via- http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/12-2146/12-2146-2015-05-14.html

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________
No. 12-2146
___________________________
Dirk Beukes; Gesina Beukes, individuals,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as Successor in Interest to
Homecomings Financial, LLC; Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation;
Federal National Mortgage Association; John & Jane
Does, 1-10,
Defendants – Appellees.
____________

Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota – Minneapolis

After refinancing a home mortgage in 2007, Beukes, mailed a notice of rescission in 2010, which was rejected. Beukes stopped making payments. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), as nominee for the lender, published notices of a mortgage foreclosure sale. MERS ultimately purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. Beukes sued, seeking rescission and damages under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), claiming that the amount disclosed as the finance charge on the loan understated the amount they were actually charged by $944.31. The district court dismissed. The Eighth Circuit held an appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, (2015), then affirmed the dismissal. Because Beukes mailed notice within three years, the right of rescission had not expired, but the finance charge disclosed in 2007 did not vary from the actual finance charge by more than one-half of one percent of the total amount financed, so it must be treated as accurate. Therefore, the right to rescind expired three business days after delivery of the disclosures. Beukes did not timely attempt to exercise any expanded right to rescind arising from section 1635(i)(2) that might have been available after the initiation of foreclosure proceedings.

if they didn’t follow the rules…2 words… WARN ACT!

Housing Wire-

Mortgage banking industry law firm Butler & Hosch, P.A. filed an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors to Florida law firm Michael E. Moecker & Associates, an action analogous to Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Butler & Hosch closed their doors this week and laid off the entire staff. It will not open on Monday.

No one at Butler & Hosch could be reached for comment, but HousingWire obtained a copy of the May 14 memo emailed to employees and vendors from Bob Hosch, CEO and Senior Partner at Butler & Hosch confirming the story:

“It is with great sadness that I report to all of you regarding the difficult financial status of Butler & Hosch and its affiliates[1] (“BH”) which has resulted in the filing of the state court Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”). I have voluntarily stepped down as CEO and Senior Partner of BH. The control of the BH companies has been voluntarily placed in the hands of an experienced third-party fiduciary, Mr. Michael Moecker.”

 [HOUSING WIRE]

Mortgage Originator News-

Wells Fargo is once again in hot water, this time over force-placed insurance.

The banking giant, along with perennial defendant Assurant, is being sued in federal court over an alleged force-placed insurance kickback scheme, in which plaintiffs claim that Assurant artificially inflated premiums on insurance in order to pay kickbacks to Wells Fargo.

Three plaintiffs, suing Wells Fargo and Assurant individually “and on behalf of all others similarly situated,” claim that when their homeowner policies were not renewed, Wells Fargo force-placed policies which cost significantly more than their previous insurance – in some cases more than twice as much – covered only the structure of the home and protected only Wells Fargo. They further allege that Wells Fargo received a commission for the more expensive policies.

[MORTGAGE ORIGINATOR NEWS]

Just going to blow right up in their faces AGAIN and I betcha the taxpayers are going to get the bill.

Bloomberg-

JPMorgan Chase & Co., the second-biggest servicer of U.S. mortgages, agreed to buy the right to manage about $45 billion in home loans from Ocwen Financial Corp. starting June 1.

The deal involves servicing rights for 266,000 mortgages owned by Fannie Mae, the New York-based bank said Thursday in a statement that didn’t disclose terms. Bloomberg reported in March that JPMorgan was acquiring the rights.

The agreement will bring JPMorgan’s portfolio for overseeing billing, collections and foreclosures on U.S. mortgages to about $1 trillion, a threshold last exceeded in the fourth quarter of 2013. Its $948.8 billion loan-servicing portfolio as of Dec. 31 trailed only Wells Fargo & Co.’s $1.75 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

[BLOOMBERG]

image: Reuters

Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights

A bankruptcy trustee sued a mortgage lender to recover for defects in a prepetition non-judicial foreclosure sale. The lender brought a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The primary focus of the court was on claims under the state Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Trade Practices (UDAP) law.

The alleged defects in the foreclosure sale included the following:

The published and recorded foreclosure notice announced that the sale would be held in the courtyard of the court building. It also said the sale could be postponed by public announcement. However: (1) Shortly before the sale the state court stopped allowing sales on the premises. So the lender made an oral announcement postponing the sale on a public sidewalk at the bottom of the steps to the entrance of the courthouse. (2) A person standing in the courtyard where the sale was supposed to take place could not see or hear the announcement. No notice of the new date and location was published.
According to the published terms of the sale: (1) the lender would only give a quit claim deed, (2) the buyer had to pay at least 10% of the bid price at the close of the auction, (3) a cashier’s check for the balance of the bid was due within 21 days, and (4) the buyer had to close within 30 days or forfeit the 10% down payment. However, the winning bidder (who had purchased other properties at sales conducted by the lender’s attorney) received a limited warranty deed and closed the sale nine months after the auction without losing its 10% down payment.
The winning bid was ~$112,000 (subject to the first mortgage). This was substantially less than market value. The buyer resold the house two years later for $535,000.

