Evicted HELOC Abusers Break In and Squat in Foreclosed Home

Former owners are breaking in to houses they were booted out of claiming their foreclosure was fraudulent.

Irvine Home Address … 43 TAROCCO Irvine, CA 92618

Resale Home Price …… $275,000

At the end of the week I get to keep your dinero.

Your fast asleep, when I sneak in your casa.

Your life sucks when your bankrupt and I'm laughing

And can trust me esse cause I'm Latin

I Lie, I Cheat, I Steal

I Lie, I Cheat, I Steal

Eddie Guerrero — Can You Feel The Heat

Last week when I wrote about Private Property Rights: A Casualty of the Housing Bubble, I didn't fully grasp the seriousness of the problem facing our system of property rights.

We live in a nation of laws. Our laws of ownership of property are the basis of our economic system. These laws are being threatened. Barry Ritholtz quoted Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital:

“In the West, this formal property system begins to process assets into capital by describing and organizing the most economically and socially useful aspects about assets, preserving this information in a recording system—as insertions in a written ledger or a blip on a computer disk—and then embodying it in a title. A set of detailed and precise legal rules governs this entire process. Formal property records and titles thus represent our shared concept of what is economically meaningful about any asset. They capture and organize all the relevant information required to conceptualize the potential value of an asset and so allow us to control it . . .

The reason capitalism has triumphed in the West and sputtered in the rest of the world is because most of the assets in Western nations have been integrated into one formal representational system . . . By transforming people with real property interests into accountable individuals, formal property created individuals from masses. People no longer needed to rely on neighborhood relationships or make local arrangements to protect their rights to assets. They were thus freed to explore how to generate surplus value from their own assets.”

Today's featured news story is about a family fighting to keep their home… or not. It is really about a family of HELOC abusers who gamed the system as long as they could, and now they have broken into the home they no longer own, and they are squatting there under advice of their attorney who likely hopes to make a name for himself while encouraging his clients to break the law.

Evicted Family Breaks Into Foreclosed Home

Sheree R Curry — Oct 12th 2010

Just as new owners were about to move in, the previous owners of a foreclosed house in Simi Valley, Calif. reoccupied it with locksmith, attorney and camera crew in tow.

Investors who had purchased the home at a lender's trustee sale had been hoping to have its new owners in it this week. But Jim and Danielle Earl and their nine children returned to the home because, she says, she believes it will be difficult for their family to find another permanent place to live if they comply with a court order to vacate the home.

Difficult to find a permanent place to live? WTF is she talking about? It will be difficult to find a stucco box with a built-in ATM machine, that much is true. It won't be difficult to find a rental. Oh wait, I get it… she is entitled to a permanent residence. It doesn't matter that other people have to work and pay bills, she doesn't have to pay her bills, and she is entitled to live in a permanent residence for which she does not pay.

That order, says their lawyer, was the end result of fraud.

Fraud? Perhaps her lawyer should go through the families previous loan applications and see how truthful they were about their income. This family filled out a bunch of paperwork and obtained a loan. When they didn't repay that loan, the lender exercised their contractual right to force a foreclosure sale of the property. If there are minor paperwork irregularities, it doesn't mean they don't have to repay the loan and keep the property. I can't believe people conceive these ideas.

"They broke in and are proceeding to squat in there," listing agent Chris Garvin of Troop Real Estate, told HousingWatch.

The Earls originally purchased the house for $500,000 in March 2001. Due to some refinances to take out equity, they owed at least $880,000 on a no-interest mortgage loan by the time of foreclosure.

Let's be real about who and what these people are: HELOC abusing squatters.

"When we were evicted we went to the Extended Stay America because they were the only hotel around that would let us have that many children, and a dog and two cats," Danielle Earl, 44, told HousingWatch. "We split up into two hotel rooms for a month." She is the part owner of a medical devices company and her husband is a stay-at-home dad. After their hotel stay they moved to a short-term rental, but their credit issues would keep them from obtaining a property that would permanently suit their needs, she said.

No kidding? I guess not making your house payment for a long time and going into foreclosure will do that. Whocouldanode?

But the bigger issues, says their attorney, Michael Pines, is that the lender fraudulently foreclosed upon their six-bedroom, five-bath home. "When I felt comfortable from a legal standpoint that they had a basis for moving back in, they did so on my recommendation," says Pines.

Garvin was not only the listing agent but also the acquisition and sales partner for his client, Conejo Capital Partners, the investors. He says that he purchased the home in good faith for $697,000 in January on behalf of his client, at an auction on the courthouse steps.

