Massachusetts Land Court Reaffirms Controversial Ibanez Ruling Invalidating Thousands Of Foreclosures

by Rich Vetstein on October 14, 2009 · 25 comments

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Title Defects, Title Insurance

Breaking News (1.7.11): Mass. Supreme Court Upholds Ibanez Ruling, Thousands of Foreclosures Affected

Click Here For Our Entire Series Of Post On the Ibanez Case

Update (2/25/10)Mass. High Court May Take Ibanez Case

Today, Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirmed his controversial ruling made back in March 2009 that invalidated foreclosure proceedings involving two Springfield homes because the lenders did not hold clear titles to the properties at the time of sale. A copy of the decision can be found here.

As I outlined in my prior post on this case, the problem the Land Court dealt with in this case is what happens when modern securitized mortgage lending practices meets outdated foreclosure laws. When mortgages are packaged to Wall Street investors, the ownership of a mortgage loan may be divided and freely transferred numerous times on the lenders’ books. But the mortgage loan documentation actually on file at the Registry of Deeds often lags far behind.

Here is a diagram of the securitized mortgage process (click to enlarge):

The Ruling

Judge Long ruled that foreclosures were invalid when the lender failed to bring  the ownership documentation (known as an assignment) up-to-date until after the foreclosure sale had already taken place. An assignment is a legal document confirming that a mortgage loan has been transferred from one lender to another. Assignments must be recorded with a registry of deeds so anyone researching a property’s title can track the loan’s origin and ownership. Oftentimes, as in the Ibanez case, lenders will sell bundles of loan and record backdated assignments with an effective date before the first foreclosure notice. Judge Long effectively prohibited this practice.

Despite the lender’s attempt to convince him otherwise, Judge Long came out (again) in favor of consumers:

The issues in this case are not merely problems with paperwork or a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers by the Massachusetts legislature. To accept the plaintiffs’ arguments is to allow them to take someone’s home without any demonstrable right to do so, based upon the assumption that they ultimately will be able to show that they have that right and the further assumption that potential bidders will be undeterred by the lack of a demonstrable legal foundation for the sale and will nonetheless bid full value in the expectation that that foundation will ultimately be produced, even if it takes a year or more. The law recognizes the troubling nature of these assumptions, the harm caused if those assumptions prove erroneous, and commands otherwise.

Judge Long also had some choice words for lenders:

[T]he problem the [lenders] face (the present title defect) is entirely of their own making as a result of their failure to comply with the statute and the directives in their own securitization documents… What the plaintiffs truly seek is a change in the foreclosure sale statute (G.L. c. 244, § 14), which can only come from the legislature.

What Now?

That’s a good question and one not readily answerable. To be sure, the current state of flux and confusion surrounding foreclosure titles affected by an Ibanez issue will remain intact until an appellate court considers the case or some action by the Legislature (which may be unlikely). Given the importance of the decision, I predict that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will take the unusual step of taking the case directly from the Land Court.

As for what happens in the year or so the case may be in appellate limbo, I asked an in house counsel for a leading title insurance company, and his response was essentially that it’s going to take a fair amount of time and research to figure this one out. If there’s an existing title insurance policy on the property, some but not all of the title companies may be willing to insure over the problem. If there’s no title policy in place, affected parties are going to have to ride this one out for awhile.

Once title insurance companies offer some further guidance, I will post it here.

My Two Cents

While I see both sides of the argument, the decision is troubling to me because Judge Long gave short shrift to the fundamental legal principle that the mortgage follows the note. A valid mortgage is security for some type of underlying obligation, whether it’s a loan or the promise to do something in the future. There’s no question that the millions (or billions) of dollars in loans secured by all these mortgages were validly transferred from one bank/lender to securitized lenders. The money was lent and it didn’t just evaporate into the ether. If the lenders can ultimately demonstrate ownership of the underlying loan which follows the mortgage and produce a valid assignment (albeit late), why isn’t this enough? The borrowers owe the money, and now after this ruling they are immunized from foreclosure by what many folks in the real estate industry view as elevating form over substance.

