Scumbag Wells-Fargo bank stealing homes

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

A creditor cannot seize a house pursuant to a bankruptcy filing. If it's her only house it's even exempt from being included in any court-administered accounting and liquidation of assets.

Do you have any proof of that?

Again, I'm not a lawyer but ignoring the value of a home would seem like a huge loophole in the bankruptcy laws.

Here's a web site that does discuss housing assets during at least some bankruptcies. (There may be differences in various states, or this woman's case might be different.)

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/...-as-%E2%80%A6/
A house is an asset, like any other. If it has a mortgage, it is secured, but that does not exempt it from seizure.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

If she's really dying of cancer, it's not like she'll need the house much longer anyhow.

I'd love to see the bank argue THAT in court! lmao

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

A creditor cannot seize a house pursuant to a bankruptcy filing. If it's her only house it's even exempt from being included in any court-administered accounting and liquidation of assets.

Not true. A creditor may file for relief from the automatic stay and proceed with seizure of any asset, including a primary residence.

I used to work for a bankruptcy trustee's office, and this story sets my BS detector off. When you straight out, in six words, ask someone "Have you made your mortgage payments?" and they won't answer you, there's more to the story than meets the eye. I'm not unsympathetic to this woman's plight, but something tells me she's been spending her mortgage payments on something other than the mortgage and that practice has come home to roost.

[Blue Mountain]

Bump. Any further developments in the past week?

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

If she's really dying of cancer, it's not like she'll need the house much longer anyhow.

If that was intended as a joke, it really isn't very funny.

If it wasn't intended as a joke, it may be just about the most despicable thing I've ever read on this forum.

[Captain_Swoop]

I thought it was funny.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I thought it was funny.

I guess I could see it as a little bit funny, depending on my mood. As a person who, due to a medical condition, is essentially staring death in the face every day, I find humor an indispensible tool in preserving my own emotional balance. And my approach is that the best way to tell a good joke is to tell a lot of jokes. I'd be delighted to find that the above attempt reflects a similar approach, and stand ready to retract my sharp rebuke. So far, I'm having a hard time finding anything funny about this lady's situation, but, well, you win some, you lose some. The facts seem to be holding up reasonably well under scrutiny so far (though I will admit to possibly being somewhat biased against Wells Fargo going in) and if they continue to do so, I may have a very hard time finding anything much to laugh about.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I thought it was funny.

You are correct.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

You are correct.

I'm relieved to hear that it was an attempt at humor, and hereby officially retract my sharp rebuke. I've already conceded that it could be maybe a little bit funny. I don't mind dark humor, but... I guess that one's just a bit too dark for my personal taste.

[Beerina]

The original article had some weasel-sounding terms, so you knew there must be more to the story.

[jhunter1163]

Reading down the comments, there appears to be at least one commenter who has seen the actual paperwork. That paperwork seems to indicate that the subject property became bank owned in September of 2011. So this person has, apparently, been living there rent-free for a year or more.

The above paragraph does contain several weasel words. I am ready to be corrected if new information develops, but at this point I stand by my assessment in post #43.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Reading down the comments, there appears to be at least one commenter who has seen the actual paperwork. That paperwork seems to indicate that the subject property became bank owned in September of 2011. So this person has, apparently, been living there rent-free for a year or more.

The above paragraph does contain several weasel words. I am ready to be corrected if new information develops, but at this point I stand by my assessment in post #43.

In other words, she's a freeloader. I guess the OP thinks people should just be allowed to live in homes that don't belong to them?

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

In other words, she's a freeloader. I guess the OP thinks people should just be allowed to live in homes that don't belong to them?

Not that I disagree, but I can't say I like the idea of over a million homes sitting vacant when so many people need a place to live.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Not that I disagree, but I can't say I like the idea of over a million homes sitting vacant when so many people need a place to live.

Well you know, after all, 47% of the people in this country are just...

...oh, never mind.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Well you know, after all, 47% of the people in this country are just...

...oh, never mind.

eligible for the coming mortgage debt jubilee using the money printing?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Reading down the comments, there appears to be at least one commenter who has seen the actual paperwork. That paperwork seems to indicate that the subject property became bank owned in September of 2011.

Remember, according to so much of the claims made by the victim, she "didn't have a mortgage with Wells Fargo. However, even the law firm that is now handling her case said that she had a loan that was owned by Wells Fargo.

