don’t pay attention, and then you say something that’s not true. You said I never read the Hernandez opinion, if I didn’t. how could I have quoted from it?

        Now, let’s get something straight, you attacked me first, I responded to your attack. If you want to have a civil discussion like I was having before you came in attacking, I’d be more than happy to do so. But, let me be clear once again. I didn’t ask you for ANY win, I asked you for a foreclosure win, which you can’t produce, because there are none, not from you, or anyone making these stall arguments! Why not just admit it, because I don’t like it when somebody tries to B.S. me.

        BTW, there have been more than a couple of dozen post Yvanova cases–losers, because these stall arguments, don’t cut it. Again, once you understand that a foreclosure is basically a breach of contract case, which is why most states are nonjudicial. Because the legislatures said what do we need to get the courts involved, when the homeowner confessed judgement. In judicial states, the bank comes in, shows the contract in the record, draws the judge’s attention to where the homeowner agreed that if they failed to make timely payments that the bank to take the house, and then show where he missed the payments–game over!

        BTW, you called me in one of your posts a “puppet-master,” that’s exactly what opposing counsel, prosecutors, and even some judges, call me. I engineer all cases I’m hired to consult in. I write all pleadings, discovery, motions, jury instructions. Tell them what questions to ask during voir dire, I write opening, closing, and tell them what to do and say during trial. So you tell me who won the cases.

        I can show you how to win foreclosure cases, but you have to forget all of the loser arguments.

    • David Seal says:

      Here is the problem with giving you a “win” in a foreclosure case – the cases settle. Out of the cases I’ve handled, they settle. And mine settle well. Often times on the courthouse steps, or even after the trial started. We’ll go all the way. In fact, it is easier to answer your question in reverse – as to any foreclosure case I’ve lost – there’s only one, and it is very recent, and subject to being appealed. A settlement is a win in this business. I will go to trial against the biggest defendant and the largest law firm, I don’t care who it is. But I won’t go to trial if there is not a good risk situation and there is fair compensation on the table for the client, all things considered. But after 21 years, no suits for “malpractice” yet, and a lot of happy clients, I don’t have much to prove.

      If you feel you’ve been unfairly maligned here, my apologies for that. But you come in here and saying that a monumental and very improbable win for Ms. Hernandez and for homeowners in general is nothing, even calling it a loss and a scam, and that kind of sets me off. It is untrue, inaccurate and frankly ridiculous. You probably were just doing it to promote your business, but your business can go promote itself without attacking my client or her case, which I am quite proud of.

      • Actually, in this business a “win” means financial compensation, and/or free title. Moreover, no banks settle based on these stall arguments–EVER. So, now that we’re clear on that, give me the courts and case #’s, where there was a settlement.

        Now, let’s forget about you for a minute, because you know and I know that you have NEVER settled a case making any of those stall arguments. I’ll make it extremely easy for you, just show me a case where anyone has won making anyone of the arguments you make. I think I’m being more than fair.

        Now, to answer the rest of your comment. Why do you insist on making statements that are factually incorrect. I never said that Hernandez was “a loss and a scam.” My original statement:
        “Regrettably, Ms. Hernandez has false hope. Just like Yvanova, all the court is saying is that her case shouldn’t have been killed by demurrer. And just like Yvanova, she will lose at trial because she breached the contract by failing to make timely payments, and agreed the bank could have the house.”

        Again, I’m more than willing to have conversation, but if you continue to make false statements I won’t waste anymore of my time. I’m here for one reason, and one reason only to make sure homeowners get the truth. I’m not one just to tell someone something. I back it up with case law. Stall arguments like you make are worthless; I’m not saying it the courts are!

        BTW, I don’t need to promote my business, we have more than we can handle; even though we don’t even advertise. All of our business comes by word of mouth, because our clients get financial compensation and free title.

    • David Seal says:

      Well, there you would be wrong, again. And none of my cases have ever been about “staling” a foreclosure. And yes they do settle. Many of the persons who read this already know of some of the cases, and so I need not bother with furthers on that. If you consider a suit for wrongful foreclosure seeking money damages to be a “stall argument” then once again you’ve shown a complete disconnect between fact and conclusion. At least you’re consistent!

      • You have yet provided proof of any win. I know you can’t, and you know you can’t. I’ve asked you repeatedly for proof, and you keep changing the subject. Where’s the beef?

    • David Seal says:

      So all of your clients get “free title” and “compensation”. Well, a sucker is born every minute. So you might find some takers! But I am not buying it, not for one minute.

