Running Issues

[Daniel Hanecak]

As most of you can attest, we face a boilerplate opposition to each of
our motions. I'd like to start a list of issues that we need to attack
head on to attempt to somehow take out the house of cards that is
currently the banks foundation. Please feel free to add issues and
case law or research that you may have found that could help.

-Tender (Dimock - challenging underlying debt does not require full
tender)
-2924 is a comprehensive framework (Garfinkle - the progeny of these
cases basically said that no new causes of action needed to be written
because the existing ones were fine. This has been mutated into
nothing else applying to 2924 because it is "comprehensive.")
-UCC does not apply (California Golf LLC is the only case I've found
that we can argue here.)
-2932.5 does not apply to Deeds of Trust (Judge Mann cases from S.D.
Cal. Banks use Stockwell from 1908, this is very outdated.)
-no proof of agency authorizations are required by the court
-no evidence of obligation is required (Pick a case where they say you
don't have to show the note.)

[Mark Brifman]

A very good idea to break it down by issue. I have been meaning to do
that for some time with my stuff, and just have not had the time. I
have a pretty good section on Tender. I will upload it when I figure
out how to do so. I am told that these groups have ways of storing
files as well as just a discussion.

Mark

[TP...@aol.com]

Dan

 

In a message dated 9/20/2011 6:16:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, djha...@gmail.com writes:

-Tender (Dimock - challenging underlying debt does not require full
tender)

 

My reading of Dimock is that if the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale is void, then no tender is required to cancel the deed.   The reason is that a void deed is a legal claim and not an equitable claim that would require clean hands.

 

Typically you can allege a void deed if the Substitution of Trustee is invalid, such as the wrong entity is doing the substitution.  In Dimock the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing on the Sub.

 

I plan to attack the foreclosure and even a Trustee's Deed if MERS signs the Sub.   There is no MERS.   The person signing on behalf of MERS is just an employee of whatever foreclosure company is working the file.   You can show that this person is not properly authorized by MERS and has no knowledge of any of the facts underlying the Sub.

 

 

 

Robert J. Spitz
Attorney at Law
204 N. San Antonio
Ontario, CA 91762
909 395 0909
Email: tp...@aol.com
Website: Robertspitzlaw.com