“For many years, real estate attorneys in Massachusetts have understood that the assignment of a mortgage can be recorded at any time and be effective,” Christopher S. Pitt, chairman of the Title Standards Committee of the Real Estate Bar Association tells Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Now that doesn’t mean lenders don’t need to get their act together. They do. The net effect of this decision will be that lenders must get loan documentation up to date and recorded promptly. Indeed, the Ibanez loan changed ownership at least four times prior to foreclosure — without any of this appearing on the public record.  Two of those entities (Lehman Brothers and its subsidiary) are currently in bankruptcy and a third (Option One) has ceased operations. This is a huge wake up call to the securitized lending industry.

But the question remains, what about all the foreclosures that have already been conducted? And the new homeowners who own these properties and are now saddled with unresolvable title defects? What about these “innocent victims” and the neighborhoods blighted by foreclosed properties which cannot be sold? I guess we can all blame Wall Street once again…

The Consumer Advocate’s Point of View

Attorney Meyer Potashman of Greater Boston Legal Services which filed a brief in the Ibanez case offers this analysis:

This case has the potential to do a lot of damage (or rather reveal the damage that foreclosing lenders did over the past few years), but I think Judge Long was completely right about the law.  Both the statute and all of the securitization documents were clear, and these foreclosures violated both of them. These banks had sophisticated lawyers who knew real estate law when they planned to securitize these loans, but they never bothered to consult their own agreements when the time came to actually securitize, or foreclose, on the loans.  As a result, mortgages were never properly transferred, and the foreclosing lenders never had the right to foreclose.

As with any controversial legal decision, there’s always compelling arguments for both points of view.

  • Pingback: Massachusetts Land Court Upholds Ruling Reversing Thousands of Foreclosures « naked capitalism

  • Pingback: Massachusetts Land Court Ruling in Ibanez Foreclosure Case Reportedly Imminent | The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • Tony Norton

    Mr. Vetstein, my understanding is that the securitization process broke the basic agency/principal law.

    Here is what a lawyer in Tennessee states:
    davidgmills, on September 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 pm Said:

    Yes.

    Mers is listed as a nominee of the lender on the Deed of Trust which is the document that puts a lien on your property and allows the lender to foreclose. What the Kansas court has said is that you can’t be a nominee of a lender who has sold the note. Most lenders have sold the note. This is very basic agency/principal law. A nominee is an agent. When the principal changes, a new agent is required. But the common Deed of Trust used in these securitized transactions, which is used all over, makes MERS the agent of the lender until the loan is paid off, no matter who the lender is. The law simply does not allow MERS to continue to be an agent of a new owner. So MERS has no authority to act as agent. Someone new would have to be the agent but the new owners of the loan never appoint a new agent.

    It gets worse for the banks. MERS is also listed as the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. A recent ARK Supreme Court has said MERS can’t be the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust even though the Deed of Trust says so. That means there is no trust at all because MERS is the sole beneficiary and you can’t have a trust without a beneficiary. No trust means no valid lien.

    I get emails daily from people wanting my complaint. It explains why the court should stop my lender from demanding any more money from me and why the court should remove the lien on my property. Many lawyers now have read it and agree I am right. (I am a lawyer as well).

    MERS opinion:
    http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/landmark-decision-promises-massive-relief-for-homeowners-and-trouble-for-banks/

    Comments that has additional information from Mr. Mills the attorney who is also establishing precedence with his own filed complaint (brief):
    http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/landmark-decision-promises-massive-relief-for-homeowners-and-trouble-for-banks/#comments

  • Meyer Potashman

    Rich, thanks for posting this. I just wanted to comment on your analysis from a consumer lawyer’s perspective:

    An assignment does not merely “confirm” that a mortgage loan has been transferred. A mortgage loan has two components: the note and the mortgage. If the note is properly transferred to the ultimate owner, this does not actually transfer the mortgage with it. As Judge Long explained very clearly, the mortgage is an interest in the property itself, and it contains the right to foreclose. This right to foreclose is not transferred to the owner of the note unless and until the mortgage is validly assigned from one mortgagee to another. It was clear in these cases that the banks purporting to foreclose did not own the mortgage and had no right to foreclose.

    As for the “fundamental legal principle” that the mortgage follows the note, the law is not that simple. The principal is that the holder of the note has the right to have the mortgage assigned to it by the holder of the mortgage. Until the noteholder exercises this right, or an assignment is otherwise made, the noteholder simply does not own the mortgage, and has no right to foreclose.

    In many cases it is simply not true that “[t]here’s no question” the loans were validly transferred. It has been widely reported that often the lenders attempting to foreclose cannot produce the relevant note (see Gretchen Mortgenston’s related column here: http://bit.ly/2F1dCa). Without the note, the bank has no evidence that it, and not some other bank, owns the mortgage loan.

    Judge Long was correct in saying that this is not a question of form over substance. The foreclosure statute provides very little protection to homeowners, who never have the chance to contest a foreclosure in court, or to force the foreclosing lender to prove that it owns the loan. The requirement that the lender has to actually hold the mortgage, and announce this fact to the public before the auction, is one of the only protections that homeowners have. The lenders who clearly did not follow this requirement undermined this minimal consumer protection in the statute.

    Hopefully this case will help prod the Legislature to change the foreclosure statute by requiring lenders to actually prove they own a loan before foreclosing. This would resolve many of these issues in the future.

  • D. Orth

    May I comment as a person whose home was foreclosed back in 1990?

    This ruling is stunning to say the least. The news brought up old emotions of a kind of trauma which were surprisingly ready to surface.

    When the foreclosure occurred, I was exhausted and did not have the means to fight the foreclosure proceedings. I merely accepted the events as my fate.

    Oh, and the people who bid for my house got it for a SONG, and the interest rates had come down by then, too, lucky them! Plus, they bought it for less than what the mortgage was, so the lender lost money, and they would have lost nothing if they had been at all flexible.

    After that, the value of that property skyrocketed in the next boomlet, and even today the property is worth way more than when I had it.

    May I appeal to people concerned that, in my humble opinion, I was no deadbeat. Here’s what happened:

    After a divorce, it was time for one more bad/luck bad/timing circumstance for this young end baby boomer. (Unaffordable home prices when I came of age, and then those glorious years of 18% mortgage rates, what blessings!) I had worked HARD and always paid obligations for decades. The house was put up for sale, but, the real estate market had crashed as a bubble, and the old axiom that real estate is a safe investment was shown to be false, for the first time in MY life.

    There were some financial difficulties over a period of a couple of months for various reasons. When I owed three months’ payments (think about this, this happens within 8 weeks), I had scraped back together two months’ payments (including taxes and insurance) and tried to make the payments. I also had a plan to make the next two payments within 30 days and told the bank this, and it was doable. But they had already tacked on a hefty “lawyers fee” as well, and they would not take “partial” money owed, and they were piling on extra interest and penalties. The bank refused to work with me in this way or any way. The major problem in this case was the swiftness of the foreclosure proceedings. I begged the bank to work with me and promised they would not be out one red cent if they would just give me a tiny bit more time.

    Later in that real estate crash I read in the news that the banks eventually did “work with” lenders and help them afford to catch up and stay in their homes, and I thought, lucky them!

    So, not only had I lost all equity in the downturn, I lost my home and was homeless. It was also very humiliating. After working so hard to acquire and pay for this home since I was a child, for decades, I now had nothing to show for that effort.

    I do think the way we conduct business in this country could improve by being more just, and could create more prosperity for all.