After gaining possession through eviction in July, his clients spent $40,000 rehabbing the home. Carpets were replaced, appliances updated, and granite countertops added. "The living condition was disgusting," he says. But once cleaned up, it went under contract to new buyers for $800,000. All other questions were referred to his attorney, Stan Yates, who had not responded to HousingWatch by publication time.

No wonder these squatters want to move back in. The flipper buys the property at auction, spends a great deal of money fixing the place up, and now the former owners want to move in? I suppose they are entitled to the new improvements for free too, right?

Danielle Earl (pictured) says that she and her husband have been foster parents to 43 children over the years and they currently home-school most of their school-age children (six of whom are adopted). So she admits that the walls were probably a bit scuffed and in need of a paint job, and some of the carpet was worn. But, she says, she and her family only had a day to collect their things and have movers haul it away, so it's not like they were leaving the home in a show-ready state.

I see this family works the bleeding heart angle. They can be proud of their work as foster parents. It's the way they managed their finances that's the problem.

The rehab she describes costs $4,000. The flipper needed to spend $40,000. I can tell you from experience that flippers do not spend $40,000 if they don't have to. It is a for-profit business.

About arriving back home Saturday, she says: "It was such an emotional moment. Everyone started hugging each other and crying."

Arriving back home? You mean after they broke in and started squatting they were overjoyed with all the new stuff the flipper gave them. This family is unbelievable.

Since possession doesn't necessarily mean ownership, the Earls still have a battle on their hands, says Pines, who says they were denied a trial by jury to argue why they never should have been foreclosed upon — and their eviction from the 2000-built home was unwarranted.

"The bank used the usual fabricated and forged documents to foreclose," the Earls wrote in their court petition, in which they describe signatures by bank personnel that do not match, from document to document — an indication to them that documents were not properly reviewed and were fabricated.

"We needed to get back in before the investor and the real estate broker moved in a new family," says Pines. "I didn't want to allow the situation to become worse, and we show up and we have to try to throw them out. Danielle and Jim would not have wanted to throw them out."

They moved in so that they wouldn't have to throw out the rightful owners. How nice of them!

The Earls question who owns the loan, as the foreclosure documents list GRP Financial Services, but there have been several lenders listed in the past few years. The original lender was Washington Mutual Bank, which became JPMorgan Chase after the banks merged. The loan went to Bank of America on the same day that Chase sent the homeowners a notice of default. The Earls argue that Chase never properly assumed the loan and thus did not have the right to sell it off. And in turn, the investors, Conejo Capital Partners, did not properly purchase the property either.

This attorneys argument is specious. Even if we assume Chase didn't properly assume the loan, that doesn't mean the family of squatters owns it. Of all the various parties to this fiasco, the one I am quite certain has no ownership claim is the family currently squatting there.

If the lender did not properly assume the loan, then some previous lender still has the loan. Someone, somewhere owns this loan, and that entity has the right to call an auction for the property. Best case for these people is they get to squat a little longer while the proper note holder is determined and a foreclosure can go forward. in the meantime, the title company that insured the note is going to have to pay the flipper their investment money back as part of a title claim. That title insurer will then sue the bank that improperly transferred the note for damages. The attorneys all get rich.

The courts generally can ignore a foreclosure sale when there has been fraud or the sale was improperly conducted.

The Earls, who admit to having fallen behind on their mortgage at one point due to a loss of income in Danielle's business, say that they were working with the bank to catch up on their payments.

What does it mean to be "working with the bank?" Either these people were making up the missed payments or they weren't. In all likelihood, they were gaming the system with loan modifications and other ploys and the bank finally got fed up.

However, she says, whenever they made a payment it was not being reflected on statements, even a $12,500 catch-up payment was not credited to the balance due. Ultimately, there was a $25,000 discrepancy between what they thought they still owed in arrears and what the bank said they owed.

They were probably charged late fees, collection fees, and any other fee the bank could think of — they weren't paying the mortgage. What did they expect?

Garvin testified at court that he successfully bid against four others for the property, and on Feb. 5 served the Earls with a three-day notice to vacate the property, and they failed to do so at that time. They are charging the Earls approximately $4,000 a month rent, or about $133 per day for their extended stay beyond that date.

In other words, the flipper was exercising his legal rights to clear the squatters from the house.

Pines says that he can't predict if the real estate investor will again evict the Earls, but adds, "I think that is unlikely." His firm, Pines & Associates, will be filing a lawsuit "against everybody," he says.

Did you recoil in fear when you read that? Oh no, the big, bad lawyer is going to sue everybody. What a loser.

Even if Conejo Capital Partners were a purchaser in good faith, the Earls believe that the investor group must still prove that the foreclosure process itself was proper.

The Earls, however, are just happy to be back in their home. "My kids have been begging to go home and we're finally home," said Danielle Earl.

I have expressed my opinion. What do you think? Are these people heroes of villains?

What happens if mortgage insurers lose faith?

The purpose of foreclosure is to clear title. All the financial encumbrances are cleansed from the property, and title clearly vests with the highest bidder at public auction. Without the vesting of clean title in foreclosure, real estate quickly becomes mired and our system of property ownership begins to crumble. If the winning bidder at a public auction cannot be sure of title, why would they bid? How would anyone know they really had title to anything?

What would happen if issuers of title insurance stop issuing new policies because they cannot guarantee title? No title insurance means no loans. No loans means properties fall immediately to cash value. Uncertainty about title in the cash market means those transactions stop as well. All real estate transactions would cease, and we would witness the complete collapse of our real estate market. We would truly become a banana republic.

Once title becomes uncertain, all transactions related to title cease. Would you buy a property if you thought someone could simply break in and take if from you? We would revert back to a feudal state where warlords claimed title by force of arms. Think Afghanistan. Do you think i am exaggerating the implications of this? I don't think so.

Paying up the mortgage

Somehow during the housing bubble, people forgot they are supposed to pay down a mortgage. Instead, everyone decided to pay it up by borrowing heavily and paying back as little as possible. The owner of today's featured property has owned it for 17 years. During that time, she should have made significant progress toward paying it off; however, she decided to spend her new-found wealth with a series of mortgage equity withdrawal refinances and HELOCs.

  • This property was purchased on 6/18/1993 for $134,000. The original loan is not given, but it was likely a $107,200 loan with a $26,800 down payment.
  • On 12/31/1998 she refinanced the first mortgage for $122,120.
  • On 3/31/2003 she refinanced again for $164,500.
  • On 1/30/2004 she opened a HELOC for $25,000.
  • On 2/16/2005 she got a new first mortgage for $225,000.
  • On 1/24/2006 she obtained a $250,000 first mortgage.
  • On 8/17/2006 she refinanced with a $279,400 first mortgage.
  • On 9/21/2007 she opened a stand-alone second for $42,000.
  • Total property debt is $321,400.
  • Total mortgage equity withdrawal is $214,200.
  • She was recently issued a NOD.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 08/09/2010

Document Type: Notice of Default

Irvine Home Address … 43 TAROCCO Irvine, CA 92618

Resale Home Price … $275,000

Home Purchase Price … $134,000

Home Purchase Date …. 6/18/1993

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $124,500

Percent Change ………. 92.9%

Annual Appreciation … 4.1%

Cost of Ownership


$275,000 ………. Asking Price

$9,625 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.21% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$265,375 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$51,933 ………. Income Requirement

$1,299 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$238 ………. Property Tax

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$23 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$310 ………. Homeowners Association Fees


$1,871 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$117 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$368 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$14 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$34 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves


$1,434 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands


$2,750 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$2,750 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$2,654 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$9,625 ………. Down Payment


$17,779 ………. Total Cash Costs

$21,900 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves


$39,679 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 43 TAROCCO Irvine, CA 92618


Beds: 2

Baths: 1 full 1 part baths

Home size: 995 sq ft

($276 / sq ft)

Lot Size: n/a

Year Built: 1983

Days on Market: 12

Listing Updated: 40455

MLS Number: P754822

Property Type: Condominium, Residential

Community: Orangetree

Tract: Og


According to the listing agent, this listing may be a pre-foreclosure or short sale.


83 thoughts on “Evicted HELOC Abusers Break In and Squat in Foreclosed Home

  1. winstongator

    what’s the probability that big banks want cases like this to show that the worse of the two evils is the squatting? i think people have a distorted view of who should have 900k mortgages. they should have > 250k in income, definitely a luxury. I guess you could qualify for more payment if you have a no-interest loan…

    Now, banks too, need to recognize that same fact. They refi’d them based on bubble prices for the collateral, they gave them the no-interest loan, they probably didn’t verify the income. I would wonder how many foreclosures that are being accused of being fraudulent now had some sort of fraud, and then how many were qualified only at a teaser rate, interest-only or neg-am payment?

    One case I saw the people claimed that Fannie, not Citi owned their loan. I wonder if Fannie pushed the loan back to Citi because there was insufficient or fraudulent origination.

    I feel bad for this family, but they need to realize that the ultimate payers for their squatting are the rest of America, half of which live in homes valued less than $120k.

    Banks that are having problems finding title should be required to jump extra hoops before selling to the gse’s. Push the new origination business to more responsible banks.

  2. Freetrader

    Well, besides being hilarious (I’m sure we will here from Swiller explaining what heroes these idiots are) this type of thing is also dangerous.