Furthermore, Wells Fargo is claiming that while there was a court order to allow her to stay, it supposedly expired after 30 days. If that's the case, then taping it to the door would have been pretty useless.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Remember, according to so much of the claims made by the victim, she "didn't have a mortgage with Wells Fargo. However, even the law firm that is now handling her case said that she had a loan that was owned by Wells Fargo.

Furthermore, Wells Fargo is claiming that while there was a court order to allow her to stay, it supposedly expired after 30 days. If that's the case, then taping it to the door would have been pretty useless.

Sounds like the OP is defending a liar. Seems like she's the scumbag, not Wells-Fargo.

[Segnosaur]

Not sure if this matters to people here, but does anyone know what type of job Niko Black actually had?

While looking around to see if there are any updates, I found this site:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/...m-wells-fargo/

(Its a blog, so skepticism is warranted.)

In a caption, on one of the pictures on the blog, they call Niko Black a "fortune teller". If this is true (and she does so professionally), then she made her living scamming other people.

Does that make you more suspicious of her claims and/or motives?

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

In a caption, on one of the pictures on the blog, they call Niko Black a "fortune teller". If this is true (and she does so professionally), then she made her living scamming other people.

Does that make you more suspicious of her claims and/or motives?

Should it? Unless she is claiming that payments were made in cash without receipts, the facts should be backed by evidence. And it's the facts that should dictate the result.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Quote:

In a caption, on one of the pictures on the blog, they call Niko Black a "fortune teller". If this is true (and she does so professionally), then she made her living scamming other people.

Does that make you more suspicious of her claims and/or motives?

Should it? Unless she is claiming that payments were made in cash without receipts, the facts should be backed by evidence. And it's the facts that should dictate the result.

Possibly it should (if true).

Here are the problem with the situation: We don't have all the facts. Much of the criticism of Wells-Fargo and the police is due to A: claims made by Niko Black (aimed gun at face/no safety/no mortgage) and B: sympathy over her situation (cancer victim/homeless).

Now, if she really were a "fortune teller", it would mean a couple of things:
- Since professional fortune tellers are basically liars (or deluded), that would make her a more accomplished liar. This should make us more wary of her claims (like how the cops 'aimed a gun at her face). Why trust someone who lies for a living?
- She would have earned her living defrauding others. This should make her a less sympathetic individual, cancer aside. (Not saying anyone deserves to die, but I'm sure most people would react differently if Bernie Maddoff got hit by a car than if an innocent grandmother who bakes cookies for orphans likewise got run over.)

[Dan O.]

Niko's occupation should have been known to Wells-Fargo when they accepted the loan.

ETA: You have not provided evidence tha Niko is not a grandmother that bakes cookies for orphans. And what is Bernie doing driving free? Shouldn't he still be in jail for the next zillion years

ETTA: you also haven't provided any of those yummy cookies as proof that they exist.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Niko's occupation should have been known to Wells-Fargo when they accepted the loan.

It probably was. But I can't see a reason why the bank would care. (They only care about whether their income is steady enough to pay the terms of the lone. They can't really get involved in making value judgements.)

Like I said, the main reason I brought up her "fortune telling" is that it might affect how much we trust her claims and/or find her a sympathetic figure.

(Minor point: keep in mind that according to what we do know, she didn't have her mortgage with Wells-fargo originally, but they ended up as trustee after her original lender went bankrupt.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Possibly it should (if true).

Here are the problem with the situation: We don't have all the facts. Much of the criticism of Wells-Fargo and the police is due to A: claims made by Niko Black (aimed gun at face/no safety/no mortgage) and B: sympathy over her situation (cancer victim/homeless).

Now, if she really were a "fortune teller", it would mean a couple of things:
- Since professional fortune tellers are basically liars (or deluded), that would make her a more accomplished liar. This should make us more wary of her claims (like how the cops 'aimed a gun at her face). Why trust someone who lies for a living?
- She would have earned her living defrauding others. This should make her a less sympathetic individual, cancer aside. (Not saying anyone deserves to die, but I'm sure most people would react differently if Bernie Maddoff got hit by a car than if an innocent grandmother who bakes cookies for orphans likewise got run over.)

Not to mention that she should have been able to alert the press before this ever happened.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Like I said, the main reason I brought up her "fortune telling" is that it might affect how much we trust her claims and/or find her a sympathetic figure.

So we should let the banks just run over anyone that we don't find to be a sympathetic figure?