      • eggsistense says:

        For real–if his tactic is so simple and straightforward, why isn’t everyone doing it? Why hasn’t everyone done it?

      • Because they don’t know how. Just as one attorney who has been practicing law for 45 years, who recently commented on our examination of his clients mortgage transaction said, that if you gave him or any other lawyer until the end of this millenium they’d never be able to identify all of the evidence that we provided.

        Would you know whether or not the USPAP guidelines were followed, NO! Or one of the possible dozens of of other problems with a mortgage transaction, NO!

      • David Seal says:

        Besides, my clients get free title, compensation, a tank of gas, a pony, world peace, and eternal enlightenment.

      • Because you repeatedly failed to provide evidence of wins by you, or by anyone else who make these ludicrous arguments that almost every court in the country laughs at; I will leave you and your dupes to your own demise. I’m not going to waste more of my time on someone who’s insulting, pompous & self-aggrandizing (I’m a lawyer, so I know more than you or anyone else) dishonest, and if they had any integrity at all would admit the truth they had no wins. I should contact your foreclosure clients and see how happy they would be to find out you committed malpractice due to your failure to exam their mortgage transaction (contract) because you didn’t know how. We did that with one attorney, but he retired before they could disbar him. There are literally thousands of you charlatans out there: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/07/18/19952/homeowners-say-foreclosure-firm-failed-them

        I wish Ms. Hernandez all of the luck in the world, but as the appellate court stated her “vague assertions are unsupported by REASONED ARGUMENT.” Hence, I don’t like her chances, because nobody wins making these specious arguments.

      • Never said all clients got free title and compensation. I said that homeowners who use our methodologies get Multimillion-Dollar awards, free titile, and every conceivable type of settlement well over 90% of the time.

        Again, where’s the cases?

  2. eggsistense says:

    Also, Hernandez has already lost her home, so that doesn’t even enter in the calculus of fighting on at this point. And that is what makes her so admirable–it’s not so much that she is trying to help herself so much as she is trying to make good law for everyone else. And that is in the process of happening, so she should be lauded, not derided as some sort of delusioned deadbeat.

  3. Only scammers and legal illiterates would see any significance of this case. Regrettably, just like Yvanova, all the court is saying is that her case should not have been killed by demurrer. And just like Yvanova, she will lose at trial because she breached the contract by failing to make timely payments, and agreed the bank could have the house. She will spend a ton of money and still lose her home.
    Take note, for purposes of determining who can enforce the note or foreclose the deed of trust, the assignments described by Hernandez are completely irrelevant. What is significant is not who holds an assignment of the deed of trust, but rather who has the right to enforce the note.
    The parties and the court seem to have completely missed the fact that THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE DEBT ISN’T DETERMINED BY ASSIGNMENTS OF THE DEED OF TRUST. To quote Yvanova, “The deed of trust, moreover, is inseparable from the note it secures, and follows it even without a separate assignment.” 62 C4th at 927. Thus, the deed of trust follows the note, not the other way around.
    Under Article 3, transfers of the right of enforcement of negotiable notes are accomplished not by a document assigning them, but by delivery of the original note itself. All the talk about void assignments is irrelevant because the deed of trust will follow the note, with or without an assignment. And it appears the court understood this: “WE DO NOT HOLD PLAINTIFF NECESSARILY HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AGAINST PNMAC.” Furthermore, the court did not take judicial notice of the Garcia affidavit admitted in the bankruptcy case wherein they lifted stay. At trial Garcia will appear to testify and Hernandez will lose!

    • David Seal says:

      Storm Bradford, who is not a California lawyer, tells us that a case which involves a successful Petition for Review at the California Supreme Court, followed by a successful re-hearing of an Appeal at the Second District Court of Appeal, would only have significance to “legal illiterates” and “scammers”. Well, Storm, what are you? You don’t have a California law license or bar card, do you? Why don’t you go back to running cheesy schemes with other former lawyers and non lawyers and bloviate on your blog? But you know what, sometimes criticism from a wackadoodle is a nice endorsement.

      • David Seal says:

        Here’s what a lawyer’s blog has to say about Bradford and his businesses:https://blog.simplejustice.us/2010/09/29/real-peril-of-virtual-lawyers/

        Bradford has a history of making outlandish claims. His other business is apparently called “virtual law partner” where he who has no law license claims he has “engineered” “hundreds” of acquittals in criminal cases. Given that the vast majority (approximately 95%) of criminal defendants plead guilty (or nolo, guilty’s equivalent), and the vast majority of trials result in guilty verdicts, he would have to literally have handled thousands upon thousands of criminal defense cases for this statement to even be true.

