Your Free Annual Credit Report is jointly operated by the three major U.S. credit reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. The site was created in order to comply with their obligations under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) to provide a mechanism for American consumers to receive a free annual credit report.

Don’t get scammed. Here is the link to order the free credit report that you are entitled to under Federal law.

Posted in Misc., Online Resources | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bankruptcy Podcast #2. Here We Go!

We are discussing FDCPA, nasty creditors, mind games, debt (of course), a bunch of other delicious topics!

Find the podcast by clinking anywhere on this link – THIS LINK RIGHT HERE!

Posted in Misc., Other Tidbits | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Law & Propaganda Podcast – Join Us!

Greetings loyal readers! We at Liss Law think it’s about time for you to become loyal listeners as well.

We have officially partnered with the Law Offices of William C. McLeod to bring you the newest and greatest bankruptcy podcast available around. And it’s free!

Our new podcast is titled “The Law & Propaganda”, and it’s chock full of information dispensed with our unique blend of lighthearted hilarity. Can bankruptcy actually be fun to talk about? Listen in and find out!

Listen to the first show here.

Posted in Online Resources | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Do I Fix An Error With My Credit Report?

It is estimated that about 3 out of 4 credit reports contain some sort of inaccurate information on them.  The first step to take is to become informed whether there is an error on your credit report.  You can do this by getting a copy of your credit report and reviewing it.  In order to get a free credit report, you may go to or call 877-322-8228.  You have access to one free credit report per year from each of the three credit bureaus.  So the best way to request your credit report is to request one from a different credit bureau every 3-4 months.

If you learn that your credit report contains information that is inaccurate, The Fair Credit Reporting Act allows you to challenge any information which you believe to be inaccurate.  If the information is not verified within a certain amount of time, the Act requires it to be automatically removed.  You have to report inaccuracies with each of the credit bureaus individually.

Posted in Misc., Online Resources | Tagged , | 1 Comment

My Bankruptcy Is Through, So What About My Credit?

Excellent article about one of the most frequently asked questions by clients: What’s gonna happen to my credit?

Posted in Online Resources | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

BP, Student Loans & Other Disasters


There’s a very good chance that I will never know how the mind of a major corporate executive works. I don’t mean the guy who carries a business cards with CEO printed on it. The execs I’m referring to are the leaders of our largest companies – Coca Cola, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, GE, Bank of America, etc. I’d like to dive into a mega-CEO’s mind if only for a few days, just to see how these companies are actually run. Are they only concerned with the following quarter’s profits? Are they wary of the possibility of governmental regulation?

It’s my humble opinion that the recent downturn of the market is not the end of the world. Or even much of a hiccup. A market correction such as this is the completely foreseeable result of a market with restraints such as ours. It’s predictable, happens about every 10 years or so, and it is right on schedule now. Come to think of it, it’s a little bland.

Lavish spending by CEOs? Seen it. Large corporations cooking books? Please, this is old hat. Well all (hopefully) remember Arthur Andersen, Enron’s personal whipping boy. Arthur Andersen, LLP is kaput. But the consulting arm of the former accounting giant has become one of the largest consulting firms on earth, now called Accenture. Ebb and flow. Give people room to create and they will. The human market evolves.

After some bluster I’ll finally get to the point of this post, that being the U.S. Government under our new regime.

With BP’s oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, I wonder if the federal government will take a closer look at issues pertaining to our natural resources. The current administration has discussed the possibility of reform, but have been slow to move. Some recent developments however, have almost convinced me of a possible shift in power. As in, a shift in power from the private industry to the federal government.

First, there was the recent mine collapse in West Virginia. 29 people were killed a month ago in the worst U.S. mine disaster is decades. We all know that a huge death toll is often a precursor to regulation. Yes, the mining industry has a very powerful lobby, but that’s just the first point.

