Wells Fargo Home Mortgage | 333 S. Grand Avenue, 11th Floor | Los Angeles, Calif. 90071
Tel 213-253-3379 | Cell 213-369-6122 | Fax 213-617-8135
Note: That is important for him to say because Dual Tracking is illegal and all these people wanted was a loan mod to get out from under arguably usurious conditions.
Meanwhile Daneford and Ellareen Wright are facing a similar fate closer to Kahului. There are gofundme pages for both sets of homeowners:
Save our Farm From Fraudulent Banks.
Please Help Our Ohana Save Our Home.
To my observation as a former Escrow attorney, there are two common denominators in both cases: First is an apparently manufactured and false paper trail that purports to confer authority to foreclose. Second -- and perhaps more importantly -- is the presence of Judge Peter T. Cahill, who is allowing these cases to proceed without strict compliance with HRS 667-17, attorney affirmation. As far as I know only Hawaii and New York State have this requirement, but without judicial enforcement it is nothing more than hot air. In NY Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman gets it, citing "systemic structural failings" so why can't Judge Cahill?
Some of the issues common for both cases include the presence of robosigning and whether or not a homeowner may challenge the Chain of Title and Assignments. As to the former, I am aware that Essex County, MA Register John O'Brien has reviewed the Wright documents and confirmed that they are indeed robosigned but this Court is refusing to acknowledge any of that. O'Brien has gone on record after his audit with Marie McDonnell to state that his office is a corporate crime scene. Seattle Washington is going to start conducting audits as well. Watch me discuss this matter with City Council here.
Production of several videos should be complete in the next week, with a lead-in video of an interview with Deadly Clear's Sydney Sullivan regarding Patents and 1003 Mortgage Applications as contemplated by the third video down in this journal entry from New York City. Meanwhile enjoy the WF and BoA videos I have produced on prior occasion, as both of these entities are involved in these cases:
Well my research indicates that juries can indeed be drawn on mortgage cases. See State Savings v. Young 53 Haw. 132; 488 P.2d 703; 1971 Haw. LEXIS 88 (1971). To the North in Oregon we have Bela and Eva Lengyel v. J.P. Morgan with a $10K Jury Verdict against J.P. Morgan. Those who protect the banksters don't want Jury Trials because Juries will punish them for their lawlessness, fancy that.
Further, assuming arguendo that it is a matter of equity, then the Plaintiffs must demonstrate Clean Hands according to the Clean Hands Doctrine. Bank of America recently lost out on that recently: Bank of America v. Pate 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3774 (First Dist. Ct. App March 16, 2015), in which the Court opined:
“In this civil foreclosure case, the trial court found that Appellant Bank of America (the Bank) engaged in egregious and intentional misconduct in Appellee Pates’ (Pate) purchase of a residential home. Thus, based on the trial court’s finding that the Bank had unclean hands in this equity action, it did not reversibly err in denying the foreclosure action and granting a deed in lieu of foreclosure. In addition, the trial court did not err in ruling in favor of the Pates in their counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud, and awarding them $250,000 in punitive damages and $60,443.29 in compensatory damages….”The learned trial judge found that the Bank’s actions demonstrated its unclean hands; therefore, the Bank was not entitled to a foreclosure judgment in equity.
Unclean hands is an equitable defense, akin to fraud, to discourage unlawful activity. See Congress Park Office Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 105 So. 3d 602, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“It is a self-imposed ordinance that closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief[.]”) (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945))). The totality of the circumstances established the Bank’s unclean hands, precluding it from benefitting by its actions in a court of equity. Thus, the trial court did not err by denying the foreclosure action.So by that measure then the Court should be demanding strict compliance with the Statute, right? I will be contacting the bank attorneys over the weekend and look forward to their responses.