“Lenders” and loan servicers are moving to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy here is a pleading for attorney use that just night stop them


To our Attorney brothers and sisters who know the “lenders” and loan servicers are often trying to pull fast ones in bankruptcy courts both in filing bogus proofs of claims and in seeking to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy court when they have no standing and cannot prove they are the real party in interest to file the motion I am offering my lift-stay motion with memorandum of points and authorities available on my Foreclosure Warrior (Foreclosure Defense training for lawyers website).

Here is a sample clip from my motion:

(i)             The issue of standing, in the context of a motion to lift the automatic stay in regard to an alleged failure to pay on a promissory note requires analysis of California Commercial Code law.

There are two threshold questions for establishing standing: (1) has movant established an interest in the promissory note; and (2) is the movant entitled to enforce the note?    See In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. at 392; In re Aniel, No.09-30452DM, 2010 WL 1609923 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. April 21, 2010).  There is no way to determine whether a moving party is a party in interest, real party in interest, or has standing sufficient to show a colorable claim without consulting the applicable state law that dictates which party has the right to enforce a loan.  In California, Commercial Code Section 3301 sets forth those Persons who are Entitled To Enforce a negotiable instrument (hereinafter “PETE”):

Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means:

(a)   the holder of the instrument;

(b)  a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder,

(c)   a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418. (ex. lost note)

A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. (emphasis added).             The definition of “holder” can be found in Cal. Commercial Code Section 1201(a)(21):

“Holder,” means the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is
payable either to bearer or, to an identified person that is the
person in possession.


California Lift Stay Opposition Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities (18 pages):  This pleading is “battle tested” in the Central District Bankruptcy Court in California.  Loan Servicer (Chase) motion to lift the automatic stay was DENIED.  This document has most of the major bankruptcy cases that deal with note ownership up to 2011.  In re HwangIn re WeisbandIn re Vealin re Walker, etc.  The focus is on 9th circuit cases, but there are others as well.  This document will save you a TON of time in trying to get all the cases together and organize an opposition to a motion to lift the automatic stay.  The document flows nicely from real party in interest, to standing, to arguing about assigning a deed of trust without the note (all the major cases on that point of law are included).  Simply get your facts in there and you are ready to have a great motion.

For our licensed attorneys interested in purchasing this document click  here: Foreclosure Defense training for lawyers website.


About Vondran Real Estate Litigation
Steve Vondran is the author of all blog posts on this website. He is a real estate lawyer who can represent you in financial elder abuse, distressed real estate issues, short sale, predatory lending, foreclosure defense, wrongful foreclosure, lis pendens, injunctions, state and federal real estate litigation, arbitration, real estate broker compliance, accusations, real estate zoning & land use, eminent domain and other real estate law issues. Call (877) 276-5084


4 Responses to ““Lenders” and loan servicers are moving to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy here is a pleading for attorney use that just night stop them”
  1. mbs says:

    Your products for attorneys are insanely expensive, as well as unproven. Anybody can sell motions for hundreds of dollars. The least you could do is provide copies of orders granting them.

  2. Foreclosure Defense Attorney Steve Vondran says:

    Perhaps you can suggest a fair price for my documents based on literally hundreds of hours of research into the wee hours of the night. Better yet, why don’t you prepare the pleadings and I will provide you with my input on a fair price. Which motion are you wanting proof on? Will you pay full price if you have the proof? For attorneys, if you want to stay up all night looking for the CALIFORNIA cases that might be helpful be my guest. Instead, if you want to bill your client less by spending your time reviewing the cases and preparing for your oral argument (or expanding your research with the cited cases), then the pleadings might make sense. It’s not for everyone I realize that. Also, you can check on Zoom Legal – I don’t think they sell anything like this so supply and demand at work? And don’t forget, people who buy these documents are also my competitors, and it is not as if they are not making good money on the cases they take. So all around, I believe my documents are fairly priced, as do others who have purchased them. Thank you for the comments at any rate.


Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. […] Foreclosure Defense Resource Center Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: California, crisis, Florida, […]

  2. […] our Foreclosure Defense website we have provide a sample of what the memorandum of points and authorities to the opposition to the lift stay motion looks […]

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.