dragging out a foreclosure

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program

acpme_IHB

New member
this article was on the front page of todays WSJ about a family that stalled foreclosure proceedings for 11 yrs. in that whole time they didnt make a single mortgage pymt. the unbelievable part is the homeowner really believes he was wronged.








<strong>How One Family Fought Foreclosure</strong>





December 28, 2007; Page A1





BEACHWOOD, Ohio -- Faced with the threat of foreclosure, many homeowners give up and abandon their homes.





Then there's Richard Davet.


[Richard Davet]





He and his wife, Lynn, lived in a six-bedroom home in this Cleveland suburb for nearly 20 years when, in 1996, he was served with a foreclosure lawsuit. Rather than turn over the keys, he hit the law books. Flooding the courts with papers, Mr. Davet staved off foreclosure for 11 years, until this past January, when a county sheriff's deputy evicted the couple and changed the locks. They didn't make a mortgage payment the entire time.





"Our four Scottish terriers are buried there," says the 63-year-old Mr. Davet. "It was heaven on earth, an unbelievable property, and they took it from us like candy from a baby."





Mr. Davet's case is believed to be the longest residential foreclosure of its kind in the history of Cuyahoga County, which is at the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis currently enveloping Ohio and many other parts of the country. Foreclosure actions are generally routine, typically taking from a few months to a couple of years to get the borrower out of the home. Companies turn the work over to so-called foreclosure-mill law firms, and generally cases are uncontested.


DISCUSS ON THE LAW BLOG





Mr. Davet's argument -- NationsBanc couldn't bring the suit because it didn't legally own his mortgage -- is the same red-hot legal theory now being embraced by judges and regulators in Ohio and elsewhere to help give homeowners a chance against foreclosure. Is this all about a legal system at work, or not working? Discuss it here.





These days, more homeowners are digging in their heels. They delay foreclosures by filing for bankruptcy on the eve of a court-ordered sale of the property, or by refusing to answer the door when the plaintiff tries to "serve" them with a foreclosure lawsuit. They pay lawyers a few hundred dollars to file a motion that can buy them a little more time.





But few are as dogged as Mr. Davet. And his fight may not be over yet. Though ousted from his home for nearly a year now, he is trying to get the charming 1940s house back, plus damages. He's relying on the legal argument -- currently making headlines -- that a financial institution can only file a foreclosure action if it can prove it actually owns and holds the mortgage and promissory note.





"I give him credit. He truly believes a banking institution did him a great wrong," says Daniel Kalk, one of several lawyers who at various times represented Mr. Davet in the case. "The funny thing is, some of the things he argued 10 years ago -- all of a sudden you see a federal court saying the same thing."





A former jewelry-business owner, Mr. Davet and his wife, a former graphic-arts tutor, bought their home in 1978 for $150,000. As its value increased they borrowed against it. They made their mortgage payments, but on one loan, they allegedly made payments late -- 90 times, according to NationsBanc Mortgage Corp., which assessed the couple some $4,000 in late fees.





After the Davets for two years refused demands to pay the late fees, during which NationsBanc began refusing to accept their regular mortgage payments, the company sued for foreclosure. At the time the couple still owed $80,000 in principal, plus an additional $160,000 on a second mortgage on the home. Mr. Davet insists the late fees were erroneous -- he points to a deposition in which a NationsBanc employee conceded that the company couldn't back up its claims for a chunk of the fees. So he began his full-time crusade in the courts to keep his home.


CASE DOCUMENTS





He started with the help of lawyers, but those arrangements didn't last. Dan Dreyfuss, who represented the couple when the case was filed, called Mr. Davet's strategy "a recipe for how to confound the courts." He quit after Mr. Davet filed a motion to disqualify a judge against his advice. Mr. Kalk eventually sued Mr. Davet, successfully, for unpaid legal fees.