        Now what are the odds that, on thousands of thousands of occasions, skilled criminal defense lawyers said to themselves “I just don’t know if I can handle this case, i know what I’ll do, I’ll hire this unlicensed nut off the internet and have him handle this tough issue!” How many lawyers worth their salt would do that? And how likely would it be that He Who Has No License would have all the answers and that would lead to an acquittal? I smell exaggeration!

        His claims about foreclosure defense are similarly specious. His website disclaims that it is not a law firm. Yet it lists “results” of court cases which of course, his company had nothing to do with. He is particularly vague about what exactly he does. He and Bob Hurt claim you attack the mortgage, but what does that mean? In the world of actual legal concepts there is no such thing as attacking the mortgage so it really is some mundane, standard thing that every lawyer knows about, or it is something that has no basis in the law at all.

        It appears he is referring to analyzing loan origination fraud or the right to foreclose based on contractual language. But any competent foreclosure litigator would do that, already, in conjunction with many other things. Furthermore, that approach is nor a viable defense in most cases – there are often statute of limitations issues. Having worked both sides of the table in foreclosure litigation, I can say that lenders and servicers blow cases out right and left on statute of limitations defenses, when the plaintiff belatedly targets loan origination issues.

        Even in this thread, Bradford realized his position was untenable as he shifted it to now say that “tort AND contract” causes of action could succeed, even in Sherry Hernandez’es case. You’ve come a long way in a short time, Mr. Bradford! Keep it up and you’ll be agreeing with me about everything!

      • The hack that posted that article lied just like you do. He lost a case my 18 year-old son could have won, so I outed him like I outed you for being a charlatan. So, he made up lies and wild claims he couldn’t back up. He was a loser like you. The prosecutors up where he is, used to love to see him, because all he ever did for his clients was bleed them, and plead them guilty.

        Trust me, the lawyers I’ve trained will tell you that I’ve forgotten more law that you’ll ever learn.

        BTW, I checked you out, and couldn’t find one foreclosure case you’ve won. Moreover, the appellate court said your arguments were “vague assertions” and “unsupported by REASONED argument.” Exactly what I’ve been saying! Poor, poor Hernandez!

        I should start calling all of the other poor homeowners you ripped off, show them how to win, and sue you for disgorgement of fees, and/or malpractice.

  4. eggsistense says:

    You said: “Take note, for purposes of determining who can enforce the note or foreclose the deed of trust, the assignments described by Hernandez are completely irrelevant. ” No, they are extremely relevant because, as you correctly say, the assignment PURPORTS to give the right to foreclose to a party that would not have that purported right WITHOUT an assignment. And the reason they wouldn’t have that right is because of the reasons you correctly cite.

    In other words, you are correct in your assessment of the situation. But Hernandez/Yvanova are also correct, for the exact reasons you cite. That is because, in the Hernandez case, Citimortgage was the purported holder of the note, and according to your argument–with which I wholeheartedly agree–only Citimortgage could have the legal right to foreclose. However, PNMAC as servicer directed MERS to assign the DOT to PNMAC. You are correct, in a world where the law was actually followed, such an assignment should have no effect whatsoever because neither MERS nor PNMAC held the note.

    BUT–here’s the catch: assignments/transfers of NOTES are NOT recorded in the land records, but assignments of DOT ARE recorded. In non-judicial states like California, the recording offices operate under the assumption that assignments of DOT reflect the current owner/holder/PETE of the note, which would have been a safe assumption prior to the era of securitization. This faulty assumption allows the whole charade to proceed unchallenged, and since in a non-judicial state like Calfornia a court does not get involved if and until a homeowner sues, many wrongful foreclosures can be committed.

    And if and when a homeowner challenges such a situation, it makes perfect sense to attack these assignments because it is the most immediately clear way to show that shenanigans were perpetrated, i.e., that any assignment of DOT only CANNOT give a party the right to foreclose because such an assignment has no legal effect. For years, courts in California and most other states did not buy into this way of thinking despite it being completely obvious, rational, and in line with established law. And that’s the significance of Yvanova and now Hernandez–the highest court in the state has now acknowledged, if somewhat begrudgingly, that you are correct. As am I.

  5. eggsistense says:

    You also said: “What is significant is not who holds an assignment of the deed of trust, but rather who has the right to enforce the note.” Again, you are exactly right. But that is why the fraudulent assignments are so important and must be challenged–because the assignments are assumed by the recorders and then the courts as being prima facie evidence of ownership of the indebtedness/note even though they are obviously no such thing, as you correctly state. Plus, if you CAN demonstrate that the assignment was void, you can show that the foreclosure was illegal and undo it and/or receive damages. That’s why it’s not foolish at all to attack assignments.