    Moronic, nonsensical legal challenges to the valid exercise of property rights has the potential to really screw up our society. Like birthers, truthers, and those idiots who claim that the income tax is unconstitutional because they don’t know how to read, the ‘show me the note’ clowns have the potentential to cause real damage because they are throwing a giant red herring at a system that needs to work if society is to function at all.

    That said, this is no different than the case of Randy Quaid and his loony wife (actually, it is even less sympathetic, since I don’t think Quaid was a heloc abuser, who just lost his home and then squatted).

    Still, I am sure this will blow over quickly – judges usually have little patience for these type of morons and a stiff prison sentence for these criminals and their about-to-be-disbarred night school attorney should discourage other people from trying it themselves.

    1. Swiller

      Anyone that has the courage to think outside the box, challenge those in power to keep them honest, and to call out bullshit when they see it, is a hero. You are not my hero.

      Breaking and entering someone else’s home is a crime. Lying on mortgage apps, signing doc’s you never see, artificially hiking home values up by flooding the market with money in order to create debt servitude for the american people..is a crime.

      Banksters and the people who LIED on applications are criminals, and everyone involved with the process are CRIMINALS. That would be all the rubber stampers who were making $100,000+ a year cranking out fraudulant loans.

      It is my belief that this was perpetrated on the american public by design. The ones who controlled this, knew what the end sum would be, but they also knew they could blackmail the U.S. government to bail them out. The largest monetary heist in the history of man has occurred, and you have genius’s here squabbling about someone living in a condo for a few months for free.

      Most didn’t choose to take the right colored pill. Stay asleep, keep blaming the people around you, it’s that guys fault that works at Del Taco, yea that’s it, or the prick who cares for your sick kid, yup, damn scumbag. Worthless pieces of excrement that cannot afford a home, how dare you dream of owning your own home, get back to work for $7.00 an hour.

    1. Honcho

      This will not end well for either this attorney or his clients. Judge’s were already fed up with these bogus lawsuits here in California. One of these judge’s will string this guy up.

      1. tazman

        One can only hope… sounds like the original judge in the first eviction case against these clowns pretty much is at his/her patience limit. Perhaps if all of us IHBers petition the judge, he’ll hold this Pine clown (who encouraged his clients to break the law and this judge’s order) in contempt of court.

    2. tenmagnet

      The attorney is a d-bag.
      Check out how they do business in Newport Beach
      Squad car in the drive way, multiple officers present to arrest and prevent trespassing.
      Police bird in the air, securing the perimeter.
      Vastly different scene then Simi Valley, where the officer can’t be bothered to intervene let alone exit the squad car.

      1. Swiller

        Yea, check out how they do business in OCSD. People beaten to death by police in custody, people set-up to be beaten to death by inmates. People shot to death by officers. And not one officer is *ever* held accountable. Aren’t you just PROUD to live in OC?

        OC has a long history of the police forces using their authority as thugs. Hopefully they will beat one/shoot one/set up one of your family members to death and you will still back them up as heroes.

        3% per year of service retirement with all he perks that go along with being a badge. Be proud!

        1. Swiller your a bitter goofball

          Swiller at least try and hide your bitterness. If the job of being a police officer is so easy, why aren’t people (including yourself) go out and get the job. Right know they cannot find enough people to hire.


          1. Swiller


            but….but….I’m so bitter and untruthful.

            This shenanigans need to stop, and we need to use our police force accordingly, not like thugs. It’s why everyone experiences FEAR when they see an officer on the side of the road or in their rear view mirror. No one likes cops because they have become revenue generators, whether through tickets and fines, or incarceration. Perhaps if the police were anything CLOSE to the fairy tales of TV shows, people might respect them again.

          2. Swiller

            You will probably refuse to read that story, but I’ll sum it up. In this case, and others, the police were murderers, yet they are never tried and found guilty. You are damn right I fear the police, because I READ the reports of abuse. I fear the police more than gang members and criminals, because the police will cover it up and lie, in the guise of being, dare I say the word…”moral” and upstanding.

            Hopefully, everyone involved in the Chamberlain case will suffer a bad fate. The main guard on duty deserves death and nothing less, but instead he will just quit the force, and perpetrate his hatred and evil somewhere else, probably another police force, hopefully in Arizona to serve David..

        2. Freetrader2

          Yeah, right, Swiller. Police in OC has SUCH a bad reputation compared to the cops up in LA…must be the clean air in OC that drives the cops crazy.

  3. Enm

    Is there a property tax angle to this? Assuming these squatters aren’t paying their property taxes either, doesn’t that completely undermine their ownership/”we have a dispute about the mortgage” claim? Can towns go after them for unpaid taxes?

    Seems like not paying property taxes should be legal evidence of “you’re not fooling anyone–you’re a squatter.”