On his own, as a "pro se" litigant, Mr. Davet was undeterred. Four times a week he went to Case Western Reserve University School of Law to study legal writing and case law in its library. His briefs were angry and colorful, including football analogies and an aside on Enron Corp.





Among his maneuvers: asking a judge to arrest NationsBanc's CEO for initiating a "sham" proceeding against him because the company claimed in error that it owned his loan. (The judge dismissed the request.) He later sought to disqualify the judge because she had accepted campaign contributions from real-estate developers, whose Beachwood developments Mr. Davet had publicly protested before the foreclosure litigation. When he didn't win that motion, Mr. Davet sought to disqualify the judge who had dismissed it. He appealed at every chance he could, which bought him extra years in his home.





"Mr. Davet has litigated these same issues over and over again...and in each instance the courts have dismissed his claims," said Bank of America Corp., Charlotte, N.C., which merged with the owner of NationsBanc.





Several years into the case, Bank of America took the unusual step of bringing in lawyers from a big corporate law firm, Jones Day. Five years later, in 2005, a judge granted foreclosure in the amount Mr. Davet owed and set a sale date for the property so that the creditors could take the sale proceeds. But when the property finally went to sale, Mr. Davet set up a shell company to win the auction, for $436,000. He couldn't pay more than the required $10,000 deposit, but the move delayed his eviction by months.





Mr. Davet says it wasn't a delay tactic and that he was trying to line up investors to buy the property. The house was later sold to another family for $410,000.





The eviction finally happened on a snowy day in January of this year. Don Saunders, who lived three doors down from Mr. Davet and is a trustee of the neighborhood association, says it came as a shock in the upscale area.





Mr. Davet continued to try, unsuccessfully, to get the federal court to agree that the state judgment was invalid. Then, a possible lifeline arrived this past October, when a federal judge in Cleveland, Christopher A. Boyko, dismissed 14 foreclosure suits because the plaintiffs that brought them couldn't prove they owned the mortgages when the suits were filed.





Such a problem can occur when mortgages are turned into securities and sold to investors. The companies involved in the transaction may not have checked that each mortgage was legally transferred, or "assigned," to the new owners. In essence, the originating lender continued to legally own the mortgage -- and would thus need to be the plaintiff in a foreclosure suit. In Mr. Davet's case, however, the mortgage, which was not securitized, changed hands multiple times and wasn't actually owned by NationsBanc until three years after the company filed suit.





Other judges have since followed Judge Boyko's lead. The Ohio attorney general has asked numerous judges to dismiss or delay foreclosures based on similar grounds.





Earlier this month, Mr. Davet filed a second federal appeal, this time citing the Boyko ruling, which he believes he inspired. It's unclear whether the latest salvo will work. If it doesn't, Mr. Davet says, he will set his sights on the U.S. Supreme Court.





All the litigation makes the home's new owner, Paul Mikhli, a dentist, "a little nervous." Should Mr. Davet succeed, he adds, title insurance should cover his expenses.





After spending much of the year living at the homes of friends and family, including their daughter, a university student in Indiana, the Davets recently moved into a small, $900-a-month home in a rural community east of Cleveland. "The money is short," Mr. Davet said on a recent afternoon, adding that one of his siblings, a pawn-shop owner, has been helping financially.





But hope prevails. From time to time, he drives back to Beachwood, just to see how his old home is doing.
 
<p>Actually, he's legally right that when you foreclose you must prove that you are the owner and holder of the note & mtg. The bank's foreclosure mill (typically they are simply dreadful as lawyers, because they never have any opposition) should have and could have prepared an asgmt or something in the nature of a Power of Atty from the real party in interest to the Plaintiff. But they didn't and for the first 3 years of that litigation, the Plaintiff really didn't own the mtg.</p>

<p>This, as I've posted previously, is plain vanilla law, and ought to be done in each and every case. You'll note, that the thing got resolved promptly when a real law firm was hired.</p>