  • Joey

    >>If the lenders can ultimately demonstrate ownership of the underlying loan which follows the mortgage…

    It should be incumbent on the lenders doing the foreclosing that they can *immediately* demonstrate ownership of the loan, not ultimately. This is plainly a documentation issue, and if the banks had bothered to do their paperwork promptly and thoughtfully, they wouldn’t have this problem.

    The state’s interest (both as supported by the Legislature, and just in plain common sense) is in fostering home ownership until the homeowner clearly has no legal right to be there. To let someone foreclose without clear possession of the title makes as much sense as letting a homeowner sell the property without clear title either.

  • http://www.gregor.us Gregor

    Personally this story is fascinating, because I have direct experience in MA land recording and legal procedure, so the finding of the judge in these cases is quite clear to me. He is saying that the collective creditor complex put foreclosure documents on record before recording any of the usual liens and claims and assignments. Thus, they nuked the legitimacy of their own foreclosure demand. This makes alot of sense to me. Each piece of land has a flow chart, if you will: every subsequent action draws its legitimacy from previous actions/documents. I can’t believe the creditor-complex was trying to backdate actions/assignments. Even if factually correct, backdating could not be allowed in such a system, lest you undermine the system itself. Some who are critical of the judge’s decision assert this is elevating form over substance. While I agree with that point thematically, surely in many systems it’s the case that the procedure is the substance.

  • http://www.quincybankruptcy.com Steven Striffler

    The Promissory Notes issued in these real estate transactions are negotiable instruments. To be considered a “holder in due course” of a negotiable instrument requires endorsement and delivery of the Note. Also, a proper assignment of the mortgage is required to have standing to the begin forclosure proceedings. If the entity that is foreclosing is not the Holder of the Note and the assignee of the morgagee that entity does not have the legal right to foreclose – period. That is the essence of Judge Long’s ruling. It’s fundamental consumer protection.

    The banks have no one to blame but themselves. The banks have lost all credibility with good reason. When the banks are ask to substantiate their positions they cannot.

    As a consumer bankruptcy attorney I have a client who came within 1 day of losing his house to foreclosure to a lender who did not have the legal right to foreclose. Upon further investigation the lender could not produce the promissory note nor the mortgage assignment. It has became apparent that the lender cannot even ascertain how or if it ever became the holder of the note or mortgage.

    Granted this may be an isolated case; but should not even one person be entitled to the protection of our laws.

    I suspect lenders will solve these issues for the same reason that they created this labyrinth – Greed.

  • fjg

    Anyone know where affected property owners can find out about their options? Still getting up to speed on this. My wife and I bought a property out of foreclosure in 2008 that may be affected by this judge’s ruling. Can’t say I’m amused by this possible sudden change in our circumstances.

  • Jason A. Czekalski

    As a recently sworn in attorney*, I am glad to see that what I was taught in law school is actually practiced in the real world. In this instance, Judge Long hit the nail on the head. This is how the recording statute is taught in conveyancing classes in law school, so why are attorneys shocked and upset when a judge actually requires adherence to the statute. As to whether the statute makes sense in the 21st century, I don’t know. However, that is a decision for the General Court to make, not the Land Court, the SJC, or a bunch of bankers.

    Go Judge Long!!!

    * Massachusetts School of Law, Class of ’09. Sworn in 11/30/09.

  • AMP

    When a lender in California or wherever for that matter, moves to foreclose on a borrower that has failed to live up to their obligation as set forth in their note they hire an attorney in the state where the property is located. Unfortunately for a lot of lenders that chose to do business in Massachusetts they hired attorneys that did not follow the correct procedure laid out in the statute. This is not a problem that the lenders need to correct, this is a problem that the “professionals” that these lenders entrust and hire need to correct. So when I hear that the lenders have no one to blame but themselves I don’t agree, they can blame the attorneys that they hired with the impression that they were competant and would follow the correct procedures.

  • http://Mass-Homes.com Mass Homes

    Very informative post except for your 2 cents which is opinion based in the world as you perceive it.