  4. Honcho

    We are headed for Thunderdome. Seriously.

    This tactic is very dangerous for both the attorney and his clients. Looks like this guy has been practicing law for a while, so maybe he doesn’t care. Maybe he’ll make some quick dollars running this game plan out and then he’ll head for the hills? I don’t know.

    It is virtually impossible to challenge a foreclosure in California after it has been completed. There is a CONCLUSIVE presumption that a foreclosure is valid once the trustee’s deed has been delivered to a bona fide purchaser.

    The only way to attack a sale, post-foreclosure, is on procedural grounds. There are several public policy reasons for this that courts have repeatedly stated, namely, so that you have settled transactions and not have this very situation occur. Think about it, if you were a buyer, how are you supposed to know what did or did not happen with regard to the original loan? All you can see is that the procedure for a foreclosure was properly followed. If there is a defect in the procedural aspect of the foreclosure, you would be aware, or certainly could be aware of that defect.

    This will not end well for this attorney or his clients.

    Perhaps if he had tried this with a more sympathetic family. It is hard to feel sympathy for the family when the public record establishes that they yanked 380K out of the house.

      1. Honcho

        That shows you how difficult it is to challenge one of these post foreclosure. To get the foreclosure buyer to agree to unwind the transaction, not only did WaMu have to give back the entire amount of the transaction, but also had to cough up an additional 100K for the buyer.

        Love that the ethics panel found her to be “a victim of mortgage fraud” because her home loan application had “false income” information on it. The panel found that she would not have qualified for the loan had they used her actual and accurate income information. So what does the bank do, rescind the foreclosure and give her back the house, which she couldn’t afford the first time around! Brilliant!

  5. winstongator

    Have the banks been held accountable for the level of responsibility they bear for the foreclosure mess? I say no. There are legitimate problems in the system, from the completely invalid foreclosures to people affirming they have reviewed something they haven’t. The first is actually the easier to deal with. For the second, hold people criminally liable, then offer them plea deals for naming names up the ladder. Rinse & repeat until you get to big fish. The MBS’s that improperly transferred title are probably full of the shittiest mortgages out there, so kick some of the stink back to the bundlers. Tough for the Lehman & Bear buyers, but can get a little out of the other bundlers.

    From this: “People don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions.” This quote from Ralph Cioffi, the former Bear Stearns hedge fund manager who pissed away billions. Now who is really not taking responsibility, the millions of foreclosed homeowners or the bankers?

  6. Planet Reality

    Let’s try to stay consistent on the legal vs moral issue.

    If it’s legal and OK to walk away the it’s also legal and OK to try this nonsense. She has a lawyer and she is seeking her due process. I guess if the bank really did screw up then it’s still technically her house.

    More consistency is needed here, less hypocrisy.

    1. HOncho

      I’m not sure how I understand how it is legal to break into a home you have been evicted from. There are due process requirements to evict someone. This attorney, and his clients, apparently weren’t happy with their first shot at trying to defeat the foreclosure.

      Certainly, the borrowers are wll within their legal rights to walk away from their debt obligation. Consequences follow such a decision, but we don’t operate debtor prisons, so there are no criminal consequences that would stem from that decision. However, trespass and vandalism do have criminal penalties associated with them.

      The point of the foreclosure and eviction process is to give the borrower their “due process.”

      1. Planet Reality

        If the foreclosure proceedings were not legal than technically she still owns the home. She owns the home even if she hasn’t paid the loan for years until the bank first legally proceeds with foreclosure and then legally evicts her.

        Legally she may in fact still be “entitled” to live in this home.

        Don’t confuse this with my opinion of her. I was told here on this blog that if something is legal I should forget about the morals. You can’t have it both ways, end the hypocrisy.

        1. lowrydr310

          I’m with IR; if these squatters are claiming the banks committed fraud during foreclosure proceedings, the banks should pull out the mortgage applications and see if they can dig up any signs of ‘fraud.’ I wonder how a judge/jury would look at that.

          On second thought I take that back. Most juries aren’t the brightest bunch in the world (it’s only the not-so-smart people or those with too much free time on their hands who don’t know how or don’t care to get out of jury duty).

          Outstanding citizens who are doing good for the world and taking care of displaced children shouldn’t be victimized and bullied by the big evil banks.

          1. honcho

            Don’t think the banks don’t or won’t file counter claims against the borrowers if one of these garbage suits ever makes it past the pleading stage.

          2. Misstrial

            As a matter of fact, Yours Truly has been assigned to Jury Duty. Coming up soon 🙂


      2. Planet Reality

        If the foreclosure proceedings were not legal than technically she still owns the home. She owns the home even if she hasn’t paid the loan for years until the bank first legally proceeds with foreclosure and then legally evicts her.