  6. eggsistense says:

    One more thought: your idea of proving breach of contract by the bank strikes me as effectively the same thing as attacking the assignment of DOT as void. It’s basically a distinction without a difference, and trying to prove breach of contract seems to be taking the long way around when all you really have to do is say something like the following: “Your honor, the foreclosure was wrongful because 1) party A says the are the holder of the note, but 2) party B said it was assigned the DOT and then took the house. These two scenarios are mutually exclusive and the foreclosure should be undone and/or damages paid.” Simple.

  7. Firstly, I didn’t say breach of contract is the ONLY remedy, read the press release. Secondly, under the doctrine of equitable assignment, the assignment of a mortgage note is automatically followed by the DOT. In Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 275 (1872), the United States Supreme Court stated: “The transfer of the note carries with it the security, without any formal assignment or delivery, or even mention of the latter.” In the Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4(a) (1997) the doctrine of equitable assignment is explained: “A transfer of an obligation secured by a mortgage also transfers the mortgage unless the parties to the transfer agree otherwise.” Thirdly, The UCC comment to § 9-203(g) provides: “Subsection (g) codifies the common-law rule that a transfer of an obligation secured by a security interest or other lien on personal or real property also transfers the security interest or lien.” U.C.C. § 9-203 cmt. 9 (2000). Again, a deed of trust automatically transfers with the Note it secures—even without a separate assignment. (Civ. Code, § 2936; Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 927 [“The deed of trust, moreover, is inseparable from the note it secures, and follows it even without a separate assignment”].)

    This isn’t rocket science: THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE DEBT ISN’T DETERMINED BY ASSIGNMENTS OF THE DEED OF TRUST>

    All of the these arguments, “assignment,” “MERS,” “produce the note,” didn’t get into the trust in time,” ad nauseum, are “fool’s gold,” waste homeowners money, and the outcome is still the same–they lose their home!

    Attacking the contract is the ONLY methodology that works–PERIOD: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/homeowners-receiving-multimillion-dollar-awards-attacking-banks-using-the-loan-contract-678710.htm

    • David Seal says:

      Anyone who says that every case can be approached the same way is not a competent attorney. There are many other things that person might be, but they certainly aren’t a competent attorney. Enough said.

  8. eggsistense says:

    The only thing we disagree on is attacking the assignment vs. attacking breach of contract. I have written extensively here about the very issues you are raising, and I totally agree with you. All I’m saying is that there’s more than one way to skin a cat, and Yvanova and now Hernandez are proof of that, at least at the appellate level. It is–or should be–axiomatic that what holds at the appellate level holds at the trial court level. That remains to be seen, of course.

  9. All Yvanova and Hernandez prove is that the homeowner can get past the demurrer stage. The Court’s opinions only held that a borrower who has been foreclosed nonjudiciallly does not lack standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure, merely because he or she was in default on the loan.

    Unremarkably, neither Court held that the plaintiff had or could prove that the transfer to the successor entity in her case was void. The Courts never addressed whether the borrower had properly pleaded the substantive elements of wrongful foreclosure tort or any facts required to meet those elements. All they held was that a borrower whose home had been foreclosed can TRY to make the claim that the successor entity had no right to do so.

    Both Yvanova and Hernandez will both have spent tens of thousands of dollars, will eventually lose their homes, and end up paying the banks attorneys fees, which will also be in the tens of thousands; all because they made the wrong arguments–sad.

    Again, there is only one way to “skin a cat” dealing with foreclosure, and that’s attacking the mortgage transaction (contract); too bad they got bad legal advise. As proven by the fact nobody has ever won a foreclosure case arguing “securitization,” “assignment,” “MERS,” “produce the note,” didn’t get into the trust in time,” EVER! They’ve stalled foreclosures, but have never won one.

    Conversely, homeowners, as shown in the press release, win well over 95% of the time attacking the transaction.

    • Pam Ragland says:

      Storm – clearly you don’t understand Demurrers. Of course the court didn’t weigh the evidence because Sherry’s appeal was still at the pleading stage with a demurrer. The fact they were denied at the Demurrer stage shows the issues with our judicial system.

      I was denied at the MSJ stage and subsequently won a published appeal. My opinion refers to proving the evidence provided was true. That’s how appeals are looked at – the stage they are in. So get over that because your argument is irrelevant.

