Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision | US Bank N.A. v. Guillaume @ Din_SFLA


Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision | US Bank N.A. v. Guillaume

Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision | US Bank N.A. v. Guillaume

I disagree with the judge’s motion words below and see video below as to why even attorney’s have a difficult time.

“I have a lot of problems with saying that all that’s going, with all this evidence of [c]ourt process for over a year, to just rely on trying to negotiate something with the bank was like sticking your head in the sand.

This wasn’t going to go away and they
didn’t get any assurance from the bank that
they were succeeding in their negotiation
efforts or that an answer to the complaint
was not required. I mean they just focused
on one path. And they ignored the
negotiation path and they ignored the
litigation side of things. You can’t do

And I have to say that . . . Mrs.
Guillaume was being so aggressive and so
persistent in trying to negotiate and going
to all these different places to get help,
but the one place she wasn’t going was a
member of the bar, a lawyer which is usually
what you do when you get [c]ourt papers.

Or if you absolutely can’t afford a
lawyer and that’s the case of many
foreclosures, a very heavy self-represented
area of the law to at least contact the
[c]ourt yourself and you send in some
rudimentary answer. And it doesn’t have to
be fancy. I mean you write a letter to the
foreclosure unit, they’ll stamp contested on

Because I’ve seen so many of them long
hand. But nothing was done. And I don’t
regard that as excusable neglect. So that
prong is lacking.”  

(emphasis added).

Simply wrong, one does NOT understand how frustrating it is to even try to get anyone from the “bank” on the phone, attempting a modification as we have read time and time again were nothing but DISASTROUS and GOING ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE!

[Please watch Michigan Atty Vanessa Fluker and you’ll understand why].

Lets not forget, this reversal that goes to the heart of this from out of New Jersey: BANK OF NEW YORK vs. LAKS | NJ Appeals Court Reversal “A notice of intention is deficient…if it does not provide the name and address of the lender”


In the nearly five months since the state Supreme Court effectively allowed six of the country’s biggest banks to begin filing foreclosures again, attorneys and court officials have been expecting a flood of new filings to hit the courts.

Except it hasn’t happened. Foreclosure filings are down 83 percent as of October this year, compared with the same time period last year, according to court figures, and there are at least 100,000 cases either pending in the system or waiting to be submitted.

Attorneys involved in the work in New Jersey point to at least one reason for the significant delay: a court case that has reached the state Supreme Court, with oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case, US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, is important because the court …


[ipaper docId=74692087 access_key=key-1xrvd0kemha1r7mycu2h height=600 width=600 /]


© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



This post was written by:

- who has written 9281 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

3 Responses to “Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision | US Bank N.A. v. Guillaume”

  1. Eugene Villarreal says:

    The live New Jersey Supreme Court webcast hearing on the US Bank, N.A. v. Gullaume case, the defendant’s attorney made a very good case and brought out the legal points to the case. The bank’s attorney was mostly complaining about that the Fair Foreclosure Act was not ” FAIR “(to the banks, of coarse). It was fair for them before the courts enacted the ACT. also, that their attorneys were not willing to lose their license over their signature on the affidavits of diligent search. As in US Bank,N.A. v. Laks, in New Jersey also, the appellate court held that in the NOI the NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE LENDER must be on it.
    Unfortunately, in New Jersey the Supreme Court justice saw fit to iniate the Order To Show Cause because judges were “rubber stamping” foreclosure cases last December. The banks fraudulent foreclosures and the trial court(and this appellate court) judges use of “Discretion” is what created this mess. In this court, the judges use discretion in the use of Rule 4:50-1. Forget about how US Bank obtained the authority to foreclose thru the (?) transfer from MERS the assignee which should have been a giant RED FLAG waving throughout the court. Forget about who authenicated the Note in question. Forget about the alledged lender not being the lender(true creditor as FannieMae is awaiting around the corner trying to be the quasi-lender). Forget about the mortgage and note being split. Forget about the written law. Discretion is only written in the minds of judges who reject the Rule of Law.

  2. dinsfla says:

    Thank you for this information.

  3. DANI says:

    shamfull nj judges rubber stemo bank fraud,and refues to give real due process of the law to the people .banksters stealing homes in
    nj with help of judges that donr even looking to see if they the banks even own the homes they attempt to forcuse on


Leave a Reply

Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com


Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments