JohnD

I think you misunderstood the details of the article. The courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, not the bank. The mortgage company had to pay him for failing to answer his questions and later the contents of the bank were being sold by the sheriffs office. That is why the title of the article is Homeowner Forecloses on Wells Fargo.

@losing my home in florida: Right on. You tube has alot of great info.Also check out theforbiddenknowledge.com. These people are all despicable.

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (S.896)

SEC. 404. NOTIFICATION OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE LOANS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 131 of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1641) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g) NOTICE OF NEW CREDITOR.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other disclosures required
by this title, not later than 30 days after the date on which
a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned
to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee
of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer,
including—
‘‘(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the
new creditor;
‘‘(B) the date of transfer;
‘‘(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority
to act on behalf of the new creditor;
‘‘(D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership
of the debt is recorded; and
‘‘(E) any other relevant information regarding the new
creditor.
‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—As used in this subsection, the term
‘mortgage loan’ means any consumer credit transaction that
is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.’’.
(b) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—Section 130(a) of the Truth
in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1640(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘subsection
(f) or (g) of section 131,’’ after ‘‘section 125,’’.

I am as well in a situation where I have filed a motion for cost in a previos case which was dismissed by the courts, However the current case is at a stand still by way of a writ of mandamus which I filed back in Novemebr 2010 with the 2nd DCA. If the writ is issued by the 2nd DCA it may become a huge break through for all foreclosure which have been previously dismissed to recover court cost. The 2nd DCA has issued a mandamus response directing the lower tribunal to respond. The case can be reviewed here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44363252/Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus

In addition, 4F you may want to do a write up on the case # 2D10-5604 in your blog as this case addresses this specific issue, and how the courts are boxing litigants into a corner with out a remedy.

Great points, thanks for sharing,
Larry

California allows a QWR under Civ. Code sect. 2943. I requested a beneficiary statement and copy of the note. Lender processor charged the allowed $30, and sent back forgery of note. It costs $400 to file and serve papers and law allows $300 award. Then the California courts came up with this insane decision that ‘… all costs …’ doesn’t mean ‘all’, because in some other statute in foreclosure code the phrase ‘… including court costs and fees’ had been added after the ‘all costs’. Since this statute didn’t include ‘… including court costs and fees’ all doesn’t mean all. So you pay nearly $500 to recover $300.

That’s the typical Kalifornia economic model used by Kalifornia Kangaroo Kourts

Valuable information! If true ( Help, what specific law do you reference?) This would be an ecxcellent addition to respondents in Florida and elsewhere once foreclosure mills have submitted new assignments just issued for foreclosures by MERS related activities.

Many assignments I’ve seen in various court cases on this site, are dated 2009 and 2010. Counterclaims against the filing plaintiffs attempting to claim standing to foreclose is in order! And are the assignments legally binding without the TILA? Does the borrower have to sign that they have received it to satisfy the law?

Stopping foreclosures for those who did it correctly is unjustified. And would be perpetrating a wrong.