Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[RandomWanderer]

This case report highlights the long-term misery that can come from living next to a FOTL, in this case, a dispute over obstruction of a shared driveway. (Awful things, shared driveways, but still ...)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1658.html

A quick google of the name of Jackey Ray Sollars, the person that it has been claimed the house has been transferred to, comes up with the name of a convicted sex offender. I guess it could be a different Jackey Ray Sollars…?

[longdog]

Or maybe not. In spite of the conspitards being obsessed with pedrofiles and totally imaginary satnic ritual abuse of children they don't seem to have any problem taking convicted sex offenders to their bosoms.

[John Uskglass]

There's some cognitive dissonance involved in relying on both Magna Carta and Islamic law!

[AnOwlCalledSage]

There's some cognitive dissonance involved in relying on both Magna Carta and Islamic law!

Ah... but Robin Hood returning from the Crusades links them both

It's clear that his rejection of usury was an indication that he'd gone native

[John Uskglass]

Robin Hood dresses in green, so perhaps he's a manifestation of Khidr.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/al-Khidr

[hucknallred]

Another one trying the old fraud/no writ/illegal paperwork/I don't want to pay tactics.
Come on down Marie Barton-Hanson.

Not much of her on the socials, but she has eviction videos up on YouTube. This is happening in a town I'm familiar with - Shirebrook, your typical former Nottinghamshire mining town, some nice areas, with some dodgy areas, this house is in the latter category.
From what she has given away, she took out a mortgage with The Derbyshire Building Society who got into difficulties and were bailed out by The Nationwide. She refers to them as 3rd party interlopers & had quite clearly stopped paying when paperwork started bearing their name.
She is relying heavily on the Robert White court case & can also be seen waving printouts of Michael O'Dreary nonsense.

Watch it all here....
https://www.youtube.com/@mariebarton-hanson8560

[John Uskglass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTU4KbVNtiY

Under this video she says:

This is how banks steal peoples homes because the Mortgage Deeds are sold to large investors and the deeds are sold in large numbers and become "Juiced" and can never be recovered, this means that even if you completely pay off your Mortgage you still do not own your home because without the Original Mortgage Deed the debt can never be cancelled.

I can't recall having come across this particular delusion before. Anyone know the source?

[longdog]

I would have thought it was nearer to the truth to say that without the mortgage deed the lender would have trouble proving the debt in the first place.

But what do I know?

[hucknallred]

I can't recall having come across this particular delusion before. Anyone know the source?

Probably Robert White, O'Bonkers or O'Dreary.
What they all fail to understand is that deeds are no longer a thing in the UK, unless you purchased before 2004ish.
After then it's all registered on The Land Registry there are no deeds as such.

Before selling my late dads house in 2016, that was bought in 1958 I got the deeds from the solicitor that had them for safe keeping as the neighbour was complaining about a fence. They did tell me to guard them carefully. I don't recall an actual 'Deed' that said 'you own this house,' it was just all paperwork relating to all the transactions from 1950 when it was built & '58 when my parents bought it.
There were also lots of notes where he had taken out dodgy secured loans over the years. One of these still had a charge on the property from the 70s that delayed the sale for a week. The firm had long since gone & the charge hadn't been removed.

If you still have paper deeds you can get your title electronically registered for a fee as it was common to pay for safe storage of deeds with a bank.

[SpearGrass]

Looks a bit like the old Get Out of Debt Free stuff which was based on the fact that some debts are sold on to enforcement companies and assumed they all were. You sent three standard letters to the company asking if they had bought the debt and a series of other unanswerable questions and however they replied, that got you out of paying - what could go wrong? It was quite early in the mass pseudo-law movement and it threw debt collectors for a while, but they adapted. Nottingham was a bit of a vortex for that with Ceylon Haining (who has his own thread on here, but I don't recall any activity on it for a while).

[Pottapaug1938]

When I was still practicing real estate law, my clients were amazed that there was no compelling need to keep the original deed or Mortgage document in anything like a safe deposit box, because once these were recorded/registered, the paper originals could be discarded. Some people who paid off their mortgage were known to burn the mortgage document; but that accomplished little. It was the burning of the fully paid Mortgage NOTE which gave more satisfaction.

[John Uskglass]

even if you completely pay off your Mortgage you still do not own your home

It's this bit that's new to me.

The use of quotes around 'juiced' suggests she's got this idea from elsewhere, but I've been unable to find any relevant material searching for 'mortgage deeds juiced' or similar.