      You also cannot be a homeowner who has lost your home. If you were you would understand the desire and determination we have for justice.

      Lastly you are referring to a bunch of laws that don’t apply here. And I had a case that win based on basic contract law (though not like you are describing.) I sure pehope you have successful case law to back you up.

      • Pam, there are hundreds of cases proving that arguments other than contract and tort in foreclosure cases are useless. I’d be more than happy to provide them to you.

        BTW, I do understand and feel for homeowners, I talk it them on a daily basis. Most have already been scammed by some stall hack, or bought some worthless securitization audit.
        I Iisten to their horror stories, where they have spent tens of thousands on these useless arguments. This is why, you now see more and more articles about how homeowners are being ripped off by these stall hacks, and the courts are sanctioning them for wasting their time.

        Moreover, I predicted last fall that the banks would get tired of spending millions defending these stall lawsuits and would start asking for attorney fees, just in the last month I’ve seen about a dozen cases where the banks asked for their fees.

        We had one homeowner contact us, who Neil Garfield ( another liar who’s never won a case) rip him off for $35 grand got laughed out of the courtroom for making his stupid arguments and the bank was awarded tens of thousands in fees–this will happen to both Hernandez and Yvanova

      • Pam, the court in you own case made this pronouncement: “Applying basic contract and tort law, we reverse the judgment in favor of U.S. Bank.”

        Like I said previously, this isn’t rocket science. The only people that don’t agree with me are scammers!

        On a side note, are you the Pam Ragland of Thought Intuition fame. If you are, you know what it’s like being discredited by the so-called experts. Notwithstanding, the factt it is quite effective.

      • Benjamin Dayho says:

        Awww yeah Storm got his e-meter all up in this biznatch and he mean bidness. Hoo-wee. He’s gonna send some disembodied thetans to prove his self right. Just you watch!

  10. Renoira says:

    Storm Bradford, there is no possible way you can know the contents of the above lawsuit, unless you had an insider in the courtroom, or were consultant with the litigants, so all you have to offer here is conjecture and opinion based on your own agenda. You use bully tactics, sir, why would anyone be inclined to trust your obviously uninformed opinion?

  11. David Seal says:

    I suggest that Storm Bradford get a law degree, or if he has one, figure out how to pass a bar exam. I have on occasion consulted with persons to help them pass bar exams. Perhaps he needs my help. I’d have to charge him. Yep, I would definitely have to charge him.

  12. When you have a breach of contract case, which a foreclosure is, and some functional moron tells you that there are ways to win the foreclosure other than attacking the contract, when nobody ever has, is trying to scam you.

  13. David Seal says:

    A foreclosure is not by definition a breach of contract. By stating that as your premise, you lose. You also devalue entirely any opinion based on that premise. Thanks for playing, your reputation and known affiliations precede you.

  14. Mr. Seal, this is why you’ve NEVER won a foreclosure case, you don’t understand the basic rudiments of a foreclosure case. Prove me wrong, and show us all of your wins, I couldn’t find any. It appears, you are what this article is about:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/mortgage-scams_n_5438743.html?fb_action_ids=10201306553105918&fb_action_types=og.comments&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B623692317737979%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.comments%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

  15. David Seal says:

    If you want to know of a win, you don’t have to look very far as you are commenting on a blog post about one of them. The article makes no mention of me, nor does it have anything to do with me. I am a sole practice lawyer who handles a variety of cases. I just happen to be well versed in wrongful foreclosure law, which occasionally has an application that can be put to use for a client with a good case. I saw merit in Sherry Hernandez’es case, and a possibility for a successful appeal, which is why I took it. And succeeded. If this is your attempt at marketing your malarkey, there are undoubtedly enough stupid people out there to keep you in business. But I’ll keep doing what I’m doing, thank you very much.

    As I did with your co-hort Mr. Hurt, I’ll disengage and let you make a fool out of yourself solo from here on out.

    • Why am I not surprised by your answer. Every time I expose a scammer or hack to prove up, they wet the bed, just like you have.

      Stalling foreclosures are not wins! By your answer its clear you have never won any, so you obviously are not well versed in foreclosure law. Besides analyzing mortgage transactions for homeowners, we also expose scammers, legal illiterates, and hacks that have no clue–we have now exposed you as a stall attorney.

