Supreme Court rules that thousands of home foreclosures are invalid
because banks do not have promissory notes
http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10880
because banks do not have promissory notes
http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10880
More than five million US homeowners and counting have had their homes foreclosed upon by banks since the "economic crisis" first began several years ago. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled that the vast majority of the foreclosures that took place in the Commonwealth and in most other states within the past five years are illegitimate because the banks did not, and do not, actually hold the promissory notes for the properties.
This means that all mortgage payments made to banks for illegitimately foreclosed upon properties are fraudulent since such banks do not technically own the properties in question. This means that anyone who is threatened currently with potential foreclosure does not have a legal obligation to continue paying their mortgage.
Even homeowners who do not face foreclosure are not necessarily required to continue paying their mortgages -- if their lenders are unable to produce valid promissory notes showing true ownership of the property. Then those who follow through with mortgage payments to such lenders are technically participating in fraud because there is no way to verify whether or not mortgage payments are going to the true note holders, or even who the true note holders are in the first place.
"Radical though it may seem, I believe the only way to stop the chaos of fraud and the breakdown of the rule of law in our courts, and most importantly to ensure that I am are not participating in the fraud, is for homeowners like me to stop paying.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules That Most Foreclosure Sales From Previous 5 Years Are VOID
Without the original "wet ink" promissory note, a foreclosing party cannot show a legal injury, i.e., does not have standing to sue. Without standing, the action before the court does not qualify as a "case or controversy" under Article III of the constitution. Courts can only make rulings on "cases or controversies;" advisory opinions are a legal nullity. Consequently, a court that purports to enter a "judgment" where it has no subject matter jurisdiction has in fact entered a legal nullity on its docket; that "judgment" is void as a matter of law.
As such, any such "judgment" entered where the bank had no standing is open to collateral attack in any subsequent proceeding. What is more, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; were that the case, parties could falsely induce courts to make binding rulings--obviously non-sensical. On Oct. 18th, 2011 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down their decision in the FRANCIS J. BEVILACQUA, THIRD vs. PABLO RODRIGUEZ - and in a moment, essentially made foreclosure sales in the commonwealth over the last five years wholly void. http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10880
The Massachusetts SJC is one of the most respected high courts in the country, other supreme courts look to these decisions for guidance, and would find it difficult to rule any other way in their own states. It is a precedent. It's an important precedent.
Ostriches are said to have discovered this the hard way. On November 12th, 2010 in our article "Tattoos, Pyramid Schemes and Social Justice" http://amvona.com/blog/economics/20-tattoos-pyramid-schemes-and-social-justice.html we advocated that home owners, with securitized mortgages, regardless of their ability to pay, consider suspending their mortgage payments, and place those funds into a private escrow account instead. We wrote:
"Radical though it may seem, we believe the only way to stop the chaos of fraud and the breakdown of the rule of law in our courts, and most importantly to ensure that we ourselves are not participants in the fraud, is for homeowners who can afford their mortgage to stop paying it..."
We pointed out that suspending such payment might be done for the following reasons, which in light of the recent Bevilacqua decision, and the pending Eaton Decision, are increasingly being proven correct:
"1. They are not sure where or if their payments are going to the true note holder.
2. They no longer know who the true note holder is.
3. They have a legitimate concern that they may not be able to ever obtain clear title and/or title insurance (in the event of a sale) given what we now know about improperly conveyed titles and the illegitimacy of "MERS".
4. They do not want to be an unwitting or passive participant in fraud.
5. They care about America, want our culture to be healed and recognize the dignity of every human being."
"If these legitimate reasons are the cause to suspend mortgage payments, then what attack on these "non-co-operators", character can be leveled? In these cases, Judge's will have to allow for proper civil procedure to take place in order for the legitimate inquiries of concerned Americans to come to light. Since banks virtually never produce adequate documentation (which appears to be by design), chances are things will escalate."
We went on to discuss the unique risks of apathy and denial in the following:
"...Americans have a duty to ask critical questions about the operations of their financial institutions, and if evidence has been presented that a deal was made, but not everyone was playing by the rules, than those deals need to be looked at again. It is not good enough any longer to say, if it doesn't affect "me" than, I'm not getting involved. We have a duty to one another as Americans, and more importantly as human beings, to care about truth and justice. What's more, apathy, so long as we are not affected, is a short lived consolation. Ultimately, this crisis will affect everyone sooner or later."
DISCLAIMER: Legal Information is NOT the same as Legal Advice. Educational/Entertainment information is provided to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal information is not the same as legal advice. The application of law varies with an individual's specific circumstances. We go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our educational information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation. We do not offer legal, tax, or accounting advice and are not licensed to do so.
All information in this post is intended for your general knowledge only and is not a substitute for an attorney's advice. But with all that said - IT IS NOW TIME TO FIGHT 2 KEEP YOUR HOME.