The trustee asserted three claims: (1) the lender violated UDAP by engaging in “unfair” and “deceptive” foreclosure practices; (2) it engaged in an unfair method of competition by deterring potential bidders; (3) it engaged in wrongful foreclosure by failing to comply with the foreclosure statute and the power of sale in the mortgage, and by violating its duty “to act reasonably and in good faith to get the best possible price when it sold the house.”

 [Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights]

Clouded Titles-

Imagine if you will … (Rod Serling … tongue-in-cheek LOL) …

You get out your original mortgage or deed of trust, suspecting that the original lender may not have been a real lender at all. But how can you tell?

The first plausible idea came from research done by a multitude of paralegals (and subsequently homeowners like Linda Nash of Seminole County, Florida, whose final order is published below), revealing that within the Secretary of State’s database for ANY State in the Union, that certain “lenders” may not have actually existed from the git-go (hence the legal term “ab initio” or “from the beginning”). Two of those suspected illegitimate “lenders” were America’s Wholesale Lender and America Brokers Conduit (which wasn’t registered until 2012, despite the fact that tens of thousands of mortgages and deeds of trust were issued in its name prior to its formal registration). A last-minute registration does not perfect the actions of an entity taken years prior.

 [CLOUDED TITLES]

SALON-

On Monday, a federal judge ruled, in no uncertain terms, that two banks deliberately misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it sold them subprime mortages during the housing boom, the New York Times’ Peter Eavis reports.

Judge Denise Cote of the Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote that Nomura Holdings and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) directly contributed to the bond market collapse, then lied about their involvement, writing that “[t]he magnitude of falsity, conservatively measured, is enormous.” Unlike Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, which settled with the government for $18 billion in order to prevent the public from learning about the true extent of their behavior, Nomura and RBS challenged the government — which was not the best idea, according to Judge Cote.

Nomura and RBS “relied, as they are entitled to do, on a multifaceted attack on the plaintiff’s evidence. That attack failed.”

[SALON]

REUTERS-

A U.S. judge on Monday ruled that Nomura Holdings Inc made false statements in selling mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ahead of the 2008 financial crisis.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan ruled for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in a ruling that could allow the U.S. regulator to recover around $450 million.

Cote, who presided over a non-jury trial, said the FHFA was entitled to judgment against Nomura and the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, which underwrote some of the $2 billion in mortgage-backed securities, in light of misstatements they made in offering documents.

 [REUTERS]

LAW 360-

The U.S. Department of Justice has elected not to bring a case against Citigroup Inc. in its wide-ranging investigation into alleged rigging of the London Interbank Offered Rate, the bank said in a Monday securities filing.

The New York-based bank had earlier said that the Justice Department was looking into the activities of its traders, and Citigroup’s Citibank N.A. unit was mentioned as having had employees engaged in Libor manipulation with colleagues from Deutsche Bank AG in that bank’s settlement last month.

However, Citigroup said the Justice Department would not be bringing a case in its 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“The Department of Justice has advised Citigroup that, based on the facts and circumstances as the Department of Justice currently understands them, the Department of Justice has decided to decline prosecution with respect to [Libor,]” Citigroup said in its filing.

 [LAW 360]

WSJ-

Top executives from the biggest U.S. banks, concerned about anti-Wall Street rhetoric already bubbling up on the 2016 campaign trail, are working to push back against the prevailing narrative that banks are bad.

Senior executives from seven of the biggest U.S. banks gathered or dialed into a March 31 meeting on the 51st floor of the Bank of America Tower in New York to discuss the upcoming election cycle and how the firms can counteract what they view as false and damaging statements about large banks, according to emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and people familiar with the meeting.

The effort underscores the degree to which Wall Street remains a political punching bag and a source of anger among lawmakers and the public nearly seven years after the financial crisis. Already, several presidential candidates have lobbed criticism at Wall Street and directly attacked big banks and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass) continues to exert pressure, warning about big banks’ efforts to roll back financial regulations.

 [WALL STREET JOURNAL]

NYT-

Two of the nation’s biggest banks will finally put to rest the zombies of consumer debt — bills that are still alive on credit reports although legally eliminated in bankruptcy — potentially providing relief to more than a million Americans.

Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase have agreed to update borrowers’ credit reports within the next three months to reflect that the debts were extinguished.

The move is a victory for borrowers whose credit reports have been marred as a result of the reported debts, imperiling their job prospects and torpedoing their chances of getting new loans.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

“Releasing a debt that has already been discharged is not in the spirit of the settlement,” Mr. Parker said. “My concern is that the bank will use these cases to avoid having to give true principal reductions to people who need it.”

NYT-

There was plenty of fanfare last August when Bank of America agreed to a record $16.7 billion settlement with the Justice Department over dubious mortgage practices. Prosecutors crowed about the deal, which required the bank to provide $7 billion of consumer relief — including such things as loan modifications — over the ensuing four years.

But now that the settlement has faded from the public eye, questions are arising about whether the promised assistance is actually getting to the right people and whether the bank will be allowed to claim credit for consumer relief that far exceeds its actual value.

The details are complex, but worth delving into, given the importance of the issue. As outlined in the settlement, Bank of America is required to make a wide array of loans more affordable for borrowers. The bank was expected to forgive or reduce the amounts owed on the first and second mortgages it held. In exchange, the bank would receive credit for these reductions in dollar amounts outlined in the settlement.

 [NEW YORK TIMES]

image: Reuters Mike Blake

The defendants appeal a final judgment of foreclosure entered after the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse because a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the plaintiff had standing at the inception of the lawsuit.

The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Lindsey, 50 So.3d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

“The party seeking foreclosure must present evidence that it owns and holds the note and mortgage in question in order to proceed with a foreclosure action.” Lizio v. McCullom, 36 So.3d 927, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The plaintiff must prove that it had standing to foreclose at the time the lawsuit was filed. McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Where the plaintiff files the original note after filing suit, an undated blank endorsement on the note is insufficient to prove standing at the time the initial complaint was filed. Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 137 So.3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Moreover, an assignment of mortgage, even if executed before the foreclosure action commenced, is insufficient to prove standing where the assignment reflects transfer of only the mortgage, not the note. Id. at 1133. The mortgage follows the assignment of the promissory note, but an assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt creates no right in the assignee. Id.

Here, the plaintiff’s documents failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff had standing to foreclose at the time it originally filed suit. The undated blank endorsement on the original note, which was filed over a month after the plaintiff initially brought suit, was insufficient to prove that the plaintiff had standing to enforce the note at the inception of the lawsuit. Likewise, the “Assignment of Mortgage” from DLJ Mortgage Capital to the plaintiff reflected a transfer of only the mortgage, not the note. Because there was no proof that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when it filed the initial complaint, the Assignment of Mortgage to the plaintiff was insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s standing at the inception of the case. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact still exists as to when the plaintiff took possession of the note.

We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings. In light of this disposition, we decline to address the defendants’ other arguments for reversal.

Reversed and Remanded.

PER CURIAM.

GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________________________________________
No. 14-4315
_________________________________________
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, RECORDER OF DEEDS, by
and through NANCY J. BECKER, in her official capacity as the Recorder of
Deeds of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MERSCORP, INC., and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the July 11, 2014 decision of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Civil Action No. 11-CV-06968
(Honorable Curtis Joyner) certified for interlocutory appeal on
September 8, 2014
_________________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE LEGAL SERVICES CENTER
OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND LAW PROFESSORS
IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLEE

_________________________________________
MAX WEINSTEIN
CHARLES CARRIERE
K-SUE PARK
LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
120 Boylston Street
Jamaica Plain, MA
(617) 390-2694