<p>I agree with the defendant that it is likely the late charges were not correctly computed; I have seen that lots of times.</p>

<p>The longest I've kept one going was, let me see, there was one I stretched out a year--the lender and lender's attys got paid in full when some inherited money came in, which was why I was defending it.</p>

<p>Then there was one I was defending for longer than that; the defendant was being wrongly charged for something, now I forget what. The 2nd atty who was a litigator, but didn't know anything about real estate who represented the Plaintiff didn't realize the first atty didn't send the proper disclosures (he (the first one) got disbarred for something else.) The second atty could have dismissed the case, send the disclosures and then refiled, but he didn't do that. The Plainiiffs finally realized we were right about what was owed and settled. I think that went on for 2 years, but the defendant put the money in my escrow account, as I advised, so had enough to bring themselves current. This was a private mtg.</p>

<p>Then there was the one where somebody forged an old lady's signature and then got a mtg (it was way more complicated than that, but you will read about it, if at all, in my first novel.)</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Sheesh, talk about being a douchebag.... if you owe, PAY YOUR DEBT or get out. Sheesh. </p>

<p>He should have mounds of money if he didn't make any payment for 11 years. Man that makes me see red.</p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
Funny, when I read the article, my reaction was, "Way to go, dude, stick it to the man!" It seems there is a possibility that the bank may have charged his late fee in error, which started the whole process. Every time I have to deal with those big corporations and their f-ing customer service, I wish I had the time and energy to throw a big wrech into their big machine in some way. Try canceling AOL service for the 6th time without success, or dealing with insurance company to straighten out their mistake, or dialing through the phone tree and be put on hold for 10 minutes. Just sayin'
 
<p>This is an odd case. It isn't a guy that stopped making his mortgage payments. It's a dispute over a late fee or collection of late fees.</p>

<p>I have little sympathy for the banks in this case particularly since I've been looking at recent bills and credit card payment due dates that landed on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Sundays are so common they are passe. Do they process payments on Sundays? Do they receive and process mail on Sunday? If my mail is received on Friday, do they process it by Sunday? I doubt it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Altho, as I said, I think the guy had a point, but then he turned it into his life's work. He could have just given in and everybody including him, would have been happier. Life is too short to focus on something like this for eleven years for goddess' sake.</p>

<p>Tho, like ocpop, I rather like it that he tortured the bank and stupid foreclosure mill law firm so much.</p>
 
acpme wrote: this article was on the front page of todays WSJ about a family that stalled foreclosure proceedings for 11 yrs. in that whole time they didn't make a single mortgage pymt. the unbelievable part is the homeowner really believes he was wronged.

********************************************

I would like to clarify some of these misconceptions created by the way this WSJ article was written, as I have also been litigating the illegal seizure of my home since 1997, when NationsBanc did the ?exact? same thing to me. At the time they pulled this Ponzi scheme on me, I was debt-free (other than my home); my credit score was 798 and my mortgage payment was 6% of my monthly income. I was no deadbeat.



What makes the Davet case so significant is that it comes on the heels of recent decisions by other Ohio courts, who, after applying commonsense and the rule of law, swiftly dismissed cases where the court found the alleged owner of the mortgage was not the true owner at all.



While I was reading Davet?s motion, it became shockingly obvious that the reason this case has dragged on so long is because the Davet courts have repeatedly failed their duty by ruling in opposition to the law and contrary to these recent Ohio decisions. The Davet courts granted legal standing to a non-party and allowed them to foreclose on property they admittedly did not own. All Mr. Davet is trying to do is get the court to apply the law correctly and has made it clear that he is not going away until they get it right.



