See Wells Fargo v. Horwitz, 12 CH 00069 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Rooney, J.), order of 2/5/13. In this case, the lender was The Home Loan Center. In 2012, Wells Fargo foreclosed, basing its claim on an “assignment” in 2007 from itself to itself. (You read that correctly.) On February 5, 2013, Property Rights Law Group defeated Wells Fargo’s motion for summary
judgment by arguing that Wells Fargo has no standing to foreclose, because the “assignment” is obviously absurd and worthless . Now Wells Fargo does not want to admit defeat, but its only remaining option short of a trial (that it would lose) is to file a motion to dismiss. But that is even less likely to succeed, because a motion to dismiss will be granted only if Property Rights Law Group has failed to state any legal claim, and Property Rights Law Group obviously has stated a good one. Wells Fargo’s attorneys can drag this case out for years, but Mr. Horwitz is secure in his home.
www.propertyrightslawgrp.com
Friday, June 21, 2013
HSBC V. HARDMAN..PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW GROUP
See HSBC v. Hardman, 12-cv-00481 (U.S.D.C., N.D. Illinois, Chang, J). In
this case, the lender was Fremont Investment. Ocwen foreclosed based on a forged assignment, in the name of MERS, of the mortgage in 2011 to a trust that had been closed in 2005. Property Rights Law Group filed affirmative defenses alleging (correctly) that the assignment was the only basis of for Ocwen’s case and that it was forged and that it was invalid because of the date, so Ocwen lacks standing to foreclose. Ocwen settled rather than litigate and modified Mr. Hardman’s mortgage, reducing the monthly payments by 50%.
www.propertyrightslawgrp.com
this case, the lender was Fremont Investment. Ocwen foreclosed based on a forged assignment, in the name of MERS, of the mortgage in 2011 to a trust that had been closed in 2005. Property Rights Law Group filed affirmative defenses alleging (correctly) that the assignment was the only basis of for Ocwen’s case and that it was forged and that it was invalid because of the date, so Ocwen lacks standing to foreclose. Ocwen settled rather than litigate and modified Mr. Hardman’s mortgage, reducing the monthly payments by 50%.
www.propertyrightslawgrp.com
AURORA LOAN SVCS V. TAYLOR..PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW GRP.
See Aurora Loan Services v. Taylor, 09 CH 18869 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Atkins, J.), orders of 11/10/12 and 1/9/13. In this case, First Magnus was the lender, and Aurora foreclosed in 2009, using a forged assignment to a trust that was closed in 2006. The
homeowner tried to do the case pro se, and the Court defaulted
him. Property Rights Law Group entered the case and had the default vacated on November 10, 2012. Then Property Rights Law Group filed affirmative defenses alleging that the trust was closed, so Aurora lacks standing to foreclose. Aurora moved to strike our affirmative defenses. On January 9, 2013, the Court denied Aurora’s motion. Aurora now must deal with an insoluble problem: the trust is closed, and without the trust, Aurora has no case. The Taylors will remain in their home indefinitely.
homeowner tried to do the case pro se, and the Court defaulted
him. Property Rights Law Group entered the case and had the default vacated on November 10, 2012. Then Property Rights Law Group filed affirmative defenses alleging that the trust was closed, so Aurora lacks standing to foreclose. Aurora moved to strike our affirmative defenses. On January 9, 2013, the Court denied Aurora’s motion. Aurora now must deal with an insoluble problem: the trust is closed, and without the trust, Aurora has no case. The Taylors will remain in their home indefinitely.
HSBC V, RODENHURST,,PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW GRP.
Property Rights Law Group
See HSBC v. Rodenhurst, 1 RC 12-1-3319 ( District Court of
Hawaii, Jany, J.), order dated 10/26/12. Countrywide was the Lender. In 2010, Bank of America took the home in a non-judicial foreclosure, based on an “assignment” from itself to itself, forged in the name of MERS. Bank of America then sued for ejectment of Mrs. Rodenhurst. The court entered a default judgment against Mrs. Rodenhurst and granted a writ of possession in favor of Bank of America. Then Property Rights Law Group entered the case. After a hearing on October 26, 2012, Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and Property Rights Law Group’s Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the writ of possession was granted.
www.propertyrightslawgrp.com
See HSBC v. Rodenhurst, 1 RC 12-1-3319 ( District Court of
Hawaii, Jany, J.), order dated 10/26/12. Countrywide was the Lender. In 2010, Bank of America took the home in a non-judicial foreclosure, based on an “assignment” from itself to itself, forged in the name of MERS. Bank of America then sued for ejectment of Mrs. Rodenhurst. The court entered a default judgment against Mrs. Rodenhurst and granted a writ of possession in favor of Bank of America. Then Property Rights Law Group entered the case. After a hearing on October 26, 2012, Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and Property Rights Law Group’s Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the writ of possession was granted.
www.propertyrightslawgrp.com
CUTTING EDGE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE..PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW
www.propertyrightslawgrp.com
These are some of the questions and fears anyone facing foreclosure needs answers to:
Can I save my
home? Should I wait to be served or initiate
proceedings first? Do I need a securitization/fraud sworn affidavit? Is
it admissable in court? Which
attorney should I hire? What if I have multiple properties? How will a
securitization/fraud sworn affidavit help my case? Is it ever too late?
What if my home was already sold? What if I am current but want to
initiate a Quiet Title action? Can I do something if I am not in
foreclosure? Are you available to consult with my attorney if I am out
of state? Will handing over my home with a deed in lieu release my
obligation? Should I attempt a loan modification?
These questions are extremely important and the answers will affect you and your family for many years to come. With so much misinformation and uncertainties out there, answers need to be found quickly and accurately.
Since our highly experienced attorneys are successfully litigating in the courtroom everyday, we are well aware of rulings and procedures to best build your case through sworn forensic affidavits, the latest legal strategies, and in depth attorney collaborative consultations. You will not have one attorney working your case, but an ENTIRE TEAM dedicated to best serve your individual situation. Foreclosure defense is the only law we practice which enables us to focus all our efforts to ensure your outstanding representation. This is what sets us apart from firms that just render reports and audits and litigate through simple delays and attempts at modification. No matter what the status of your situation, we are confident that we will be an invaluable asset to you.
If you are seeking representation in Illinois and Hawaii, we would be most eager to meet with you and discuss your case and outline all of the ways we will strive to keep you and your family in your home. Please do not delay, since many situations are quite time sensitive.
See blog section on the mortgage settlement, recent court victories, our radio shows on the securitization issue, and for WHY MODIFICATIONIS OFTEN NOT YOUR BEST OPTION.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)