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The Legal Services Center is a program of Harvard Law School at Harvard
University, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. No party, party’s counsel, nor any
person other than the amicus curiae authored any part of the brief, nor contributed
money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF INTEREST……………………………………………………….. 1
ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED………………………………………………………. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………….. 1
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
I. MERS is a departure from and disruption of the traditional recording
practices, upon which it relies………………………………………………….. 4
A. Prior to MERS, records of real property interests were public,
transparent, and provided a secure foundation upon which the
American economy could grow……………………………………. 4
B. MERS was created to reduce costs for sellers of mortgage-backed
securities (MBS)………………………………………………………. 6
C. The MERS structure substitutes the MERS name for that of the
mortgage lender in the county registry………………………………. 8
D. MERS privatized and made the documentation of transfers of
mortgage notes optional, discouraging the mortgage industry from
maintaining complete records of actual holders of interests in real
property……………………………………………………………………. 10
E. MERS interferes with Pennsylvania’s requirement that purported
assignees prove their relationship to the original lender in order to
foreclose……………………………………………………………. 12
F. MERS lacks legal authority and public accountability……………….. 12
G. MERS acts as a placeholder in the traditional recording system,
and cannot function without that system …………………………… 17
II. MERS helped precipitate the foreclosure crisis and left homeowners
without recourse to protect their property
rights……………………………… 18
A. MERS facilitated the securitization of subprime loans…………….. 18
B. MERS increased the costs of enforcing property rights and left
homeowners without recourse to challenge wrongful
foreclosures…………………………………………………………………………… 21
C. Surveys, audits and public media have exposed the inaccuracy of
records in the MERS database……………………………………… 22
D. Court proceedings and federal agency investigations have exposed
the inaccuracy of records in the MERS database………..…………. 24
E. MERS’s inaccuracy affects not only the properties for which it
is named as mortgagee, but all properties adjoining those
properties…………………………………………………………… 26

[…]

LA TIMES-

Rigid sales quotas at Wells Fargo Bank have driven employees to open unauthorized accounts for customers, sticking them with bogus fees and damaging their credit, according to a city of Los Angeles lawsuit that echoes a Times investigation.

The civil complaint, filed Monday in state court in Los Angeles by City Atty. Mike Feuer, says the largest California-based bank encouraged its employees to engage “in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent conduct” through a pervasive culture of high-pressure sales. Employees misused customers’ confidential information and often failed to close unauthorized accounts even when customers complained, the suit alleges.

Some employees went so far as to raid client accounts for money to open additional accounts, the suit alleges.

[LA TIMES]

SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK
I.A.S. PART 33 – SUFFOLK COUNTY

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
Trustee for JP MORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST
2007-S3,
Plaintiff,

-against-

LUC A. FEDNARD, SABINE M. FEDNARD,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, “JOHN DOES” :
and “JANE DOES”, said names being fictitious
parties intended being possible tenants or occupants :
of premises, and corporations, other entities or
persons who claim or may claim a lien against the
premises,
Defendants.

Excerpt:

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing the
affirmative defenses and counterclaims asserted in the answer served by the obligor/mortgagor
defendants, Fednard, and for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on its complaint. The
plaintiff further demands an order fixing the defaults in answering of the remaining defendants who
were served with process and, among other things, the appointment of a referee to compute.

The motion is opposed by the answering defendants in cross moving papers wherein they seek
to compel the plaintiff to comply with outstanding discovery demands and for leave to serve an
amended answer.

The plaintiffs motion ( #001) is denied. The moving papers failed to demonstrate, prima facie
that the affirmative defenses, such as the standing defenses asserted in the answer of the defendants
Fednard, are, as a matter of law, without merit and the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment on its
complaint for foreclosure and sale against said defendants. Review of the affidavit of Tisha Denney,
Assistant Secretary to the plaintiff’s attorney-in-fact and servicer and the other attachments to the
moving papers reveal that they are insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to the dismissal
of the plaintiff’s affirmative standing defenses as particulars regarding note delivery were not
advanced in the affidavit of the plaintiff’s servicer or other its agents (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust
Co. v Haller, I 00 AD3d 680, 954 NYS2d 551 [2d Dept 2012]; HSBC Bank USA v Hernandez, 92
AD3d 843, 939 NYS2d 120 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Bank of America, N.A. v Paulsen, 125 AD3d
909, 2015 WL 775197 [2d Dept2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA vBurke, 125 AD3d 765, 2015 WL
542140 [2d Dept 2015]; U.S. Bank Natl. Ass’n v Faruque, 120 AD3d 575, 575, 991NYS2d630
[2d Dept 2015]; U.S. Bank Natl. Ass’n v Weinman, 123 AD3d 1108, 2014 WL 7392278 [2d Dept
2014]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barnett, 88 AD3d 636, 931NYS2d630 [2d Dept 2011];
cf.,Aurora Loan Serv., LLCv Taylor, 114 AD3d 627, 980 NYS2d 475 [2d Dept 2014]; Wells Fargo
Bllnk, N.A. v Arias, 121 AD3d 973, 995 NYS2d 118 (2d Dept 2014]; Central Mtge. Co. v
McClelland, 119 AD3d 885, 991 NYS2d 87 [2d Dept 2014]; see also Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust
Co. v Whalen , 107 AD3d 931, 969 NYS2d 82 [2d Dept 2013]). The assertion by plaintiff’s counsel
set forth in ~ 43 of his affirmation is woefully insufficient to warrant dismissal of the defendants ‘
standing defenses as a matter of law.
Nor may the plaintiff successfully rely upon the assignment of the mortgage attached to the
moving papers as said assignment did not include an assignment of the mortgage note (see Bank of
America, N.A. v Paulsen, 125 AD3d 909, 2015 WL 775197 [2d Dept 2015]; U.S. Bank Natl. Ass’n
v Faruque, 120 AD3 575, 575, 991NYS2d 630 [2d Dept 2014] ; Bank of New York Mellon v Gtlles,
116 AD3d 723, 982 NYS2d 911 [2d Dept 2014]; US BankofNYvSilverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280,
[* 2] 926 NYS2d 532 [2d Dept 2011]) .. The plaintiffs motion is thus denied without regard to the
sufficiency of the defendants’ opposing papers.