      BTW, if you call exposing stall arguments, such as yours, as marketing, or making a “fool” out of myself. I will continue to do so.
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/low-bar-lawyers-profit-off-090001826.html

  16. David Seal says:

    Oh brother. I don’t “stall foreclosures.” If you had any familiarity with the law you would know most cases settle. A settlement is considered a win in my business, which is the practice of law. Here you are criticizing that, when you have no license, no part in that business. You are a non lawyer, who pretends to know what happens in courts and trials. I have beaten the biggest of law firms and won trials against banks. If your inability to search leaves you unaware of that, then that is your problem, and not mine. I get incredible results for the few clients I take.

    Certainly, helping Sherry Hernandez was not about stalling a foreclosure. Her case had already lost in the trial court. Her attorney in trial court argued a bunch of pseudo legal crap that was trendy at the time, and it didn’t work. Fortunately she found a real lawyer at the appeal stage. If I hadn’t done the job, she would have no case whatsoever, she would be shut out of court and have no possibility of getting anything for her troubles, and no chance to re[plead her case. So, I am glad I took that case even if it motivated a psycho wing nut to post a bunch of lies about out of jealousy.

    • Stop your childish name calling; if you have any foreclosure cases you have won show them, or go away. You might be able to con some poor homeowner, I’ve seen your type before, all brag–no fact!

      BTW, I’ve had a litigation support company for almost forty years and been involved in over 750 criminal jury trials, and hundreds of civil jury trials, where we won millions, so trust me when I tell you, I have forgot more law then you will ever learn.

  17. David Seal says:

    So, you’ve hung around other lawyers who were successful, but you aren’t one. Maybe, maybe you went to law school. But you’re not a lawyer, anywhere. By definition, you do not process information like an attorney, nor do you likely even know what that means. To you, it is all bluster. But you’re not a lawyer. And if you think that winning a Petition for Review at the Supreme Court level, followed by an appeal which breaks new ground, is a “con” then you have an interesting way of looking at things. But hey, life is rough when you have to watch others do things for 40 years, getting no glory, shlubbing it out on the internet with a website and a few other wing nuts. I feel your pain, I feel it! And, congratulations on the legal support company, that sounds like a valuable and good contribution to society. I wish you luck in that arena, where you might do some good.

    • Actually, in every case the lawyers did exactly what I told them to do, that’s why we won.

      Your so-called win, which got your client nothing but a legal bill from you, is much ado about nothing and clearly hasn’t broken any “new ground.” Anyone who is learned in foreclosure defense knows this. You might have your client conned, but not us.

      BTW, you don’t actually think people believe that just because some nitwit has a bar card that makes them any smarter than any one else do you. I’ve heard a lot of arrogant, self-aggrandizing statements from attorneys over the years, but this one wins first prize.

      Now, stop trying to obfuscate the fact you’ve never won a foreclosure case. Leading people to believe you’ve won foreclosure cases when you haven’t is flat out fraud. So come on, where’s the proof. You’ve already proven you have no clue what a foreclosure action is, so at least prove you’re not a scammer as well.

  18. David Seal says:

    Ah, so I see, you are the great puppet-master without the law license. The lawyers who won those cases didn’t know shit. It was all you! You’re a superstar! And, I, who merely won a Supreme Court Petition for Review, am a complete failure. Nevermind that large law firms, like Severson and Werson, are including Hernandez v. PNMAC in their training materials, or that other homeowners lawyers have already inquired as to whether it is published or how they can cite it. In your world, it means nothing, precisely because it is so successful!

    I get it. Your world works differently than mine. Up is down and down is up. I suppose with that logic, you can never be wrong! Everyone else is a fraud, especially those with credentials, in your world. Get over yourself, if you are that insecure, go buy yourself a gigantic raised truck, or a Porsche or a doberman or something. You’re silly.

    • Mr. Seal, I was explaining to eggisence why the Hernandez case was much ado about nothing, and that she would eventually get booted out, Nobody ever wins these cases because the bank alleges the homeowner breaced the contract, which they did by failing to make timely payments. Even a functional moron understands this. Nonetheless, legal illiterates and securization audit scammers have thrown mud in this clear water fact.

      You started to attack me regarding this fact, and you don’t like it when you get it back. I’ve asked you repeatedly to prove your wins, I know you don’t have any, you know you don’t have any, but you won’t admit it.

      It’s a fact that homeowners that use our methodologies have won dozens of Multimillion-Dollar Awards, free property, and every conceivable settlement under the sun well over 90% of the time, but it is you who has never won a case that wants to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about.

      I’ve made my point, both Yvanova and Hernandez will get unceremoniously booted out of their homes because they failed to attack their respective contracts, and all they’ll have to show for it will be their legal bills.

