Erv slithers into Virginia to pull off anutta scam. He is attempting to fend of foreclosure on a home in Virginia that a US Marine Quit claimed to him in 2011 because he (marine) could not make his payments on a VA loan (anyone see a pattern here?) The bank then attempted to foreclose and good ole Erv claims that he was the owner of the property but was not on the note. Of course, being the loser that he is, he lost this case. The bottom (in red) is the appeal court's decision. The following is Erv;'s post on a free legal advice forum. A little wordy but these are his exact words. The scum takes advantage of people in trouble, in this case, a troubled US Marine.
I am threatened with a 2/7/17 foreclosure date on a home in Virginia. I live in NV, and I am the titled owner in the county records, but NOT the borrower.
A Marine, Matthew XXX, bought a home with VA loan on or about 12/x/xx from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. On 8/9/xx, TBW was raided and shut down by FBI, with the head of company being sentenced to 30 years:
Mr. XXX fell behind in the summer of 2011, gave me POA and deeded the house to a trust. He also gave me permission to speak with B of A, the servicer at the time. Home was quit claimed to a corporation that I controlled, then, eventually, to me, the individual-so, I am shown as the owner in county records. MERS was involved from the start, and, over the years, entities involved have gone from TBW, to BAC Home Loans, to Bank of America, to Recontrust(a BOA stooge), to xxxxxxx Mortgage Services, LLC, the current scum. John Stuart wrote and book on Quiet Titles and has always maintained that the original lender, and ONLY the original lender, can appoint a successor trustee(see attachment # 3), and the DOT on the home has the successor trustee clause, as do almost all DOT. First of all, the original trustee, attorney Beverly xxxxxxx, told me she had no idea she was trustee(although she said that wasn't uncommon in VA), and she wasn't replaced until Carrington came along, in 2012 when the Marine stopped paying. So, original lender goes belly up in August '09, successor trustee appointed August '12-what's wrong with THAT picture? Carrington came along in the summer of 2012 and promptly sent a notice of acceleration to me through the alleged Trustee, Atlantic Law Group(who identified themselves at the time as ALG Trustee. I should point out that Mr. xxx gave permission for B of A to talk to me, but Carrington never got same, which violates the TCPA[who decreed in 2015 that business callers must have express written consent to call people with whom they don't have a prior relationship with] and the FDCPA as well) Anyway, I sent them ALG a debt validation letter , which got them to back off for awhile. However, Carrington threatened foreclosure in 2014 again, and I threatened, but didn't go through with, a BK. I rescinded the loan in March 2015, and recorded a notice of same and a reconveyance a month or so later. Even though I'm obviously not the borrower, my stance was that I could do so because of the following 2 clauses in the DOT:
Clause “Q” of the contract states “Successor of Interest to Borrower means any party that has taken interest to the property, whether or not that party has assumed Borrower’s obligations under the Note and/or this Security Interest.”
So, the above describes me perfectly: I am the titled owner, thus taking an "interest to the property," but I did NOT assume the borrower's obligations under either the note or the DOT. The lender is likely to say, "E" (Erv) has no standing here,"-indeed, I just got a letter on Saturday from Carrington saying they can't discuss anything with me because I'm not on the loan in response to a notary claim which I sent alleging massive fraud to them, a few weeks ago(and, of course, they ignored the fact that I got permission to talk about the alleged loan YEARS ago from BOA-but the above clause and the next one-shows that that statement is not correct.
Atlantic Law Group and Carrington violated the following code: CFR Title 12(Included in the Appendix): § 226.39 Mortgage transfer disclosures.
(a) Scope. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any covered person except as otherwise provided in this section. For purposes of this section:
(1) A "covered person" means any person, as defined in § 226.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan, or title is assigned to the servicer, solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.
There is also the fact that I rescinded the mortgage in March of 2015, and provided notice of same to Carrington and ALG. The January 2015 9-0 SCOTUS reversal in Jesinowski v Countrywide specifically said that the law makes no distinction between a disputed rescission or an undisputed one, the moment a recission, right or wrong, is dropped into mail, it becomes effective by operation of law, and that any lender/servicer wishing to contest it can ONLY do so by filing a lawsuit within 20 days of receipt of the notice of rescission. Of course, neither Carrington or anybody else filed a lawsuit after the rescission was filed, not to mention they ignored debt validation and UCC 9-210,
[h=2]United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.[/h] [h=3]ERVIN XXXXXX, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. XXXXXX SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; DOES 1-100, Defendants - Appellees.