What the court is faced with IS NOT DISCRETIONARY, BUT MANDATORY. THEY MUST RULE IN DAVET?S FAVOR. If not, it creates a major conflict to the recent decisions of courts who correctly applied the law. NationsBanc, with full knowledge and intent, fraudulently invoked the jurisdiction of the court in order to obtain favorable judgments. That is illegal. Every judgment obtained through fraud is void ab initio as a matter of law and equity. I see this case as clear and convincing evidence of a corrupt corporation controlling the courts. The court is not only showing prejudice against Davet -- but also the written law. The judges involved in this case (and others like it), have sorely tainted the integrity of our judiciary. I hope these recent Ohio decisions will change that and help clean up the corruption in our courts.



For 11 years, these courts have been wasting judicial resources by ruling on void judgments that have no legal force or effect. I wish the reporter had called them on it and asked why.



Mr. Davet was the target of mortgage servicing fraud; the act of manipulating performing loans into default so they can steal the home and equity. One way they do this is to add a late fee to your on-time payment. You are not aware of this because they do not send you monthly statements. Now your next payment isn't enough to cover your mortgage payment plus the bogus late fee and your account is now marked as in default. After a period of time, you receive a notice that you are in default; facing foreclosure, and owe thousands of dollars. A review of your bank statement shows your payments were cashed.



The plan is for the homeowner to be so intimidated by these big corporations and law firms that they quickly move out and leave the keys. When Mr. Davet didn't follow ?the plan?, they stopped accepting his payments, but still tacked on what amounted to thousands of dollars of unlawful fees. Refusing to accept Mr. Davet?s payments guaranteed his loan would go into default and by posing as the true owner, they easily duped the court into granting the foreclosure. Mr. Davet believes he was wronged ? because he was!



Someone needs to ask Bank of America why they would waste all this time and money on a case litigated by a non-lawyer. I am sure their investors would like to know.
 
<p>You pay the goldamn late fee and then sue to get the money back in small claims court. Banks seldom answer such suits, get defaulted and then YOU have THEM.</p>

<p>I used to work representing an S& L, and tho I worked for a firm, I worked AT the S & L, got to know the people, got to see what they did on a daily basis.</p>

<p>Trust me this stuff happens 99.999% of the time not because of evil plotting, but because of rank stupidity, mostly by upper management. I would feel conforted if I thought it was evil planning, 'cause that would mean somebody had some brains and foresight. Alas, it is not so.</p>

<p>You are of course correct, that a Plaintiff has to be the owner of the instrument, or a Power of Atty of the owner, or some other authorizing paperwork.</p>

<p>But. . . </p>

<p>You, sir, are wasting your time in the land of lost causes. Even if you win, you have wasted the last 10 years obsessing over this. You need to get some Prozac and calm down. You will not change anything with respect to our banking/mortgage system.</p>

<p>And this is from a lawyer who presently has 3 cases involving this issue.</p>
 
<p>Then I'll retire. Remember, the depreciating asset I live in is paid off. The hub will retire sometime in the next 5 years. Litigation is a pain in the patoot anyway.</p>

<p>Only sad thought is I will have no new stories to share with IHB-ers.</p>
 
This makes me sad as well, sadder still to see so many not get it. Davet, in my opinon, is a dead beat. Bottom line, did he pay his mortgage? No. I don't ever see where he continued to make the payments into a trust either, he just kept the money and the property. Instead, Davet decided to dip into MY pocket and live on my dime. Remember, businesses don't take a loss on these, they just pass it along to honest folks.



PSL2, are you making your payments, or setting them aside in trust for settlement of the case? Or is that your hand I feel in my hip pocket?



No_Such_Reality, you bring an interesting perspective. I didn't understand that the only date payment can be made is at the final due date. Are you saying the credit company should move payment due dates earlier when they fall on a Sunday? Or are you asking for a handout of an extra day? You do have an option, don't borrow. But, if you do choose to borrow, be a person of honor and pay like you promised, maybe even a few days earlier and you can dodge the late fees instead of trying to 'stick it to the man' by paying at the last minute. Trust me, he didn't get the message.



So sad to see so many think someone owes them something, especially when they are the ones who owe.
 
Back
Top