I and hundreds of thousands, make that MILLIONS of homeowners have the SAME formulaic systemic protocol and algorithm leashed upon us by self-proclaimed "mortgage-servicers" who can not prove agency relationship with a "principle" owner of the debt they're collecting on. Does that owner exist? Wouldn't they want to be paid when called into a court of law to prove their debt? Why on earth would a truly "injured party" who is owed a lot of money EVER rely on the likes of these "servicers" to collect anything, when the evidence and proof required under judicial scrutiny leave these debt-collectors wanting?
Oh, I see, too many of these third parties rely on NON-JUDICIAL foreclosure rubber-stamp processes which evade such scrutiny of courts and common sense, to dispossess home-dwellers from their homes and lands WITHOUT PROOF of lawful right to do so.
But even in the latter instance the question remains: "Where and Who is the debt-owner, the mortgagee, the creditor, the beneficiary, the lender, the INJURED PARTY? (All these terms refer to the same one entity who is owed money or property). In the debacle known as "non-judicial foreclosure" the world will never know the answer to this question, an answer which appears to be "NO ONE - its a non-existent entity!"
Meanwhile, the dispossessed family and home-dweller has lost their home and dwelling to this named-phantom, and the self-proclaimed debt-collector "mortgage-servicers" and rogue "trustees of deeds of trusts" laugh all the way to the bank.
Main Street cries "Objection!" And rightly so. #Tyler, we in California are psychically and effectually urging our own State Supreme Court here to publish the Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings case so we can cite to it in our Complaints in court. Thank you for learning about what we have termed "Grand Larceny Dwelling" which is an attack upon our human right and civil right to due process before dispossession of property including real property and ESPECIALLY our very shelter from the elements of harsh and natural environment, shelter and home which humans need to live. Our elders and young children bear the biggest brunt of this scourge called homelessness; and those who are young and strong like myself are compelled to protect those less able who rely on us to combat the unwarranted attacks of "The Foreclosure Machine" algorithm and mistaken protocols of harm and injury still in effect every day.
Full article on Living Lies blog: "Maine Case Affirms Judgment for Homeowner — even with admission that she signed note and mortgage and stopped paying"
Hats off to Maine Supreme Court on this one:
Here are some meaningful quotes from the Court’s opinion:
KeyBank did not lay a proper foundation for admitting the loan servicing records pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See M.R. Evid. 803(6).
KeyBank’s only other witness was a “complex liaison” from PHH Mortgage Services, which, he testified, is the current loan servicer for KeyBank and handles the day-to-day operations of managing and servicing loan accounts.
The complex liaison testified that he has training on and personal knowledge of the “boarding process” for loans being transferred from prior loan servicers to PHH and of PHH’s procedures for integrating those records. He explained that transferred loans are put through a series of tests to check the accuracy of any amounts due on the loan, such as the principal balance, interest, escrow advances, property tax, hazard insurance, and mortgage insurance premiums. He further explained that if an error appears on the test report for a loan, that loan will receive “special attention” to identify the issue, and, “[i]f it ultimately is something that is not working properly, then that loan will not . . . transfer.” Loans that survive the testing process are transferred to PHH’s system and are used in PHH’s daily operations.
The court admitted in evidence, without objection, KeyBank’s exhibits one through six, which included a copy of the original promissory note dated April 29, 2002;3 a copy of the recorded mortgage; the purported assignment of the mortgage by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., from KeyBank to Bank of America recorded on January9, 2012; the ratification of the January 2012 assignment recorded on March 6, 2015; the recorded assignment of the mortgage from Bank of America to KeyBank dated October 10, 2012; and the notice of default and right to cure issued to Kilton and Quint by KeyBank in August 2015. The complex liaison testified that an allonge affixed to the promissory note transferred the note to “Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP,” but was later voided.
Pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule, M.R. Evid. 803(6), KeyBank moved to admit exhibit seven, which consisted of screenshots from PHH’s computer system purporting to show the amounts owed, the costs incurred, and the outstanding principal balance on Kilton and Quint’s loan. Kilton objected, arguing that PHH’s records were based on the records of prior servicers and that KeyBank had not established that the witness had knowledge of the record-keeping practices of either Bank of America or Countrywide. The court determined that the complex liaison’s testimony was insufficient to admit exhibit seven pursuant to the business records exception.
KeyBank conceded that, without exhibit seven, it would not be able to prove the amount owed on the loan, which KeyBank correctly acknowledged was an essential element of its foreclosure action. [e.s.] [Editor’s Note: This admission that they could not prove the debt any other way means that their witness had no personal knowledge of the amount due. If the debt was in fact due to Keystone, they could have easily produced a witness and a copy of the canceled check or wire transfer receipt wherein Keystone could have proven the debt. Keystone could have also produced a witness as to the amount due if any such debt was in fact due to Keystone. But Keystone never showed up. It was the servicer who showed up — the very party that could have information and exhibits to show that the amount due is correctly proffered because they confirmed the record keeping of “Countrywide” (whose presence indicates that the loan was subject to claims of securitization). But they didn’t because they could not. The debt never was owned by Keystone and neither Countrywide nor PHH ever had authority to “service” the loan on behalf of the party who owns the debt.]
the business records will be admissible “if the foundational evidence from the receiving entity’s employee is adequate to demonstrate that the employee had sufficient knowledge of both businesses’ regular practices to demonstrate the reliability and trustworthiness of the information.” Id. (emphasis added).