      You keep on losing, and we’ll keep on winning, I just feel sorry for all of the poor homeowners who have bought into these stall arguments and lost their homes.

    • Stop with your juvenile comments, and just post your so-called wins that I’ve asked so many times for.

      Your honor, I move the court to order the defendant to answer the question, and if he fails; to strike all of his testimony.

  19. Kalifornia says:

    @ David Seal

    Please do not lower yourself by exchanging with the Bradford’s & Hurt’s of the world. Of course their Scientology-based tactics are persuasive to some vulnerable people at a time when they are desperate for help, but it is a best practice to entirely ignore them (Bradford & Hurt).

    While we’re waiting for the approval for Hernandez to be published, is there any chance that a download link can be posted to the Appellate and Supreme Court briefing, as well as the reviewing court’s opinion(s)?

    The reason for the request is edification.

  20. David Seal says:

    I am informed you’ve been banned from a lot of groups for peddling your sovereign-esque one size-fits all bullshit. I can now see why. In the real world, your approach won’t work for 90% of the prospective clients. It only would work for you, because you wouldn’t have to think about other causes of action that you prefer to pretend don’t exist. But to a lot of people out there who have succeeded with them, they’re very real.

    • The only groups that have banned me are known scammers who have been exposed by me. My record speaks for itself, you have no record because you’ve never won any cases and neither has anyone else making these ridiculous, nonsensical stall arguments. I can prove it, you can’t. If you could prove you or anybody else won these cases you already would have, but you can’t, because they don’t exist; but I can give you hundreds of cases where homeowners have lost making these arguments.

      • David Seal says:

        Once again, up is down in your world. I’ve won plenty. You’re not a lawyer. It is impossible for you to have won a case, or to have any record. You’re just a blowhard.

      • You’re a liar, or you would have already proven it. I’ve called you out

        BTW, my staff is made up of retired lawyers, practicing lawyers, retired judges, and you have us on the floor roaring with laughter with your juvenile comments. They can’t believe you can be so arrogant when you have no clue what you’re talking about.

      • David Seal says:

        You aren’t even licensed or qualified to give legal advice on California law, which you are here doing. While practicing law without a license is a criminal act. Get lost troll.

      • Providing facts is not a UPL violation, but lying saying you have won cases when you haven’t is fraud and a major ethics violation. You really need to learn some law if you want to play with the big dogs.

      • Renoira says:

        WOW! There seems to be a lot of banter about a case that has not yet made it to trial, nor has discovery yet been made. Nor have all the issues (contractual or not) been fully pled.

        Way up at the beginning of this post, I posted that the homeowner had not defaulted. Yet once again line upon line about homeowner default. What is the agenda behind this long drawn out alteration on the internet over an untried case? It is a lot like what I have had to deal with in court, even though default was not the underlining issue. The attorneys keep trying to state we were in default….could it be because that is the ‘secret formula’ that moves the court in their favor? In fact, our legal troubles began before default had occurred. Since it is a long drawn out story, I choose not to have tried by Storm Bradford. And my attorney is not free to disclose the particulars of our case. Perhaps the reason for the “modification” was merely to act as a ‘forced-placed default’ on the homeowner?

        In a recent report by SIGTARP, dated January 27, 2016, the study made the following allegations:

        “SIGTARP’s concerns over servicer misconduct contributing to homeowner redefaults in HAMP have been borne out. Treasury’s findings in its on-site visits to the largest seven mortgage servicers in HAMP over the most recent four quarters show disturbing and what should be unacceptable results, as 6 of 7 of the mortgage servicers had wrongfully terminated homeowners who were in “good standing” out of HAMP.”

        SIX our of seven mortgage servicers had wrongfully terminated homeowners!

        What homeowners need when headed to the court is case law. They need case laws supporting out their position. There is not much supporting law out there, so many homeowners have had to trudge through the mire inching through one small victory at a time. Yet as time moves on, more and more lender/servicer malfeasance is revealed. IF there was any case law supporting Mr. Bradford’s position, then he would have a viable argument….however, in spite of his unending demands for proof of wins, there is not. His argument is to show HIM the wins and his claim is that he has had hundreds of wins, which only leads to the question….where are the supporting case laws in favor of his argument?

        Paragraph 22 of the mortgage contract only gives the Lender the right of acceleration and remedy. That is significant and that is why no matter how Yvanova ultimately turns out, the recent ruling gives homeowners an opportunity to prove their cases….because IF only the “lender or their successors or assignees” have the right of foreclosure, it stands to reason a complete stranger to the transaction does not.