Second, there was/is the BP oil fiasco. Satellite images of the Gulf of Mexico resemble oil slick on the highway. You know when you see a pool of oil on the pavement and if you look at it from the side it gives off a rainbow mirage? That mirage is what 25% of the Gulf looks like right this second. BP has scored points recently for efforts to make their practices more ecologically friendly, but they’re going to have a hell of an investigation on their hands with this one.

Third, there’s the whole student loans mess. Too much to summarize here so I won’t try. In short, tens of thousands of undergraduate and graduate-level students have a debt they will still have when they die. Forget the argument that they knew what they were doing and were not coerced into getting this money – that is irrelevant to this post, even though the point is completely correct.

The point we must deal with is that we have a crushing debt that is seriously hindering many young professionals from scraping together enough for the rent, let alone anything to put into savings. This is a problem.

Despite the bonds of the contract these people entered into, society now has a large portion of the population who is extremely well educated, but is to a large extent hopeless about the future, unmotivated, uninspired, seriously underpaid, and usually overworked.

Whoever the culprit for these issues is again, absolutely of no consequence here. The point is that the federal government makes the laws. Private industry has a real problem, and in some cases, their problem might be that their profit-making tactics have worked too well. Just look at the credit industry. The major card companies have done well to make billions from charging insane amount of interest without (we’ll just assume without for this post) breaking the law. To that I say that you can sheer a sheep many times, but you can skin it only once. Mastercard (or Visa, AMEX, etc) might have gotten too rich. Who could possibly take their side when a person files bankruptcy? Ok, maybe some people. But what if that person got their because they were paying interest on a balance of $5,000 that suddenly became 3X overnight? Sympathy ends there folks.

The piper is the federal government. While corporations typically do business by looking one quarter into the future, they might have done well to look a little further. Some of their practices have produced results too far outside the mean, and definitely outside their normal wiggle-room afforded by lobbyists.

The feds may very well decide that too many sheep have been skinned.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Posted in Misc., Other Tidbits | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Right-to-Rent Bill for Borrowers Facing Foreclosure

This bill (introduced by the Democrats) gives homeowners the ability to petition a judge and stay on a renter for an additional 5 years. All other arguments aside, why is everyone assuming the courts have the ability to handle hundreds of new cases? The Massachusetts judicial system needs some serious funding improvements before a plan like this could be initiated.

Posted in Misc., Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Inside The Law

Consumers, Lawyers & Judges Play a Frustrating Game of Three-Card Monte, Where No One Knows the Rules and Everyone’s a Mark

§362 of the Bankruptcy Code is simple.  Sort of.  To seek relief from stay, one must be a party in interest. However, determining who qualifies as a party in interest is bewildering the Bar and leading to accusations of perceived dealing from the bottom of the deck.

Throughout the United States, sloppy recordkeeping is causing confusion amongst consumers, lawyers and Judges.  The bench is fuming and even experienced attorneys are gun-shy about gambling with sanctions.  Who should bear the responsibility of tracing and mending title?  Attorneys can do it, but complete records of transfers and assignments are necessary.  Creditors must lay the cards out on the table.  Transparency is the only solution.

“…Mortgage Backed Securities – an alchemy that is little understood by the general public, much less the wizards who practice it these days…” In re Kang Jin Hwang, 393 B.R. 701 (2008)

The Set-Up (Securitization Process)

Securitization is the creation of debt instruments through the collection (“pooling”) of mortgage loans, transferring those payment obligations to a trust, and selling investor groups an interest in the trust’s pool of mortgage loans.   The trustee holds legal title to the loans, while a servicer collects and distributes the loan payments.  The servicer, while performing necessary functions, is really just a middleman whose role creates a smokescreen between borrowers and lenders.  Mortgage servicers monitor payments, yet they work only for the investors and have no relationship with homeowners.

The Eye in the Sky

Roughly 640 miles of Interstate 90 separate the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  However, in the effort to force lenders and their attorneys to deal straight, the two sit together at the head table.  The Ohio court has a docket packed with over 1,000 foreclosure cases; up from fewer than a dozen in 2002.  The meteoric rise in foreclosure cases and general ineptitude about proper procedure led to a Court order outlining the filing requirements.  The order requires that a foreclosure plaintiff must attach certain documentation to a filing.  Documentation is “proper” if the assignment of a mortgage is recorded in real property records for the county in which the property is located, and the assignment documents are executed prior to the date of the filing.

