The Helping Responsible HomeOwners Act

http://www.housingpredictor.com/2011/underwater-homeowners-refinancing.html

Condo Maintenance Fee Recovery Tactic Popular in Florida

http://www.mortgageservicingnews.com/msn_features/-1025519-1.html

A legal strategy pioneered by the Association Law Group of Miami enables homeowners’ associations and condominium associations to collect “mounting unpaid maintenance fees” from prior owners after banks take the property title through a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.

Willy the Wizzard v. Harry Potter

UK Court To Potter Plagiarism Suit: Expelliarmus!
Law360, New York (July 18, 2011) -- J.K. Rowling's spokeswoman said Monday that a U.K. lawsuit alleging the author copied “Willy the Wizard” creator Adrian Jacobs' work for use in a Harry Potter book has been dismissed after Jacobs' estate failed to pay the bond to continue the case.


Justice David Kitchin of the High Court of Justice had said in March that the deceased author's estate would have to produce a £1.5 million security bond in order to continue with the copyright infringement case against Rowling and Bloomsbury Publishing PLC

http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/258662?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip

US Suit same guy:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202463526469&Harry_Potter_publisher_sued_in_New_York_for_alleged_copyright_infringement&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Here is the Book that claims J.K. Rowling plagiarized  them.

http://www.willythewizard.com/index.html


Here's another one- scam artist
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=900005532294

History of People trying to cash in on Rowling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series

Hate Legalize?

http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/2011/07/corp-jargon.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fpcnu+%28The+Careerist%29

http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/blogs/entry-detail?blog_id=1465&entry_id=13542

BOYCOTT BEST WESTERN!!!!!!!!!

No apology- not even a free coupon for coffee! Boycott this whole chain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Response from Best Western Corp Management regarding AAA complaint about the Worst hotel in the World-- BEST WESTERN PLUS Universal Inn in Orlando, FL.

 
The office of AAA National Member Relations has contacted our office and has brought to our attention you wished to be contacted concerning your concerns in regards to the BEST WESTERN PLUS Universal Inn in Orlando, FL.

Please accept my apologies for the inability to reach a mutually satisfactory solution and I regret that the response you received from the hotel was not as you expected.
Due to the membership structure, Best Western International is not directly involved in the day-to-day matter of hotel operations of the members. For this reason, it is the responsibility of the hotel’s management to make all decisions regarding complaint resolution.
Our position in Customer Care is to act as an intermediary between the member establishments and their guests when a complaint is filed. We strive to aid both parties in reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. Sometimes this does not occur, as in the case of your complaint.
We will keep your correspondence in our files and your comments will be reviewed when evaluating the overall customer service level of the BEST WESTERN PLUS Universal Inn.
If you feel this situation has not been resolved, it will be necessary for you to contact the management of that establishment directly.
I hope this better explains our position and will not discourage you from staying at Best Western member establishments in the future. Thank you again for taking the time to share your comments with AAA National Member Relations.
Sincerely,
Ginger Loes
Customer Care Representative
Best Western International
20400 N 29th Avenue
Phoenix
AZ
85027
1-800-528-1238 • www.bestwestern.com


No apology- not even a free coupon  for coffee!  Boycott this whole chain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Debt settlement vs. bankruptcy – Which is the better option?

by Rick Murphy



When in debt people try to find out the different debt relief options, through which they may be able to become debt free easily enough. Now, there are various debt relief options that you can take advantage of. Debt is almost become a part of our lives. But, rather than despairing about the fact that you are in debt, it is better for you to try out the different debt relief options. Among the different debt relief options,   debt settlement  (http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/debt-settlement.html)  is quite a popular option. It helps you in lowering the outstanding debt amount. However, some people prefer filing bankruptcy in order to get out of debt.

Which is better?

Amongst the different debt relief options, debt settlement is one such option that helps you in lowering your outstanding debt amount. Thus, it helps you in paying off your debts easily enough.

You can settle your debts on your own or else, you can get the help of a debt settlement company who will negotiate with your creditors to lower the outstanding debt amount. Generally, settlement can help you in lowering the debt amount by 40-60%. Thus, it becomes really easy for you to pay off your debts.

On the other hand, if you file for bankruptcy, which is another debt relief option; you may be able to get a fresh start. Bankruptcy has various advantages and the greatest advantage is that it puts a stay order on your debts and collections.