    However I linked to this post in an article in my blog foolish fish dot com “who is mortgage electronic”

    Without Mers the current collapse could not have happened and though it is considered best practice to blame foreclosure on delinquent dead beat home owners my 2 cents places the lions share of the blame firmly at the feet of Mers which is an AKA alias for Freddie, Fannie, Chase, BoA, Wells, and any other mega lender who comes to mind. And isn’t it hilarious that the first two players on the above list are AKA aliases for Uncle Sam himself.
    Chris.

    • http://www.vetsteinlawgroup.com Richard D. Vetstein, Esq.

      Chris, thanks for the comment. You certainly have a right to disagree with my opinion–it is just that.

      MERS is simply a servicing vehicle and aggregator for securitized mortgages. You have to look at the broader macroeconomic forces for the cause of the mortgage crisis. While Wall St. certainly has much responsibility for the crisis, also remember that no one had guns to the heads of many of these borrowers–they were borrowing way too much that they could afford–a mind set that unfortunately became part of the American way. It’s the credit card mentality. With the devaluation of the real estate market, these borrowers couldn’t refinance with the expectation of rising values.

  • Pingback: Massachusetts Real Estate Law Year In Review: Top Posts Of 2009 And Predictions For 2010 | The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • Pingback: Ibanez Foreclosure Case Heading to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • Pingback: Ibanez Ruling Foreclosure Update: Nothing Much To Report | The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • Pingback: Ibanez Foreclosure Decision Accepted By SJC | The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • cub

    It’s amazing that judges are cooperating with this crazy spectacle of an idea that a lender can suffer forfeiture their interest in the principal and in the property by transferring the note in a manner that is found retrospectively to be out of compliance with state law.

    Often the issue is the corporations stealing from the public, but in this case it’s homeowners stealing from banks. No homeowner deserves a windfall because of something the bank did which had no effect on them. Even if the lender is denied funds, the state should foreclose on the property and seize the proceeds from the sale, then give the lender the opportunity to prove they’re entitled to get the money. Or even if foreclosure is disallowed, the lender should still be able to pursue the owner in court, sue for judgment and garnishment of wages and other remedies debtors are entitled to.

    • Truthmonger3

      Perfectly spoken, communist concept!
      well done comrade! well done!! Yeah, throw those peasants out on
      their ass and let them starve in the streets,,,,, argggg.,,,,,,, My,
      you sound like a pirate.. and in deed when you do your home work and
      find out that the banks were PAID with the Note you gave them without
      receipt, .you’ll fit right in with the mean pirates that have
      hijacked the systems. The system made for us to use. In stead we have
      been used like fools distracted by all sorts of distraction and
      images of trust. Yes that is right you PAID them with your NOTE and
      the banks used that Note as a form of payment. And in fact
      manipulated it many different ways as an investment,,, security
      instrument,,, and as such profited many times over!!!! Then they took
      the actual Home by full title YOU put Into a Trust and the Trustee
      which is suppose do be Trusted. The banks slippery paper maneuvers
      allowed them to assign a new trustee that would dishonor the Trust as
      well as all principals of Trust. And not only, Not protect the Trust
      and the Res (the thing, in  the trust (in this case the
      property) that is in the trust) but they actually do an unauthorized
      foreclosure with counterfeit paper….. Oh and lets not forget that
      they Separated the Note from the Deed of Trust/mortgage so they could
      take the value of the property, the full value of the property, and
      use that value and potential value to profit even more.. all without
      your knowledge, understanding or consent.. No contract!!

      But they did it anyway.

      They use them to pretend they had
      something in the boxes for the investors to invest in but the bankers
      were slick as snot there too, they did not sell peaces of the actual
      trust that holds all these alleged “now void” Deed of
      Trusts but instead created a Bond based upon the alleged
      Mortgages/Dot’s in the box and sold portions of that bond to
      investors. .

