I am a retired mortgage broker but when the housing meltdown started happening in 2007, I voluntarily get back to work and help former clients save their homes from foreclosure. Because of my extensive experience in real estate and mortgae banking, I was fairly successful in getting loan modifiations from major lenders for the poeple I was helping. In few cases where the Lender wrongfully foreclosed on my clients, I would advise them to file a wrongful forelcosure suit against the Lender, especially in a situation wherein my clients had complied with their trial payments based on approved HAMP.
One of my client is a prudent, intellectual individual who had been paying his loan modification trial payment for more than a year/ Not unusual, because the loan servicer of his loan was Bank of America (BofA). BofA's LM trials could last anywhere from 8 -16 months depending on the Lender.
This borrower's property was not under water; his loan was at least $100,000 less than the value of his home. Quality Loan Service Corp (QLSC) sent him a Notice of Default after my client questioned BofA why his trial payments were not posted in his account. He wrote QLSC disputing the NOD and requesting that this NOD be rescinded since he was in LM process. His Lender was a GSE and he received communication from his Lender that his final LM would be sent to him as soon as BofA's determination of his new loan balance. He communicated this to QLSC and with his letter, he included proof of his LM trial payments.
He also spoke to BofA and the loan specialist he spoke to, said the NOD should have not happened
and they would make sure foreclosure proceeding would be suspended. A week after this conversation, he called BofA again and spoke to another loan specialist and it was confirmed that his loan was not in forelcosure status. He was relieved, because he had not stopped paying his LM trial payments. He was continuously paying three more months after that conversation, when one
night he came home and a Notice of Trustee Sale (NTS) was posted at his front door.
He called BofA the next morning and BofA assured him that foreclsoure would be postponed while
they determine what happened. He could not take a chance, he went to his lawyer friend and ask him to file a lawsuit against BofA. The lawsuit was filed ten days before the auction date. BofA
after being served the lawsuit hired their on lawyer, who assured my client's lawyer that foreclosure would be postponed, and it was not necessary to file a TRO to stop the foreclosure.
My client was relieved and continued to pay as usual.
To make sure that foreclosure was postponed, I advised my client to go to the auction place on the date and time posted on the NTS. His property was scheduled to be auctioned at 10:30 in the morning, but to make sure, he arrived at the auction place 20 minutes earlier. The auctioneer did not call the first bid until 11 AM and while he waited for his property to be called, he never heard it auctioned.
He went home relieved.
Two weeks later, on a Sunday evening coming home from a movie, he saw a Notice to Vacate
posted at his door. The Notice did not mentioned what date and where the Notice came from.
He emailed the notice to his lawyer, who confirmed after speaking to the opposing lawyer that
in fact his property was foreclosed on the same date and time posted. The property was sold at auction to a 3rd party bonafide purchaser at $200,000 less than the value of his home based on
Zillow.com. My client was confused.....I was stunned, I started investigating.
Based on information we received, the property was allegedly auctioned at 9:00AM to a sole bidder. This explained why my client did not hear his property called at 11:00 that morning, his property was allegedly auctioned earlier than scheduled.
Since a lawsuit had been filed already, my next responsibility was to help my client's lawyer to gather all information necessary to present his case to trial. First thing I did was to a hire a title researcher. He pulled all documents recorded from the time my client bought the property
to the time it was foreclosed. With the help of a title examiner, we were able to determine the following: a) The Substitution of Trustee was recorded substituting the original trustee
to QLSC; this instrument was signed by QLSC as atty-in-fact for BofA; b) Assignment of Deed was also recorded subsituting Mers, as nominee to the beneficiary naming BofA as the assignee. This Assignment of Deed was also signed by QLSC acting as asst. secretary of Mers.
Every pre-forelcosure docuemnts recorded showed. QLSC designated themselves as trustee by virtue that they also designated themselves as atty-in fact of BofA. Not one single document in all recorded foreclosure instruments did we find, was signed by the true owner of the note, Bank of America or MERS. Investigating further, QLSC as required by CA Civil Code 2923, included a Declaration signed by a BofA employee that a due deligence was conducted reaching my client to avoid foreclosure. MY client did not get any call from BofA and didn't expect to receive any call either, because he was paying his monthly LM trial payments before and after the NOD was recorded. This employee who signed the Declaration under penalty of perjury was from Florida. Based on reliable investigation, we found two persons bearing the same name as the employee who signed the declaration, who at the date they indicated that the declaration was signed, both were living in Florida. These two both have very long criminal record, in fact one is presently serving time at a federal prison on FLorida and one was living at a house, identified as a half way house.
My client's lawsuit was amended to include Quality Loan Services Corp, who is being represented
by McCarthy and Hulthus, LLP (McC&H).
McCarthy and Hulthus, LLP indicated that in a non-judicial foreclosure QLSC have full authoriy to do what they did. It was verified later that QLCS was owned by McC&H. Meanwhile, my client was evicted from his home, after losing his Unlawful Detainer lawsuit filed by the 3rd party who allegedly purchased my client's home at the auction that never was.
There was obviously something wrong with the judicial system as well. Despite of all fraudulent documents presently at the UD hearing, the judge ruled against my client, because the judge said there was presumption that the property sold to a 3rd party at auction, complied with all stipulated
and legislative procedures. The judge said that the question regarding Deed Upon Trustee Sale
was not an issue that can be tried at UD hearing. He further indicated that whatever loss my client sustained should be determined at the civil trial of the wrongful foreclosure (WF). The WF suit is presently waiting for trial.
Further investigation revealed that McC&H, owned several shadow companies such as realty
company, property management company, escrow company, research and identification company, and insurance claim management, all holding office in their newly acquired office building in El Cajon, CA. Our researchers also revealed that these types of companies that McC&H opened in the last five years are the very same companies under the radar of AML agency of the DOJ.