        Legally she may in fact still be “entitled” to live in this home.

        Don’t confuse this with my opinion of her. I was told here on this blog that if something is legal I should forget about the morals. You can’t have it both ways, end the hypocrisy.

        1. Honcho

          What I read in the article was that the house was sold via foreclosure and there was an eviction. A foreclosure is CONCLUSIVELY presumed to be valid once the trustee’s deed is delivered. The family was presumably removed by the sheriff given the tone of the article and the fact that the family didn’t have any time to tidy up the place on their way out.

          No ownership for the borrower, period, under this scenario.

          I’m not sure who here, besides you, is claiming that trespass and vandalism is legal.

          1. Honcho

            Without the conclusive presumption, it would not be safe for anyone to ever buy a property that had been previously foreclosed. There are solid justifications for this rule.

            The time to challenge a foreclousre and eviction is before the foreclosure and eviction. Not to wait until after the foreclosure is completed and evictio nhas already taken place.

          2. Planet Reality

            Now let’s check back into reality:

            A. She is currently living in the home
            B. There is a legal suit as to whether the foreclosure was legal

            None of this changes the fact that I think she is a scum bag.

          3. Honcho

            Once the trustee’s deed is deliverd the forclosure is valid. Period. There is no challenging it other than on procedural grounds. Period. Her claims of fraud at this point are too late. She will lose and may go to jail.

            Hopefully she has a better criminal defense attorney than she has in this foreclosure attorney.

          4. Honco

            I am confused as to what you are saying?

            Was the unlawful detainer action not a legal action to determine the validity of the foreclosure action?

            You can’t get a court to order the sheriff to evict someone without showing that the foreclosure was done in compliance with the law.

            These people had to be evicted from the home after the foreclosure sale. Therefore, there must have been a court order that resulted from an unlawful detainer action.

        2. awgee

          There was no lis pendens on the home at the time of foreclosure. There is no record that the Earls ever contested the foreclosure, and there has never been any legal action taken by the Earls contesting the legality of the foreclosure. There is absolutely no reason to think that the foreclosure was illegal.

          Legally, she is NOT in fact be entitled to live in this home. Her trespass was both illegal and immoral.

    2. Freetrader2

      Uh, no. Please refer to pretty much all of the above postings. You aren’t given an $800k house for free. Someone has to pay for it, and it is crystal clear that it hasn’t been the squatters.

      Also, smart guy, “pursuing due process” does not include criminal breaking and entry into someone else’s legal property.

  7. HydroCabron

    If it’s legal and OK to walk away the it’s also legal and OK to try this nonsense.


    I guess if the bank really did screw up then it’s still technically her house.

    No. You are incorrect. Both legally and technically – not that there is a distinction – you are mistaken.

    Your post is the weakest link. Goodbye!

    1. Planet Reality

      Talk about hypocrisy, you need to be on a higher level to correspond with me in all aspects of your life.

      1. HydroCabron

        More consistency is needed here, less hypocrisy.

        Talk about hypocrisy, you need to be on a higher level to correspond with me in all aspects of your life.

        Semantics: Wikipedia page giving a definition of “hypocrisy.” This will help you understand what that term means, so that you may use it correctly in the future.

        Grammar: Comma splices. Read this, find a high school grammar text with some exercises, and learn how to separate two independent clauses according to the relationship between them.

  8. Perspective

    “What do you think? Are these people heroes of villains?”

    Well, the answer you’ll receive depend on the audience you ask. Here, the vast majority of readers understand that these people only victimized themselves into buying/refinancing a home they couldn’t afford. It’s pretty simple.

    However, if you go to a left-leaning forum discussing the same topic, this family will receive much more support. Check out this topic yesterday on our local NPR station:


    1. toshi

      This isn’t a left/right issue. I think anyone who takes a close look at this story can see that there were many bad actors here, the family included. I think many of us who follow this and similar blogs are left-leaning.

      That NPR link doesn’t mention anything about HELOC abuse or irresponsible squatters or anything like that. it’s only about a broken foreclosure system.

    2. Chris

      1. Did OJ commit the crime? Evidences (except the gloves) clearly showed his guilt.

      2. Was he convicted? No.

      So, did those former debtors stop paying? Evidences say yes.

      Did the bank follow procedural protocols in foreclosure? Let’s just say ‘yes’.

      So, will the bank win this one? Check my #2 above.

      Wacky state we’re in, eh?

      1. Andrew

        It’s way off topic, and I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but…

        If you must go back to the OJ case…

        The trouble with the gloves is that there is good, solid evidence that they were planted by the police, and that officers lied to cover up that fact.