That is, no creditor can sue you for the unpaid debt and the interest rates won't accrue too. Moreover, you will be able to include even your secured debts in the bankruptcy program. However, in case of debt settlement, you won't be able to include the secured debts in the program. So, which do you think is better for you?

Now, which is the better option will actually depend on your mentality, your debts and your financial situation, and also your eligibility. So, first of all you will have to start analyzing all of your debts, if you have unsecured debts in majority or if it is secured debt mostly. Then, you will have to decide as to your eligibility. Not one and all are eligible to file for divorce. You may have to go through a means test before you can file bankruptcy under Chapter 7.

Other than this, you will have to decide on your financial condition and your affordability. If you think that you still can afford to make the debt payment after settling the dues, it is better for you to opt for debt settlement rather than bankruptcy.

But, if you think that even if you opt for debt settlement, you won't be able to become free of your financial obligations, you can opt for bankruptcy.

11th Cir Affirms FDCPA Ruling in Favor of Debt Collector in Telephone Message Case

In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s telephone messages did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),


15 U.S.C. § 1692, where the message identified the name of the caller, which included the term “Collection Bureau,” and specifically referenced the debtor’s personal file number.

A copy of the opinion is available at:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/201110560.pdf

Plaintiff-debtor (“Debtor”) brought suit against defendant-debt collector, Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc. (“Gulf Coast”), alleging violations of the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (“FCCPA”).

The Debtor’s allegations arose from a series of identical or nearly identical telephone messages from Gulf Coast which stated:

“This message is intended for Eric H. Beeders (Debtor). If you are not Eric H. Beeders please hang up or disconnect. If you are Eric H. Beeders please continue to listen to this message. By continuing to listen to this message you acknowledge that you are Eric H. Beeders. Please return this call to Roy Dillard from Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. Please call 877-827-4820 and ask for file number G31852.”

The lower court granted Gulf Coast’s motion for directed verdict following a bench trial. On appeal, the Debtor argued that the telephone message failed to comply with the FDCPA and FCCPA “because it did not adequately satisfy the disclosure requirement in that it did not identify the nature of the calling company’s business, the fact that the caller was a debt collector, and the fact that the call was being made with respect to the collection of a debt.”

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that “taking this message as a whole, even an unsophisticated consumer would not be misled as to the purpose of this call, as the message identified the name of the caller, which includes the term ‘Collection Bureau,’ and specifically referenced a personal file number.” Accordingly, the Court found “no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that Gulf Coast satisfied the disclosure requirements of the FDCPA.”

The Court also noted that, having found against the Debtor on his FDCPA claim, the Court “need not address Debtor’s arguments that the failure to comply with these requirements constitute a per se violation of the FCCPA.” Therefore, the Court also affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment as to Debtor’s FCCPA claim.

Ind Sup Ct Holds Failure to Name Second-Lienholder in Foreclosure May Result in Buyer Taking Subject To

The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that a mortgage lender who failed to make a junior lienholder a party to a foreclosure action could not institute a new and subsequent foreclosure action against the junior lienholder, because the first mortgage lender's lien was extinguished by the doctrine of merger.


A copy of the opinion is available at:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06291102rdr.pdf
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") foreclosed on a property, bid its judgment and took title to the property by way of a sheriff's deed.

In error, Countrywide did not make Citizens State Bank of New Castle ("Citizens") a party to the foreclosure action, although Citizens held a judgment lien on the property. Countrywide then conveyed title to the
property to Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA").

When Countrywide discovered Citizens' judgment lien, Countrywide filed an action titled "Complaint for Strict Foreclosure," seeking to foreclose Citizens' interest in the subject property. Citizens filed a separate action against FNMA attempting to foreclose on its judgment lien. The two actions were consolidated, each side moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion brought by Countrywide and FNMA.

Citizens appealed and the appellate court reversed, on the grounds that through the doctrine of merger, Countrywide's lien was extinguished. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the opinion of the appellate court.

As you may recall, the doctrine of merger provides that when one party acquires both a lien on and legal title to a property, the two interests merge, and the lien is extinguished. However, merger may produce an arguably unfair result where it operates to give a junior lienholder priority over a senior lienholder. Therefore, an exception to the doctrine of merger provides that merger will not take place if it is against the best interests of the party in whom the interests merge.

The Court began its analysis by nothing that, under Indiana law, a junior lienholder not made a party to a foreclosure action is not bound by the foreclosure. In such circumstances, a purchaser at a foreclosure sale takes the property subject to the junior lienholder's interest.

