Balancing the Scales of Justice for Pro Se Homeowners

Wins for Homeowners in the Battle with the Banks! July 2012

Posted by on Jul 23, 2012

There have been some interesting developments in the fight against fraudclosure, especially with Herrera v Deutsche Bank (not to be confused with Herrera v US Bank) and Skov.  Both cases  have brought about some interesting discussion surrounding the contents of the fraudulent (my description) documents the Banks use to wrongfully foreclose on people’s homes.   Alas, not all wins are in favor of the homeowner, the Banks continue to defend their fraud with massive dollars being spent on top tier (and bottom tier) law firms.  However, this blog, for today, will focus on the WINS..cuz’ we can all use some good news!

Keep in mind the first two are “partial” publications, so you can only cite to those parts that are published; and the 3rd one is unpublished.  But you can read’em and learn from ‘em!  ENJOY!

Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dist. 2011   This case is fascinating in that the Court of Appeals (3rd District is located in Sacramento and   Its jurisdiction is over the following counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba.) discusses whether a Court can take judicial notice of the “contents” of the documents recorded in the County Recorder’s office. Hmm…what a novel thought… it seems like most people report that the Judge’s think that if the document is “recorded” then it is “truthful”.  Not sure under what law they make that determination but clearly the Judge’s over in the 3rd District don’t agree.   Bottomline 3rd district is saying “Recordation is not a substitute for evidentiary proof of the truth of the facts asserted in a recorded document

Roger Bernhardt, a professor over at Golden Gate University (I am a raving fan of his legal reasoning)   also has weighed in with his thoughts (and discusses how this ruling could have had a different outcome if the declaration had been done by a different liar   entity’s employee)  (Click here for his blog)  Definitely toggle on over to Google Scholar and get the complete ruling, then supplement your reading with Bernhardt’s evaluation.  Both contain invaluable lessons!

Next up is Skov v. US Bank National Association, Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2012  another homeowner win.  (6th District is located  in San Jose and has jurisdiction over the following counties: Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz). The Court deals with Judicial Notice of the “truthfulness” of recorded documents, like in Herrera, but also deals specifically with CCC § 2923.5 and MERS. )

Here the Court recognizes MERS (banks alternative to  scamming tracking homeowner’s deeds of trust)  as being allowed to initiate the Foreclosure.  Ndex West (a non biased, non independent 3rd party Trustee) signed the Notice of Default as an “agent” of MERS, the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust.  Doesn’t matter how many homeowners file to argue the right of MERS to initiate the foreclosure…this IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE.   Haven’t we learned from Gomes, Gomez and Robinson yet?  Come on people… our Judicial community has sanctioned this blatant disregard for our land records ….. focus on those things you CAN win on.  You know..fraudulent Notice of Default, fraudulent assignments, substitutions of trustee, etc.

SALUTO v. DEUTSCHE BANK NAT. TRUST CO., Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 2012  Another homeowner win that one can only call “PRICELESS”.  (  2nd District main courthouse is in Los Angeles. The secondary courthouse, hosting Division Six, in Ventura. Division Six handles appeals from San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, while Divisions One through Five, Seven, and Eight handle appeals from Los Angeles County)  No one explains what happen with this case better than Martin Mandelman over at Mandelman Matters (See here to read his take on the whole thing)  I have to say I take extra sweet pleasure in this case given that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company trotted out it’s POS Vice President Reynaldo Reyes – famous for his ability to lie without speaking an untruth.  While this is an unpublished opinion it is an interesting study in both filing for a Quiet Title through a default judgment, and a true example of bank stupidity.  God Bless Saluto..enjoy your home lady, you deserve it!  (Keep in mind this ruling is not published so you can’t cite to it, but you can certainly learn from it!)






Join the conversation and post a comment.

  1. Margaret Garcia

    I always appreciate a great article or piece of writing. Thanks for the contribution.

    • Elizabeth

      I could do that, but was told it would cost $5000. Later, I went to a bank and related this quioetsn to the lady the quioetsn of why it costs so much for a refi, to which she replied it was because there would be more closing costs. She then said they could to a modification. She said she knew it could be done once, but she didn’t know if it could be done more than once.


    Very nice post, I am also associated with real estate, foreclosure Los Angeles County, California taxes and properties. I enjoy reading new stuff on this subject, and I hope you will be adding new and fantastic posts on property services. Thanks for writing such a wonderful post.

  3. Idebenone

    The legal conclusion I reach is that the mountain of paperwork starting with the “origination” of the loan is worthless paper unsupported by either consideration (funding the loan) and whose recitations of facts are at variance with (1) the actual trail of money and (2) the provisions of the documents upon which Bank of America now relies requiring assignment of the loan in recordable form into the REMIC within 90 days while it was still performing. But they couldn’t assign it into the trust because (1) the trust had no money or account with which to pay for the loan and (2) this would have prevented the investment bank from trading the loan and the loan portfolios as if it were the property of the investment bank. Thus Bank of America is attempting to appear as the new beneficiary based upon a complete lack of any chain of transactions that would make it so. And they are using the cover of BONY as “trustee” as cover for their false and fraudulent representations knowing full well that neither BONY nor the REMIC ever received a dime from investors, borrowers or anyone else and that instead the flow of money was entirely outside the sham paper transactions upon which BOA now relies.

  4. Sergio Holmes

    The loan was accelerated, with full payment being due. Then we were told to do a short sale or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, then the property went into foreclosure, then we were assigned a new mortgage servicer Green Tree Servicing (who in reality was a debt collector and NOT a new mortgage servicer) then a trustee sale was scheduled by Northwest Trustee Services.

  5. Karl Burnette

    Hi there! Someone in my Myspace group shared this site with us so I came to look it over.
    I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m book-marking and will
    be tweeting this to my followers! Excellent blog and excellent
    design and style.

  6. GS test

    Wins for Homeowners in the Battle with the Banks! July 2012 | Information to Fight Foreclosures

  7. GS test demo

    Wins for Homeowners in the Battle with the Banks! July 2012 | Information to Fight Foreclosures

Leave a Comment


Forgot Password?

Join Us

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.