[…]

The Home Equity Reporter-

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (Martinsburg, West Virginia):

Amanda Bishop, 35, of Martinsburg, was convicted [] in federal court after she submitted fraudulent mortgage documents during court proceedings, United States Attorney William J. Ihlenfeld, II, announced.

An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that Bishop fell behind on her mortgage payments and subsequently created and submitted to the court fake bank statements purporting to show that she had made mortgage payments in the amount of $1,848.00 on Nov. 17, 2010 and Dec. 15, 2010.

Bishop pled guilty [] to one count of “False Declaration Before Court,” for which she faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.00.(1) Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed will be based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.

[THE HOME EQUITY REPORTER]

Komo News-

Jerod Fiscus had the American dream in his grasp, and then watched it all slip away.

“Those memories are in my head. That’s all I got,” he said. “I lost my job. I was on unemployment.”

He lost his livelihood, his marriage and like so many others during the economic downturn, his home in Lacey. His voice wavers and he nearly wipes away a tear. Even with his emotions in check, Fiscus takes the blame.

“That’s all my fault. That’s nobody else’s fault but mine,” he said.

[KOMONEWS]

Journal Sentinel-

Out of work and unable to pay his mortgage, Kenneth Barron Jr. knew he was going to lose his small ranch home on W. Roosevelt Drive in Milwaukee to foreclosure. So he and his teenage son packed their bags about four years ago and left.

“I said, ‘All right, if you’re going to take the house, then take the house,'” said Barron.

Morocco Investments LLC, a major buyer and seller of central city properties, did just that in January 2012, paying $13,501 at a weekly sheriff’s sale to buy Barron’s foreclosed home.

Yet as far as city tax collectors are concerned, Barron still owns the property. Their records show he owes $12,289 in delinquent taxes, fines and fees.

[JOURNAL SENTINEL]

Herald Tribune-

The West-of-the-Trail lot is now vacant, shorn of its bungalow, and probably the site of a future — and prestigiously located — mega-home.

But the former foreclosure property at 1807 Magnolia St. still oozes with the sticky legal stress left over from a case that is nearly five years old.

Sarasota author Elizabeth Coursen lost her home after complaining that the monthly payments had inexplicably shot up, and then signing a forebearance agreement suggested by her lender that would put her payments on hold while the bank figured out its own accounting snafu.

[HERALD TRIBUNE]

Clouded Titles-

Since the beginning of this country, county land records were designed because America needed some sort of “fundamental order” in its keeping of land ownership records. And in this case, I’m talking about the proper ones, not the ones influenced by the behaviors of today’s legislatures (at the whims of the banking cartels). One of the many concerns within the realm of real property law, which I have had the pleasure of studying to the umteenth degree, much to the chagrin of others, began with my own experiences, which I write about in Clouded Titles, now in its final Mayday Edition version.

I expressly designed this work as an educational product because I found America lacking in the basic principals of real estate ownership that they may have either NOT learned in high school or college, or in the alternative, conveniently forgot about as part of the Age of Entitlement generations. There are two issues here that I will discuss further, the key reasons for WHY quiet title actions should become part of your legal research and education to benefit your future and the future of America, if there ever is to be one.

There are a lot of Patriot-type folks out there that will disagree with my theories and my educational principles regarding quiet title, but I can tell you, I’ve done them … and they work. Without quiet title, burps and hiccups in any given chain of title will render it impaired and thus, unmarketable. You can disregard your belief that the “county” you live in has any authority, but let me tell you, you are in the minority of all of the registered voters who have faith in their county government, until their government proves them otherwise. If you want change, then run for public office and change things! First, have some respect for our current system, because it’s the only thing we have in place that stands in the pendulum path of civility versus anarchy. Those of you out there who think you can still get title in allodium … keep dreaming. We’re way past that point.

[CLOUDED TITLES]