Next, the Court scrutinized the merger and anti-merger doctrines. It concluded that although courts must presume that the mortgagee intended the result that it was in its best interest, that presumption can be rebutted by evidence finding that a merger had been expressly agreed to.

The Court found such evidence here. When Countrywide conveyed its interest in the property to FNMA, it used language which indicated that the title conveyed was free from all encumbrances. The Court reasoned that Countrywide could only make such a conveyance if Countrywide's lien had been extinguished through merger.

Because "Countrywide demonstrated that it intended a merger of its interests," the Court held that Countrywide was not entitled to the remedy of strict foreclosure. Thus, the decision of the trial court was reversed.

Foreclosure case goes to Supreme Court of Florida

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/dbr/Nieves-appeal.pdf

In Nieves' case, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled Feb. 3 that BNY Mellon legally avoided a claim that it committed a fraud on the court by voluntarily dismissing a foreclosure action against Pino, a Lake Worth, Fla., resident. The claim was dismissed after Pino's counsel scheduled depositions and asked for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether BNY Mellon used a fraudulent mortgage assignment.


On appeal is an 8-1 en banc decision saying courts have no authority to rescind voluntary dismissals and that no harm was done. Judge Mark Polen disagreed, saying the allegation of a systemic fraud was the very thing the Supreme Court addressed in its 2010 rule change giving courts greater latitude in sanctioning plaintiffs who make false allegations.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/article.jsp?id=1202501156555&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=nw20110715&kw=Newcomer%20to%20Argue%20High-Stakes%20Foreclosure%20Case%20Before%20Fla.%20Supreme%20Court

FRB/FTC Issue Final Rule on Dodd-Frank Act Changes to Risk-Based Pricing, Adverse Action Notices

The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued their final rules implementing the new credit score disclosure requirements under Dodd-Frank, specifically relating to adverse actions and risk-based pricing notices under FCRA/Regulation V and ECOA/Regulation B.


Model forms are also provided.

Copies of the Final Rules are available at:

Regulation V:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20110706a1.pdf


Regulation B:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20110706a2.pdf


Under section 311 of FACTA, if a credit score is used in setting material terms of credit or in taking adverse action, creditors must disclose credit scores and related information to consumers in notices. Section 1100F of the Dodd-Frank Act changed the content required for risk-based pricing notices. Accordingly, the final rules amend Regulation V to revise the content requirements for risk-based pricing notices, and to add related model forms that reflect the new credit score disclosure requirements.

The final rules also amend certain model notices in Regulation B, which combine the adverse action notice requirements for Regulation B and the FCRA, to reflect the new credit score disclosure requirements

The rules under Regulations V and B are effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, which is expected shortly.

9th Circuit Oral Argument on Chapter 13 Mortgage Addendum- Monthly Statements

• In re Monroy, No. 10-60005- 9th Circuit Oral Argument on Chapter 13  Mortgage Addendum


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007730

Casey Anthony Off on Murder and Manslaughter

It just goes to show that a juror is made up of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty!


"What do guilty people do? They lie. They avoid. They run. They mislead, not just to their family, but the police. They divert attention away from themselves and they act like nothing is wrong. That's why you heard about what happened in those 31 days."

In Re Veal 9th Cir. BAP

The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit recently overturned a bankruptcy court’s orders granting stay relief and allowing the filing of a proof of claim. Under the facts at issue, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the “BAP”) held that the parties seeking relief from the automatic stay and filing a proof of claim lacked  standing to enforce the mortgage and promissory note at issue.
In two related bankruptcy appeals, the debtors asserted that the asset securitization trust ("Trust") and mortgage loan servicer ("Servicer") lacked standing as real parties in interest to obtain the relief they sought from the bankruptcy court. In one the debtors' Chapter 13 bankruptcy, Trust filed a motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay in order to foreclose its interest in the debtors’ mortgage loan that it purportedly acquired by way of assignment. Similarly, Servicer filed  a proof of claim in the bankruptcy as Trust’s servicing agent.

Based in part on the documentation submitted by Trust and Servicer, the bankruptcy court determined that Trust had standing to obtain relief from the stay and also allowed Servicer’s proof of claim, over the debtors’
objection. The debtors appealed, and the BAP reversed.