Procedural matters under the microscope arise when notes are assigned, servicers are the moving parties, parties either fail to bring a copy of the assignment to court, or parties fail to repair other holes in the chain of title from the original mortgagee.  Sanctions follow egregious behavior.  Volcanic rhetoric from the bench is now commonplace.

“Unfortunately the parties’ confusion and lack of knowledge, or perhaps sloppiness, as to their roles is not unique in the residential mortgage industry.” Nosek v. Ameriquest, 386 B.R. 374 (2008)

Rules of the Game

In a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must produce the mortgage and the unpaid note to qualify as a real party in interest.  In many jurisdictions, standing requires that the party be the holder of the note and mortgage on the date of the foreclosure.  Attorneys can no longer assume they will obtain a judgment if they appear in court without an endorsed note.  Some jurisdictions even require an assignment to be recorded.

If the mortgage is not produced, plaintiff must clearly trace title by providing executed assignments. The sheer volume of transfers (a note might be sold three or four times before the default) complicates matters as does the fact that assignments are typically not recorded at the time of securitization.  The original note and assignment provided to the trustee are usually executed in blank and held by a third party.  This custom is fertile ground for miscommunication between clients and attorneys and, worse, the court.

The requirement of recording is a murky standard.  For instance, Massachusetts and Michigan do not require that an assignment of a mortgage be recorded, whereas Ohio does.  Requiring that an assignment be recorded is logical in Ohio since that state seems to be demanding that ownership be clearly traced from the day of the filing.  This is in contrast to other jurisdictions, of which some allow ownership to be traced up until the day of the judgment.

Local attorneys covering hearings for out-of-state lenders must be wary of conflicting standing tests for the state and federal level.  In a departure from the aforementioned Ohio District Court, the Ohio state appellate court upheld an assignment of a note and mortgage from Countrywide Home Loans to Bank of New York, even though the assignment occurred after Bank of New York had commenced foreclosure proceedings.  The Court reasoned that since the filing of the assignment preceded the judgment, the mortgagor had sufficient notice that the bank was a real party in interest.

Hidden Joker

Servicers are responsible for collecting payments and therefore suffer the “injury in fact” required to seek relief.  However, depending on the jurisdiction, a party in interest is not always a real party in interest. The real party in interest standard is not a constitutional requirement like standing, but is a judicial creation as a “consideration” for standing.

In a recent bankruptcy case from California, the loan servicer qualified as a party in interest under §362(d) but failed to show they were a real party in interest pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17.    The Court, based on California substantive law of promissory notes, ruled against the servicer, and reasoned that the real party in interest rule requires the holder (and only the holder) to bring the motion for relief.  The case decision also notes a jurisdiction-specific requirement — according to Judge Samuel L. Bufford, “developments in the secondary market for mortgages” has led the court to require that the original note be brought to the hearing for inspection.  This additional requirement mirrors concerns from around the country.

Lenders like Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo often have little contact with the local foreclosure firms to which they farm cases.  Those firms are rarely in possession of the original mortgage documents courts now demand.  Often, once the referral reaches the local firm, the job of organizing assignments and notes is left to paralegals, creating yet another degree of separation between the lender and the attorney filing the motion.  With firms churning through a high case volume, accuracy demands that they are given access to all relevant information and documentation the lender possesses.

“…this Court possesses the independent obligations to…jealously guard federal jurisdiction…neither the fluidity of the secondary mortgage market, nor…economic considerations of the parties…supersede those obligations.” In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84011 (2007)

Playing Straight

Parties foreclosing in Massachusetts have two ways to play their hand and establish standing.  First, a party may bring the actual assignment to the hearing and in doing so eliminate the headache of evidencing (“tracing”) chain of title.  Second, if the original assignment is not produced, then chain of title must be clearly laid before the court for inspection.  It is at this point that parties find themselves staring at the death card.