      On top of that they took out a lot of
      insurance polices and made themselves the beneficiaries NOT the
      investors or the home owner, but them rotten dirty bastards, carpet
      baggers banksters, robin all of us. All these knuckle heads that
      think they are on top right now and piss on the little stupid people,
      do you not know that they have preplanned how to use you and your
      attitude to rape the mass of people from their property and energy
      and wealth and once they get done using you to do it, your next..

      In fact oops for all those with great
      jobs and wonderful million dollar bonuses from the insurance scam
      which they got the United states to extort from the American people
      as if it is our debt… these bastards got paid up to 13 times the
      value from insurance,, why you think AIG and other insurance
      companies were bailed out.. they were never in need of bailing, they
      never put up one thin dime of their own value!!! They did take the
      Note, separate it from the Deed Of Trust which makes the Deed Of
      Trusts a Nullity kinda like a movie ticked that once you separate the
      two halves.. it ain’t no good no more.. plus they made a boat load
      on the use of the Deed of Trust (DOT) and the Note, Both… how many
      copies (counterfeit) have you seen? Three banks show up to the same
      foreclosure action with “true copies of the Note and Deed of
      Trust. (yea right)

      Where is your cut of the 96 times face
      value created by use of your security instruments you created and
      signed over to them.

      They manipulate with different Labels
      designed to fool us, all, even you and many judges… both of which
      are by law and UCC (Uniform commercial code) security instruments!!!
      Just like any other security instrument like a bond or other,, they
      just hid that fact from the dumb population… hmmm seems that since
      you did not know that, but were tricked into hating your brother,
      instead of being your brothers keeper. Instead of sensing something
      “ain’t quite right”, you choose to get all indignant and
      righteous about you being successful and the rest are failures and
      debtors… Name one thing that you own!! Go on, name on thing you
      brought into this world and then share with us all the stuff, money
      and things money buys that your taken with you when you leave… Just
      because someone is weaker does not give anyone the right to use that
      weakness against them! that is called being a bully..This is a
      spiritual battle and it is for the souls of man. Do you choose truth
      and righteousness, love and kindness which brings happiness? Or are
      you inclined to go the dark side and believe in greed, starving
      children by the millions and you neighbors put out of their homes?
      There is abundance for everyone, why let the money muck-er manipulate
      the money valuation of things, labor, or energy’s of any kind? ,
      us.. that is right knuckle head, we are created to create and be
      happy… Oh and why your at it find out what is done with your credit
      application… you got the credit and it is sitting in an account
      somewhere, waiting three years for you not to claim it so they can
      say it is abandoned funds…. and pocket yet again.. In the mean time
      they will put that credit on the positive side of the ledger and use
      its value to “lend” or invest over 9 nine times or more,,
      again, with out your knowledge… do ya trust them now pro-bee? Look
      it up, study your ass off and learn what many have figured out on
      their own… Just go read your own Deed of Trust and ask yourself
      does this look a little one sided to you? That is not a contract
      because the first rule of contract is “a mutually beneficial
      agreement between people”.

      These are all for the Banks and nutting
      for you… and oh by the way, where is the banks signature on that
      “contract”? ain’t one,, but that is ok we can hire a kid
      needing job cause we raised priced of things to create the squeeze
      in the first place so we could take 10 million home a year.. and we
      will just get this kid to sign as a vice president of the bank and
      back date it and tell the courts that “the out come would be the
      same” The maxim of Law is “To do no harm”!! Harm.. the
      people are harmed and the banksters get bonuses which the people pay
      for!!! All things, all energy comes from us, the people!!

      Wake up man!! Usury (interest) was
      and still is by most religions, unlawful until just this past
      century, For a reason! The laws are there for a reason!! and this is
      exactly the reason for them.. and to find a judge that will stand up
      for the Law in these days is a gem!!

      The fact that you can not think for
      yourself and recognize “sumpthing aint right” means that
      their indoctrination system (you know it as the “public
      education system”) has done its’ intended purpose. To get you to
      cling to the degree and leave all critical thought behind…. well
      that is another subject of investigation all together..