As to the appeal regarding Servicer’s proof of claim on behalf of the Trust, the BAP noted that the bankruptcy court failed to make any findings necessary to determine the central issue of Servicer’s standing as a “person entitled to enforce” the mortgage obligation or as the agent of such a person. The BAP held that Servicer presented insufficient evidence showing that it had enforcement rights under the Note or that it had an agency relationship with the Trust. The BAP also held that Servicer presented insufficient evidence as to who possessed the Note and insufficient evidence showing indorsement of the Note either in its favor or in favor of the Trust, for which Servicer was allegedly acting as servicer. Thus, according to the BAP, Servicer could not establish that it held enforcement rights under the Note.

Here, Servicer submitted: (1) a copy of the Note bearing indorsement to Servicer's predecessor in interest; (2) a letter from Servicer's in-house counsel attesting to the indorsee's status as predecessor in interest to Servicer; (3) a copy of the Mortgage; and (4) a copy of the Assignment of Mortgage to Servicer's predecessor in interest. The BAP objected to and refused to allow into evidence the unauthenticated letter from Servicer's in-house counsel attesting to the indorsee's status as predecessor in interest to Servicer.

According to the BAP, to obtain stay relief, Trust had to show that it either was a “person entitled to enforce” the Note under Article 3 of the UCC (as a “holder” of the Note or as a “nonholder in possession . . . who has the rights of a holder”), or that it had an “ownership or other property interest in the Note” under Article 9. See UCC §§ 3-301(i); 3-301(ii); 9-109(a)(3)(respectively pertaining to a holder of a note, a nonholder in possession, and transfer of ownership of a note).

As to the appeal regarding Trust's motion for relief from stay, the BAP noted that none of the evidence submitted by Trust placed it into one of these categories. Indeed, the evidence failed to show that the
assignment of the mortgage to Trust included any interest in the promissory Note itself. The BAP pointed out that the record lacked any evidence of an indorsement of the Note to Trust. The BAP further noted that under applicable law, the assignment of a mortgage without the Note is a “nullity,” thereby rendering the mortgage ineffective and the Note an unsecured debt. Thus, the BAP concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in determining that Trust had an enforceable interest in the Note and erred in granting Trust’s motion for relief from stay.

Here, the Trust submitted the following documents: (1) a copy of the Mortgage; (2) an itemization of postpetition amounts due; (3) the debtors' Schedules A and D; (4) a copy of the Note, indorsed to Servicer's predecessor in interest; (5) a copy of the Assignment of Mortgage to Servicer's predecessor in interest; and (6) a copy of another Assignment of Mortgage, recorded after the filing of the first relief from stay motion, from Servicer's predecessor in interest to Trust. The BAP noted that, although the first assignment of mortgage included an assignment of the Note to Servicer's predecessor in interest, the second assignment of mortgage to Trust did not contain such an assignment of the Note. The BAP also noted that the documents were not authenticated.

In summary, the BAP reversed the stay relief order and vacated the bankruptcy court’s order overruling the debtors’ claim objection, and remanded for further proceedings on the proof of claim.

SERVICING ALIGNMENT INITIATIVE AND HAWAII LEGISLATIVE CHANGES AFFECTING NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES

http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/guide/bulletins/pdf/bll1111.pdf


http://www.dsnews.com/articles/freddie-mac-details-new-default-servicing-requirements-2011-06-30

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is issuing guidance to communicate the OCC’s expectations for the oversight and management of mortgage foreclosure activities by national banks
http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2011/bulletin-2011-29.html

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued guidance (OCC Bulletin 2011-29) to its regulated entities as to its expectations regarding the oversight and management of mortgage foreclosure activities.

The guidance does not address detailed mortgage servicing requirements, or broader issues related to working with troubled borrowers, which the OCC indicates will be addressed at a later date.

The guidance is available at:

http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2011/bulletin-2011-29.html


As you may recall, the OCC previously issued the results of its "Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices" in April of 2011. A copy is available at:

http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-47a.pdf


Among other things, OCC Bulletin 2011-29 provides additional clarification regarding adequate staffing and training, dual-track processing, management of affidavit and notary practices, documentation, oversight of third-party service providers, and adherence to all laws and regulations related to mortgage foreclosure.

The bulletin also requires all OCC-regulated entities to conduct a self-assessment of foreclosure management practices no later than September 30, 2011 and to correct any weaknesses identified. According to the OCC, national bank examiners will review the self-assessments and corrective actions in the next quarterly review or examination.