If I was going to personally bail her out, her occupation and employment history is something I might want to know. But I believe the discussion is currently about having her case reviews to insure that she got a fair shake. Even if she was a known scum-bag, you don't want that to influence a legal case because the precedent set today may affect a case you do care about tomorrow.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

If that was intended as a joke, it really isn't very funny.

I've been following Scrut a long time... and one thing he doesn't do is joke around.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

If it wasn't intended as a joke, it may be just about the most despicable thing I've ever read on this forum.

Apparently you don't read much Scrut.

[mutile]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

If that was intended as a joke, it really isn't very funny.

I don't really care about your interpretation of what is funny, go post your thesis in the humor section.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

So we should let the banks just run over anyone that we don't find to be a sympathetic figure?

In this case, she was trying to "just run over" the bank. She was living in a house they owned without their permission.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Caper

Apparently you don't read much Scrut.

I've read a few of Scrut's posts and I am actually with him on this.

About the only thing going for this woman is that so far she hasn't said that she doesn't have to repay the loan because the bank created the money out of "thin air". (No doubt, some woomeister is instructing her on this argument as I write this post).

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Quote:

Like I said, the main reason I brought up her "fortune telling" is that it might affect how much we trust her claims and/or find her a sympathetic figure.

So we should let the banks just run over anyone that we don't find to be a sympathetic figure?

No, I think she should be given whatever legal protection she is due.

But remember, she was the one who brought up her cancer (something that is irrelevant to whether Wells-Fargo had a right to evict her). Why did she do that? My assumption is that it was to elicit sympathy. (And if it wasn't the purpose for doing so, it certainly had that effect.) Do you really think the governor would have gotten involved if she had not been such a sympathetic figure, and instead had been someone like Bernie Maddoff? By making herself seem as sympathetic as possible she may be able to "win" even if legally she is in the wrong. (e.g. courts find that the eviction was 100% legal, but Wells-Fargo doesn't want to seem like they're picking on some poor sick woman.)

And as I mentioned before, much of her case is based on "he said/she said". Knowing how trustworthy she is is a big part of determining how much credibility her side of the story has.

Quote:

If I was going to personally bail her out, her occupation and employment history is something I might want to know.

I know you're not going to personally bail her out. Heck, ultimately nothing that's discussed in this thread will ever matter. (None of us know the person, nobody is on the board of directors of Wells-Fargo or are members of the police force.) But, in a forum like this, it is reasonable to "pick sides".

Quote:

But I believe the discussion is currently about having her case reviews to insure that she got a fair shake. Even if she was a known scum-bag, you don't want that to influence a legal case because the precedent set today may affect a case you do care about tomorrow.

Again, I want to point out that she does deserve legal protection. However, much of this case is currently being fought in the area of public relations. She is currently "winning" that battle, and might continue to win even if she is legally wrong.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Here are the problem with the situation: We don't have all the facts. Much of the criticism of Wells-Fargo and the police is due to A: claims made by Niko Black (aimed gun at face/no safety/no mortgage) and B: sympathy over her situation (cancer victim/homeless).

... and C: she's facing i) Wells Fargo, a bank and therefore evil, and ii) pigs the police, a.k.a. fascist lackeys of The Man.

[16.5]

From reviewing the docket, she is a serial Bankruptcy filer.

She has been living in the property rent and mortgage free since 2008.

The automatic stay had expired when she was evicted.

The bank has owned the house since early 2011.

So.... who wants their fortunes told?

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

And as I mentioned before, much of her case is based on "he said/she said". Knowing how trustworthy she is is a big part of determining how much credibility her side of the story has.

If Wells-Fargo doesn't have anything more than a "he said" argument, they have no business or legal right to be repossessing property. We aare blind as to the actual facts in this case so we cannot be making proclamations on how it should be settled. But we can make case arguments dependent on specific assumptions.

[StankApe]

look at post #72 DanO

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Quote:

And as I mentioned before, much of her case is based on "he said/she said". Knowing how trustworthy she is is a big part of determining how much credibility her side of the story has.

If Wells-Fargo doesn't have anything more than a "he said" argument, they have no business or legal right to be repossessing property.

But we know Wells-Fargo has more than just a "he said". Her very own lawyers admitted that she has an outstanding loan for which Wells-Fargo is the trustee. (Of course, this is in contradiction to claims that she "never had a mortgage with Wells-Fargo.) While it doesn't prove Wells-Fargo is correct about everything, its certainly evidence in their favor.

Quote:

We aare blind as to the actual facts in this case so we cannot be making proclamations on how it should be settled. But we can make case arguments dependent on specific assumptions.