      Why do you think there are so few if
      any cases where the banks even try to make a claim on a Note,, they
      cashed, altered (which voids it) by stamping it “Pay to the
      Order of.”…. and in actuality is evidence that you paid them,
      loaned them your credit and note of full face value…where it the
      receipt? You say the seller is the one that got paid for you.. yes
      but what with? Numbers on a balance sheet which all come from your
      trust, your account of credit.

      Once again the Bankers can not show
      that one penny of their money was ever in the deal, so no
      consideration, “no get pot even if you have winning hand”!!!
      any one knows that!! even Las Vegas. You don’t anti up you don’t
      get the pot

      BTW it is unlawful for banks to loan
      you credit and it is against bank policy to loan depositors money or
      their own, so where did it come from? That is what started me
      researching three years ago, 18hr a day and sifting through all the
      bullshit to find and put the pieces together. It is much easier today
      because dedicated people have made it more available.

      But still, Go ahead just try and get
      the banks to give you an accounting, showing where the “money”
      “substance” “value” came from their pockets….
      can’t, they are not allowed to !!! Funny huh and all this time we
      were trained to believe that we are sinners and debtors. That God did
      not provide us with all that we need and more.. That there aren’t
      enough houses out there for everyone, food for everyone, water for
      everyone, air for everyone… I don’t know what creator you know
      but my creator gave “endowed” me with all the earth and
      that which is upon it to use , benefit my brother, and enjoy. We are
      here to enjoy one another, not abuse each other.. to help each other
      not steal from each other..

      Is it not sufficient that we all still
      need the rain for plants to grow our lawns to be lush and every now
      and then to make us laugh as we run frantically to stay dry… It is
      not the bankers to steal nor wall streets nor anyone’s to deprive
      us of. It has been and always was ours. just remove the money and
      keep workin, keep being productive,, use … “Thank you
      Notes”… .. yea how about that, instead of negotiating how much
      you will get in exchange , how about after you give what the other
      person needs they then give you what you need or “thank you
      notes”,, no interest, no loan, no bankruptcy, no taxes, no
      nuttin …. NO control, it is completely up to the one who received
      or feels like they received or just feel like saying Thank You to
      someone… her have a ten thousand thank you note.

      We are the grantors, we always have
      been. It all comes from us because we were created to be creators!
      That is what we do, we create something out of nothing because all
      things and all powers are granted to us by the creator that created
      all things before a concept is imagined or brought into existence the
      creator gave the ability to imagine to us and the freedom to use it
      in a creative manner!! anything else is destructive to the desires of
      the creator and the purpose of existence itself!! Blessing to all,
      may all your desires be fulfilled!! Thank you for reading. I do hope
      you have eyes to see and perceive and ears to hear and comprehend.
      Not for sale or obligation, reserving all powers, rights, immunities,
      privileges, benefits and gifts of the creator, the living man going
      by truthmonger for these purposes

  • Pingback: Focus On The Foreclosure Mess: Title Insurance, Robo-Signing, & Ibanez | The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • Pingback: Breaking News: Ibanez Foreclosure Ruling Upheld: An Indictment Of The Securitized Mortgage System | The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • Pingback: Mass High Court Hands Down Roling on Ibanez Foreclosure Case « Boston Realty Web

  • J Bandlow

    The matter ultimately turns on two simple principles.
    Before the serious event of a foreclosure takes place, the right to foreclose must be lawfully established.
    And before the serious event of selling a foreclosed property takes place, the right to sell must be lawfully established.
    (as set forth in a paragraph from the ruling that was quoted above)
    This is not any “form over substance”, and not merely that pesky rule of law.

  • Pingback: Breaking News: U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Foreclosure Ruling Upheld: An Indictment Of The Securitized Mortgage System | Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • Pingback: Breaking News: U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Foreclosure Ruling Upheld: An Indictment Of The Securitized Mortgage System | Machholz's Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Real Time Analytics