Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure

Where is FRAUD not criminal? In California!

California Penal Code Section 115 says that it is a felony to record a false document that affects the title to residential properties of not more than four units. The recorded documentation in well over 90% of all foreclosures in California are in violation of 115 PC. However, in at least two Southern California Counties (Riverside and San Diego), the District Attorney is of the opinion that, if the homeowner is behind in the mortgage payments, the lender has the right to foreclose, REGARDLESS if they get the documentation right OR NOT! It seems California is now a State governed by Privilege, rather than a State governed by Laws. Since at least 99.999% of all froeclosures in California are non-judicial, there is no legal oversight of the foreclosure process. To consider a criminal complaint filing, the District Attorney wants to be shown that the lender and/or Trustee KNEW that they had no standing to foreclose when the Trustee recorded the Notice of Default.

Does anyone have any suggestions how to prove this? A lot of homeowners can be helped if we can find an answer to this.

It is my belief that if a felony complaint is filed against a Trustee in a foreclosure, there is a pretty good probability that the Trustee won't pursue and hold the foreclosure sale until the criminal matter has been decided. Also, felonies of this type, carries a maximum penalty of a $75,000.00 fine for each individual violation. (And each recorded document is a separate violation.)

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Randy (Randolph) Frodsham on February 13, 2012 at 12:42am

No, and No. Whether or not to file a criminal complaint rests solely on the decision of the Deputy District Attorney who reviews the file and, quite honestly, where they place their priorities. They go for the low-hanging fruit - the common (idiot) thieves who try to steal peoples equity and property, NOT the BIG corporate (Wall St. bankster) thieves that have the resouces to buy their way out of seemingly anything for literally pennies on the dollar.

In September/October last year, I was involved in a conference call to Kamela Harris' (CA Attorney General) office. I had the opportunity to ask a single question. The question was 'When is something going to be done about the foreclosures being conducted by entities that don't have the standing to call for the sale of the property?' The response was a deafening silence and closing-out the call as quickly as possible without embarrasing themselves. (A couple months later I learned that Ms. Hassis had already accepted about $25,000 in re-election campaign contributions, she was much less than 1-year into her 4-year term, from BofA employees.)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mary on February 13, 2012 at 2:02am

Wow; that is discouraging for us here in CA, right? I saw Kamala Harris at her first press conference here in LA; and, I was one of two who got to ask her a question. My question was:

These homes were securitized in trusts where the PSA chain of title was not followed and where as a result these trusts probably do not even legally exist which leads to the question what about the tax consequences to the trust/investors or somebody? Again silence and she agreed that securitization was a problem she would be looking into. ha ha ha

Well, if you figure any new angles for us here in CA please let me know! @ mveincen@gmail.com

Thanks Randy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy (Randolph) Frodsham on February 13, 2012 at 8:33am

What we've figured out is how to void the deed of trust. In so doing, the property should no longer be eligible for non-judicial foreclosure. (It is the verbiage in the DOT that allows for a property to be foreclosed non-judicially. No DOT, no non-judicial foreclosure remedy.)

When the DOT is voided, the remedy is quiet title. (You go to court NOT suing for quiet title because the judge will assume the responsibility to "protect" the interests of all parties that may be involved; that would include the current servicer as the judge, in this instance cannot tell a genuine party in interest from a simple bill collector. Instead, you sue on any other grounds to void the DOT.) Consider, if the DOT is voided, what is the only logical remedy (solution)?

However, be forewarned, this does NOT eliminate the debt. Somewhere, out in the ether, some one (or entity) may actually have possession of your wet-ink-signature promissory note. If they can prove their standing (a very BIG "if"), they can sue for the money. However, in the meantime, the cloud on title caused by the DOT, has been quieted so the property is yours to do something with. (And there are several things you can do to protect yourself from any possible future lawsuits brought by the bona fide lender.)