Forcing attorneys to hurriedly reconstruct chains of title is an invitation for error.  Courts are adamant that a debtor is entitled to an unmistakable paper trail connecting the current mortgage holder to the mortgage originator.  Nothing would do more to alleviate standing issues then for lenders to stop playing their hands so close to the chest.  Instead of waiting for a default and scrambling to patch together a chain of title after-the-fact, each assignment should be documented and readily available for the attorney.  Leave the reconstructing of history to the paleontologists.

If properly documenting an assignment sounds like too much of a hassle, consider the alternatives.  In In re Schwartz, Deutsche Bank properly argued that an assignment was proper even though it was not recorded because Massachusetts does not require recordation prior to foreclosure.  Their black letter law was spot on but irrelevant because the assignment provided to the Court was not signed until after the foreclosure sale.  Similarly, in In re Maisel, the creditor presented the Court with an assignment of the mortgage which was dated four days after the filing of the motion for relief.  The creditor was therefore without standing to seek relief because at the time the motion for relief was filed, the creditor was an unrelated third party.  A costly four days.

Knowing the rules and paying attention would have saved the parties in both cases.

As evidenced by a recent bankruptcy decision from the Eastern District of New York, fatal mistakes in some jurisdictions are harmless in others.  In In re Rosemarie Conde-Dedonato, the claimant filed an objection to the confirmation of proposed plan and attached a copy of the original note and mortgage, but forgot to attach a written assignment tracing the transfer from First National to Deutsche Bank.  Luckily, in New York, a mortgage and note can be transferred via delivery and need not be evidenced by a written assignment.

The Consequences

Despite the fire and brimstone rained upon the unsuspecting covering attorney, courts usually dismiss procedural errors without prejudice and occasionally go out of their way to inform the lender of their option to re-file.  Judges understand that the industry requires the ability of lenders to foreclose on delinquent loans.  In one recent footnote of a case where a procedural hitch saved a debtor who had made exactly two post-petition mortgage payments in 14 months, Judge Joan Feeney stated that although the lender failed to trace the mortgage from the original holder – “Debtor may have won the battle, but she still may lose the war.”

There are of course, exceptions.  In Nosek, $650,000 in sanctions were levied on Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Ameriquest’s local law firm, one of the firm’s partners, Ameriquest’s national law firm and Norwest Bank, Minnesota, N.A. (now Wells Fargo), because the Court found that the parties misrepresented the role Ameriquest played regarding the mortgage and mortgage note.  In a scathing attack, the Court even berated the local law firm for relying on Ameriquest’s proof of claim and noted that the firm could not shield itself from institutional knowledge.  Effectively, the Court viewed the mega-lender and the local firm as one institution, as if they shared office space.  If local law firms are to be held at such a standard, where courts expect such complete fluidity of information, transparency of information becomes even more necessary.

In a street corner game of Three-card Monte, the dealer and the shill(s) quickly shuffle the cards to deceive an unsuspecting mark.  It is a game the mark cannot win unless the cards are turned face-up.  With clear communication between lenders and their attorneys, the con can be avoided and the cards revealed.  The trick is to work together, and to know the rules.

Posted in Misc., Other Tidbits | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Obama’s Tax Liability

Without getting into politics, here is a link to President Obama’s 2009 federal tax return.

Taxes are increasing, but it looks as though the Obama’s are walking the walk. They paid $1.8 million in federal taxes last year along with $163,000 in Illinois state taxes.

Posted in Misc., Other Tidbits | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

You’re A Suspect? Pack Quickly…

Here is an interesting news story out of Tennessee.

Landlords are using an obscure law to evict people “suspected” of selling drugs. Once the police department notifies the landlord that the tenant is a suspect, the tenant can be evicted after three days. A normal eviction process takes about 30 days.

Posted in Online Resources, Other Tidbits | Tagged , , | Leave a comment