Juxtaposition of recorded claims and court record

…and other evidence to the contrary


Jimijack sued and got a default judgment against BANA when BANA had no recorded claim.

See Jimijack’s 6/16/15 COMP vs. BANA

See 10/16/15 JDDF vs BANA

See BANA’s 9/9/14 assignment of its interest, if any to Wells Fargo.

Jimijack never filed any claims against Wells Fargo.

NSM claimed that BANA assigned its interest to NSM three months after BANA has no interest to assign.

See 12/1/14 NSM recorded claim.

Jimijack never filed any claims against NSM.

NSM lied to the court about it’s recorded claim.

See 1/11/16 COMP page 2, line 25 and page 3, line 1.

NSM sued Opportunity Homes when it had no recorded claim

See 1/11/16 COMP Nationstar vs. Opportunity Homes, LLC

See 6/9/15 deed Opportunity Homes to F. Bondurant, LLC

NSM did not ever file any claims against F. Bondurant. NSM just added F. Bondurant as a party on 6/2/16.

See 6/9/15 recorded Deed F. Bondurant to Jimijack

BANA had the recorded claim at the time of the sale

See 4/12/12 MERS to BANA assignment

BANA’s recorded claim was invalid

There is no notary record of the 4/12/12 assignment. CA notary Teresa D. Williams did not renew her commission when it expired on 12/31/14. She did not turn in her notary journal to the San Bernardino County Clerk when she moved and left no forwarding address. See 2/5/19 complaint to CA Secretary of State

…and BANA knew it

BANA never acknowledged its 4/12/12 recorded claim in any transaction involving Tobin, Proudfit Realty, or Ticor Title in 2012 – 2013.

See Doug Proudfit 5/20/19 DECL.

Six months after recording a claim, BANA disavowed it.

See 10/30/12 BANA letter See BANA’s 10/30/12 letter to the Estate of Gordon Hansen. claimed to be the servicing bank acting on behalf of Wells Fargo.

BANA’s letter to estate of Gordon Hansen …”your property will be referred to foreclosure. (BANA) is required to notify you of the following: (BANA) services the mortgage loan on your property. You signed and executed a promissory note secured by a (DOT)…The foreclosure will be conducted in the name of WELLS FARGO…(“Noteholder”). Noteholder, directly or through an agent has possession of the promissory note …Noteholder is the original mortgagee or beneficiary or the assignee of the security instrument for the referenced loan. Principal balance $389,966.02, last payment 1/3/12. interest 6.25% fixed, amount of late fees and other charges is $115. “Mini Miranda (all): Bank of America, N. A., the servicer of your home loan, is required by law to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector.”

BANA never to took any formal action to foreclose, i.e., never recorded a notice of default

See BANA’s 10/30/12 letter that says the last payment was 01/3/12.

See NRS 116.31162(6) (2013) that prohibits an HOA from foreclosing after a lender has recorded a notice of default.

BANA did not ever record a Notice of Default to foreclose in Wells Fargo’s name (if Wells Fargo really were the noteholder with standing to foreclose as BANA claimed in this letter.)

BANA never recorded a Notice of Default in its own name as it would have done if BANA’s 4/12/12 recorded claim that MERS assigned its interest in the DOT to BANA on 4/4/12 were true.

BANA’s recorded claim came after AB 284 (2011) put a stop to robo-signing

In 2011, Nevada Legislature studied foreclosure fraud and adopted AB 284 to prevent banks from recording false affidavits. After the passage of AB 284, “robo-signed” instruments could not create for a lenderthe power to foreclose on notes not owned AND possessed.

Assemblyman Marcus Conklin submission to Assembly Judiciary re AB 284, supporting AB 284(2011) Nevada’s robo-signing, anti-foreclosure fraud law, as critically needed noting that Attorney Generals in all 50 states, and 12 separate federal agencies, are investigating the lenders and servicing banks involved.

” …Improper assignments have been recorded…based on falsified documents by lenders who did not truly hold the note.

“…Virtually every foreclosure in Nevada is non-judicial. There is no court overseeing the validity of the documents involved.

See also white paper by Wright, Finley Zak

No party with a recorded interest had claims adjudicated at the the trial