        The evidence at the time also suggested that there was a decent amount of real evidence and the cops just made up the extra because they wanted to be absolutely sure they got the guy.

        But, when you have proof that the witnesses are lying, and proof that evidence has been planted and tampered with, you can never be sure of anything else that the perjured witnesses said or did.

        In our society, a not-guilty verdict is not a sign of innocence, it is a lack of sufficient evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt. Conclusive proof of crooked cops and planted evidence is a reasonable cause for doubt.

        What bearing that infamous criminal trial has on a completely unrelated issue of whether or not a person has met their financial obligations when even they will admit that they have not is… a mystery to me.

  9. Soylent Green Is People

    Hey here’s a little kerosene to liven things up a bit:

    Because the little ones are foster home kids, guess who’s paying these peoples bills right now…?

    You are.

    Thanks to the State of California the squatters and their “family” are being reimbursed per child per month.

    Although I’m busy this weekend, anyone going to stop yelling here on the intarweb and finally do something? Why not get a few people together and caravan up to Simi, visit the RR Memorial Library, take in a nice lunch some where, then picket outside this DB’s house? My guess is that if a few righteous people with kick ass signs start marching in front of the squatters house, a good old fashioned LA Media Circus (TM) will start. It’s about time some back lash started – peaceful of course, but something other than what people are posting here.

    My .02c

    Soylent Green Is People.

    1. current renter

      I thought the same thing about picketing…. Some one needs to confront these people about sticking five foster kids in a motel room……..doesnt seem right to me……..

    2. Freetrader2

      Excellent point…which leads inevitably to the conclusion of why this entire freak show started.

      Probably, two rooms in a hotel for five kids would be considered, even by the State of California, as a poor environment for the foster kids. That means that the kids would eventually be taken away, along with the money that is apparently the squatters only source of income.


      What a great family to stay with if your a foster kid…they are probably learning some real ‘family values’ now.

  10. current renter

    Seems to me that these squaters contend that they discovered some discrepancy in what they owed and stopped paying. Yeah right… to gain legitimacy to that augment, they should have been paying the amount they contend was the fair payment. In a rental dispute, you have to pay the rent to an escrow account to show you were willing to pay rent during a dispute.

    How many mortgage payments have they made from 2008-2010? and what the Total $ they paid?

    How much Title IV-E adoption assistance cash do these people receive each month? How much have they received in 2000-2010. Why did they take out $300k from their house? If these people are going to take fed and state $ for adoption and foster care services, then they should be held under more scrutiny for living in a motel.

    I dont want my tax dollars to go to some idiot who cant find a rental for their family. Where is all the $ that they saved from not payuing a mortgage?

  11. flyovercountry

    On the subject of third world countries and property records:

    I recently heard on NPR that one of the big obstacles to rebuilding homes in Haiti is that the aid organizations have no idea who owns the land that they want rebuild homes on. The organizations don’t want to build a property for someone, only to have to be seized by someone else due to bad property records.

    1. Freetrader2

      It is no exaggeration to say that clear property rights are what separate us from sub-Third World places like Haiti.

    1. Honcho

      The same attorney and a new client tried it in Newport the other day. Both the attorney and the borrower were arrested.

      Newport ain’t Simi Valley. Attorney just found that out the hard way, I suppose.

  12. Eat that!

    I really like the fact that the cops show up and just shrug it off. Hmm. It really puts into context the laws of our land. If it might bring bad press, don’t arrest!

    1. Planet Reality

      The banks did not follow sane procedures in issuing the loans, is it that surprising that they are not following the proper due process of legal foreclosure? The only part that stays consistent is who is going to pay for the clean up, that’s right the responsible: you and I.

  13. bltserv

    Just heard on the radio they slammed Mozillo for his crimes finally. 80 million in fines. Only took how many years.

    1. octal77

      Yeah, but there is some question on who
      is going to pay those fines. Some reports
      (marketwatch.com)indicate BofA.

      Guess where that money is coming from?

  14. Art VanDelay

    Are Simi Valley cops high? Since when did breaking and entering and unlawful trespass become a “civil matter”?

    What’s most disheartening about this and other similar cases is that I had always assumed anarchy and rule without recourse to laws would be more fun. At present it seems very selective and favoring only a few. I drive by an empty million dollar (ok, 20 million) manse on my way to work every day and I’ve often dreamed about moving in and squatting. But the last guy around here (Pebble Beach) who did something similar got 2 years at Folsom. Anarchy has, apparently, way too many loopholes and rules. :coolsmirk:

    1. covered

      Well, that’s what happens when “we” decided that the banks were TBTF. This is the “moral hazard” that many were saying would happen, but only a few knew what it meant–then (most of the people here did.) These people just got the publicity. There are unknowable thousands just like them (ok, maybe w/o the 9 kids) out there. You could always play “squatter’s lotto,” which is a term I think I first read on Dr. Housing Bubble. But I think you’re right about one thing, Art. Anarchy was supposed to be more fun.