[/h] [h=3]No. 16-2112[/h] [h=3] Decided: XXXXXX XX, 2017[/h] Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.Ervin XXXXXXX, Appellant Pro Se. Ervin XXXXXXX appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. XXXXXX v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 1:16-cv-01084-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. XXXX-XX, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
I am threatened with a 2/7/17 foreclosure date on a home in Virginia. I live in NV, and I am the titled owner in the county records, but NOT the borrower.
A Marine, Matthew XXX, bought a home with VA loan on or about 12/x/xx from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. On 8/9/xx, TBW was raided and shut down by FBI, with the head of company being sentenced to 30 years:
Mr. XXX fell behind in the summer of 2011, gave me POA and deeded the house to a trust. He also gave me permission to speak with B of A, the servicer at the time. Home was quit claimed to a corporation that I controlled, then, eventually, to me, the individual-so, I am shown as the owner in county records. MERS was involved from the start, and, over the years, entities involved have gone from TBW, to BAC Home Loans, to Bank of America, to Recontrust(a BOA stooge), to xxxxxxx Mortgage Services, LLC, the current scum. John Stuart wrote and book on Quiet Titles and has always maintained that the original lender, and ONLY the original lender, can appoint a successor trustee(see attachment # 3), and the DOT on the home has the successor trustee clause, as do almost all DOT. First of all, the original trustee, attorney Beverly xxxxxxx, told me she had no idea she was trustee(although she said that wasn't uncommon in VA), and she wasn't replaced until Carrington came along, in 2012 when the Marine stopped paying. So, original lender goes belly up in August '09, successor trustee appointed August '12-what's wrong with THAT picture? Carrington came along in the summer of 2012 and promptly sent a notice of acceleration to me through the alleged Trustee, Atlantic Law Group(who identified themselves at the time as ALG Trustee. I should point out that Mr. xxx gave permission for B of A to talk to me, but Carrington never got same, which violates the TCPA[who decreed in 2015 that business callers must have express written consent to call people with whom they don't have a prior relationship with] and the FDCPA as well) Anyway, I sent them ALG a debt validation letter , which got them to back off for awhile. However, Carrington threatened foreclosure in 2014 again, and I threatened, but didn't go through with, a BK. I rescinded the loan in March 2015, and recorded a notice of same and a reconveyance a month or so later. Even though I'm obviously not the borrower, my stance was that I could do so because of the following 2 clauses in the DOT:
Clause “Q” of the contract states “Successor of Interest to Borrower means any party that has taken interest to the property, whether or not that party has assumed Borrower’s obligations under the Note and/or this Security Interest.”
So, the above describes me perfectly: I am the titled owner, thus taking an "interest to the property," but I did NOT assume the borrower's obligations under either the note or the DOT. The lender is likely to say, "E" (Erv) has no standing here,"-indeed, I just got a letter on Saturday from Carrington saying they can't discuss anything with me because I'm not on the loan in response to a notary claim which I sent alleging massive fraud to them, a few weeks ago(and, of course, they ignored the fact that I got permission to talk about the alleged loan YEARS ago from BOA-but the above clause and the next one-shows that that statement is not correct.
Atlantic Law Group and Carrington violated the following code: CFR Title 12(Included in the Appendix): § 226.39 Mortgage transfer disclosures.
(a) Scope. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any covered person except as otherwise provided in this section. For purposes of this section:
(1) A "covered person" means any person, as defined in § 226.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan, or title is assigned to the servicer, solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.
There is also the fact that I rescinded the mortgage in March of 2015, and provided notice of same to Carrington and ALG. The January 2015 9-0 SCOTUS reversal in Jesinowski v Countrywide specifically said that the law makes no distinction between a disputed rescission or an undisputed one, the moment a recission, right or wrong, is dropped into mail, it becomes effective by operation of law, and that any lender/servicer wishing to contest it can ONLY do so by filing a lawsuit within 20 days of receipt of the notice of rescission. Of course, neither Carrington or anybody else filed a lawsuit after the rescission was filed, not to mention they ignored debt validation and UCC 9-210,
[h=2]United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.[/h] [h=3]ERVIN XXXXXX, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. XXXXXX SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; DOES 1-100, Defendants - Appellees.
[/h] [h=3]No. 16-2112[/h] [h=3] Decided: XXXXXX XX, 2017[/h] Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.Ervin XXXXXXX, Appellant Pro Se. Ervin XXXXXXX appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. XXXXXX v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 1:16-cv-01084-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. XXXX-XX, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