[TheRambler]

even if you completely pay off your Mortgage you still do not own your home[/quote

I would suggest that this has its roots in the old “custom” from before the days of universal land registration of leaving a nominal amount on the mortgage account. The building society would then take/retain responsibility for safe custody of the deeds. When the property changed hands, the deeds would be released on payment of the outstanding amount. This later became a straightforward service arrangement whereby the mortgage company provided safe custody for an annual fee that could be paid periodically or bundled when the property eventually changed hands.

You could of course take control of the deeds yourself and lodge them with a solicitor; or bury them in the garden! However, because many householders had had no dealings with a solicitor since the purchase many years before, leaving them in the building society deed store was a common practice..

TheRambler

[HardyW]

even if you completely pay off your Mortgage you still do not own your home

It's this bit that's new to me.

Isn't that a rough summary of Tom Crawford claim? He said he had paid off the whole amount of the (interest only) mortgage and was still being pursued.

Plus, Nottingham.

[John Uskglass]

Isn't that a rough summary of Tom Crawford claim? ...Plus, Nottingham.

It does seem as if it could well be a folk memory of the Crawford case. Somehow she's conflated it with the nonsense about how if your mortgage gets transferred to another lender it becomes void in some mysterious fashion. My guess is that she got that from Nottingham's own 'Rogue Male' O'Deira, who has been promoting it recently. As noted above she waves screenshots from his site about during the proceedings.*

https://roguemale.org/2022/12/04/who-i ... cast-0017/

https://roguemale.org/2022/11/28/who-is ... -mortgage/

The second link contains blatant anti-Semitism btw. If it wasn't for that, his attempts to get people to sign up for the TGBMS class action, which I reckon Waugh has all but abandoned, would be rather sweet in a 'god loves a trier' kind of way!

Not quite sure how you square the circle of the banksters having no claim on your property because TGBMS reasons with the idea that they still hold title to it even when the mortgage is paid off, but there you go.

*I'm more and more suspicious that the Geniene Azalea 'victory' never happened. Searching for her name, the only relevant results are either Waugh and RM, or sources quoting them.

[aesmith]

Under this video she says:

.. even if you completely pay off your Mortgage you still do not own your home ..

Apart from anything else, unless she has a really archaic mortgage, she owns her home whether the mortgage is still outstanding or not.

[aesmith]

*I'm more and more suspicious that the Geniene Azalea 'victory' never happened. Searching for her name, the only relevant results are either Waugh and RM, or sources quoting them.

I'm pretty sure the "victory" consisted at most of an adjournment, almost certainly not exactly for the claimed reason. Or maybe a suspended possession order, that would make sense of her references to 12 months and the liberty to restore.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Somehow she's conflated it with the nonsense about how if your mortgage gets transferred to another lender it becomes void in some mysterious fashion.

I think this goes back to the sub-prime issues in the US in 2008. Bundling of mortgages was not documented or processed correctly, missing signatures became a big thing, and there were lots of arguments about whether mortgages had actually legally been moved to other lenders. Most if not all was pure bodgery and incompetence but it didn't stop SovCits and the like claiming their mortgage was invalid or void. In 2008 I came across a guy called Casey Serin, and, as they say, the rest is history and I've been on sites like this ever since.

[Pottapaug1938]

Under this video she says:

.. even if you completely pay off your Mortgage you still do not own your home ..

Apart from anything else, unless she has a really archaic mortgage, she owns her home whether the mortgage is still outstanding or not.

Massachusetts, along with some other states, is a "title theory" (as opposed to a "lien theory") state regarding mortgages. The grantor transfers legal title to the mortgagee, but has an "equitable title" to the value of any down payments or mortgage note repayments. The mortgagee's title reverts to the mortgagor, once the mortgage note is paid off. I suspect that the mortgage in question falls within the "lien theory" category.

[noblepa]

Somehow she's conflated it with the nonsense about how if your mortgage gets transferred to another lender it becomes void in some mysterious fashion.

I think this goes back to the sub-prime issues in the US in 2008. Bundling of mortgages was not documented or processed correctly, missing signatures became a big thing, and there were lots of arguments about whether mortgages had actually legally been moved to other lenders. Most if not all was pure bodgery and incompetence but it didn't stop SovCits and the like claiming their mortgage was invalid or void. In 2008 I came across a guy called Casey Serin, and, as they say, the rest is history and I've been on sites like this ever since.

I think that the theory goes something like this: "When I took out the mortgage, I promised that the bank would be paid back. When they sold the mortgage, they were paid back, so the mortgage has been satisfied". As always, it displays a complete lack of understanding of how the law works, how accounting works or how the world works.