        So after reading this lengthy tirade, I cannot help but wonder….what is your motive Mr. Bradford? To get homeowners to give up before they’ve even tried their case? To divert homeowners to your office….because only YOU have the sure method? It is interesting that I have not heard any offers of ‘help’…just a monologue about our inevitable defeat…So….What is your motive to insert yourself into a complete strangers case and claim you already know the outcome, when you cannot possible even know the particulars?

        Are you monologuing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDzSc6TYJ24

        I hope homeowners fight back….and continue to fight…until laws are changed and integrity is integrated back into the system….because the truth is: “the only thing it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.”

      • I’m happy that Hernandez is still alive with her case, but nobody ever wins making stall arguments. I could show her how to win attacking the contract, and how to sue her lawyers for malpractice.

        Clearly, her lawyer can’t provide any wins, and like most scammers when confronted to prove up, they throw up all over themselves. And the reason he can’t is because none exist! Regrettably, all of her lawyers have conned her.

        BTW, I just posted the Jesinoski decision, albeit he won in the US Supreme Ct. on a narrow issue, just like your case. I said he would lose on remand, because he had no case. Read the case and look at what the court expressed: “Plaintiffs claim over $800,000 in damages (namely, ATTORNEY FEES).” Another tragedy, that hack like most of the stall hacks belong in jail!

        Now, to your other point. How many cases would you like me to provide that prove stall arguments don’t work, and only attacking the contract does.?

        Just a few to prove my points: Blair Const., Inc. v. McBeth, 273 Kan. 679, 691, 44 P.3d 1244 (2002). (“Promissory notes and mortgages are contracts to which the rules of contract construction apply. Absent an ambiguity in a contract, A COURT MUST GIVE EFFECT to the intent of the parties as expressed within the four corners of the instrument.”); Rodenhurst v. Bank of Am., 773 F. Supp. 2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) (“The overwhelming authority does not support a [claim] based upon improper securitization.”) “[S]ince the securitization merely creates a separate CONTRACT, distinct from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the Note and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way, plaintiffs’ claims arising out of securitization fail;” In re Foreclosure of Deed of Trust, 334 N.C. 369, 432 S.E.2d 855, 859 (N.C.1993)(“Historically, foreclosure under a power of sale has been a private CONTRACTUAL remedy.”); Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC (D. Minn., 2013) (“…most of Plaintiffs’ claims were premised on the ‘show me the note’ legal theory’….Judge Keyes found that this theory had been rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit…Butler continues in “pursuit of these discredited legal theories…he continues to refuse to acknowledge that these “show me the note” claims are based on a ‘legal fallacy.'”)

        There are hundreds more!

  21. As I predicted, Jesinoski lost on remand. Once again, here’s a homeowner that thought he won, but all he won was an enormous legal bill and will get booted out of his home, because his hack knew he had no case, and went forward anyway–despicable!
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17986320440451694202&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt

  22. David Seal says:

    Jesinoski deals with rescission under TILA, which is not a viable theory in the great majority of cases. Nonetheless, there are scam artists who claim otherwise. However, if one is one of the few who has the facts to prove it, can tender proceeds, and otherwise comply with the requirements needed to rescind, it can be viable then. Though rarer than hens’ teeth. I’ve never filed a Jesinoski based action personally because they are so rare. I once pooled a group of homeowners to see if any of them had ever prevailed on such a case, or knew anyone who had. Silence.

    • Those of us who know what we’re doing have.

      • David Seal says:

        Oh, so you’ve practiced law without a license in some jurisdiction? What a surprise! And to think you just got done telling the world that homeowners who try to apply Jesinoski would get nothing but “an enormous legal bill.” You’re all over the place.

  23. David Seal says:

    So, Storm Bradford, a non lawyer affiliated with a bunch of other non-lawyers and former lawyers who run an out of state foreclosure relief company, has now moved the goalposts. He started out saying that everything is “Breach of Contract” and that no other theory was viable, or words to that effect. After arguing that point ad nauseum, he now has changed his tune.

    Now he says that one can bring causes of action based on “contract or tort law”. Since ALL of civil law is contract or tort law in these cases, what he is saying is a big nothingburger. It is meaningless and conveys no information. Just like him.

    Then he goes to say that Hernandez v. PNMAC which involves a woman who already lost her home, was based on an argument designed to “stall the foreclosure.” Again, it makes no sense. Just stop already. Go back to providing “litigation services” (what is that? shining shoes? Making copies?) and leave law to those who can handle it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s