The fact that we don't know everything (and heck, we may never know some things for sure) doesn't mean that discussing the event can't be an enjoyable exercise.

We'll never know who Jack the Ripper is, but lots of people still like discussing the case.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by timhau

... and C: she's facing i) Wells Fargo, a bank and therefore evil, and ii) pigs the police, a.k.a. fascist lackeys of The Man.

(shakes fist)

[Segnosaur]

Well, so much for "stealing" her home:

From: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...black_home.php
...Wells Fargo's Media Relations & Corporate Communications staffer Lisa Woolery wrote to the Weekly that, "Ms. Black has filed a total of two bankruptcies within one year. Because the second bankruptcy was filed within a year of the first one, the automatic stay against creditors Ms. Black received in the second case terminated by operation of law on the 30th day after she filed the second case." As for not showing up in court on a prior date to reaffirm that position? "In [Wells Fargo and Carrington Mortgage Services'] case," she says, "it was believed that arguments would not be necessary on a motion that itself was no longer necessary."
...
Judge Albert essentially agreed with the first part, saying he was unaware somehow of the second bankruptcy...
...
From his bench, Judge Albert declared that his decision was that no sanctions, nor damages would be levied against Wells Fargo for the October 10 eviction unless it could be convincingly argued otherwise.

So, it looks like the judge has ruled that the eviction was legal. The judge did say that Wells-Fargo had "egg on their face", but it appears that he's referring to the bank's image rather than the legal tactics.

It looks like the lawyers representing her are going to continue the fight:
Towards the end of the hearing, Attorney Stephen R. Golden emphatically argued, "This loan is one that she did not sign!" while his office has deemed it predatory in nature with high starting interest rates and a large balloon payment built in. "

In my opinion.... Nico Black was a lying scumbag who managed to sucker a law firm into representing her. The lawyers are grasping at straws in an attempt to save face.

I certainly do question their ability to handle this situation, given how certain they were that "the eviction was illegal". Didn't they know about the multiple bankruptcies and how it would have affected her case? Either they're unfamiliar with the law, or they didn't do proper research.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Well, so much for "stealing" her home:
In my opinion.... Nico Black was a lying scumbag who managed to sucker a law firm into representing her. The lawyers are grasping at straws in an attempt to save face.

I certainly do question their ability to handle this situation, given how certain they were that "the eviction was illegal". Didn't they know about the multiple bankruptcies and how it would have affected her case? Either they're unfamiliar with the law, or they didn't do proper research.

Did the judge dismiss the case?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Did the judge dismiss the case?

The judge denied the motion for sanctions. The underlying issue as to whether the eviction was carried out properly is a decision for another court.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Quote:

Well, so much for "stealing" her home:
In my opinion.... Nico Black was a lying scumbag who managed to sucker a law firm into representing her. The lawyers are grasping at straws in an attempt to save face.

I certainly do question their ability to handle this situation, given how certain they were that "the eviction was illegal". Didn't they know about the multiple bankruptcies and how it would have affected her case? Either they're unfamiliar with the law, or they didn't do proper research.

Did the judge dismiss the case?

Well, I assume so, since the article stated:
...his decision was that no sanctions, nor damages would be levied against Wells Fargo
Not completely up to legalese but if a "decision" is made it sounds like the case is closed/dismissed (in this case in favor of Wells-Fargo).

Now, we don't know how the other court cases will go (about the claims that she never took out a loan/had fraudulent paperwork/etc.). I assume they're separate issues/court cases, to be dealt with by different judges. However, in my opinion she is likely to loose those cases too.

I am basing that opinion on a couple of factors:

- Past history... it was claimed "the evictions were illegal", yet they weren't. The fact that she had multiple bankruptcies didn't seem to get mentioned. Its the old concept of "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... shame on me". Granted, its not 100% foolproof (a liar will sometimes tell the truth) but it does make me suspicious of her claims
- Lack of evidence to support her case. If there was a fraudulent loan, why does she not have anything to support her case? I had my identity stolen once, and I certainly reported it to the police. Why isn't she waving a copy of her police report in front of the cameras saying "look! I reported this fake loan years ago!"
- Most people don't finish paying off their homes until they are in their 40s/50s or older. She was in her 30s. Assuming she had a 20/25 year amortization, she would have gotten her first mortgage when she was a teenager.

Like I said, its just an opinion at this point, and its quite possible that she owned the house free-and-clear.