    1. JimmyJ

      OMG!!!!!!!!! NOW, we see where all the “free” money she is getting from the state, Fed, and heloc are going … To SUPPORT her lifestyle!

      WTF! Doesnt this bitch have a real day job like the rest of us ??????

      Anit America GRAND?

    1. Alan

      Ha, pretty easy to settle when someone else pays the fine:

      “But most of Mr. Mozilo’s financial obligations likely will be paid by Countrywide’s current owner, Bank of America Corp., as part of indemnification agreements it has with former officers. Countrywide was sold to BofA as it was collapsing in 2008.”

      Mozilo walks away with 10’s if not 100’s of $millions, and BofA pays the fines, and the US taxpayers bail out BofA. I have never understood why they bought Countrywide in the first place. They could have easily waited until it went out of business, then bought any of the pieces they wanted at a fraction of the price and without the debts and lawsuits. Like the British bank (Barklays?) did with Lehman Brothers.

  15. awgee

    Except for the usual morons and nutcases, it seems everybody understands how wrong it is for these folks to trespass and claim this home is theirs. The part that cracks me up is just how bad their judgement was in calling out the media. Did that backfire or what?

  16. John Nobles

    good News! Earl family evicted today by court order (have until one week from Monday to get out):


    Letter from new owners about the ordeal:


    Apparently the Earls not only destroyed the house but also decided to leave behind even their dog to starve when they were thrown out the first time. Dirtbags.

    And they intend to try and move back in after being thrown out yet again! I hope the new owners meet them at the door with a shotgun when they try it. Eat hot lead, lawbreakers!

    1. Freetrader2

      Why do they have a week to leave a house they broke into in the first place? That just gives them a week to trash the place further.

      1. honcho

        Judge’s do have sympathy for defaulted borrowers. Time and time again I saw it.

        Who they don’t have sympathy for is attorneys like this Pines character. This will not end well for him.

    2. DonJames

      I hope these squatters gets thrown out on their asses before the end of the week! Fuck them! Let them go homeless for a while. Being stupid comes at a price, and it’s time for them to PAY UP!

      I actually feel sorry for the new homeowners who were going to move in last week. They are the REAL victims.

  17. Joe R

    These people are probably going to get thrown out again, but only after doing $10000 damage to the $40000 in improvements put in by the knife catcher. What I’m more worried about are people who do a better job of gaming the system from the git-go in the foreclosure process, particularly challenging the process of registering title. If title insurance companies decide that insuring titles on properties that have been foreclosed with poorly documented trust deed custody trails is too risky, then that will throw a big monkey wrench into the whole real estate market by leaving even more properties in the shadow inventory. I really want to know how serious this problem is. Any RE sales experts care to comment?


    PS I was considering buying property in the next year if the foreclosure inventory peaks and prices drop. Not in Ventura Co., but most likely in Huntington Beach.

    1. Chris

      I’m no expert but I’ve asked a question about REO as well and didn’t get an answer. Now I’m not even sure REOs are safe.

      1. Joe R

        This is the most important issue we’ve seen in this blog in a long time. Are we slipping backwards to where no title to land is safe? Right now, it only seems that REOs are potential financial time bombs for those who buy them. We really need the blog community to investigate this.


    2. covered

      You’ve just asked the $64 Trillion question. However it is eventually answered, there are going to be plenty of pissed off people…as if there aren’t already. Tick tock.

  18. Laura Louzader

    The family that was buying the Earl house backed out of the deal for fear that this douchebag family would repeatedly attempt to break in and take possession.

    The seller could sue the Earls, but what would be the use? The Earls are broke. They know they are safe from lawsuits.

    The only consolation is knowing these people have made themselves so notorious they will have to leave the area and change their names in order to find a place to rent.

    The seven kids they foster-parent should be removed from their care. They’re probably only taking in so many foster-kids to soak the system for more money. They’re horrid example-setters for their kids, on par with OctoCow.

    We need to stop rewarding people who game the system at everyone else’s expense.

    1. honcho

      They could also sue the attorney. Although, it looks like this guy is a deadbeat, too. Saw somewhere else that he was blasted for attorneys fees when he tried his “fraud” defense on his own house.

      If you’re going to go out, go out with a bang I guess.

      As I said before, this will not end well for this attorney or his clients.

      1. Misstrial

        Here’s an interesting one:


        Micheal T. Pines, Plaintiff v. EMC MORTGAGE CORP., et al
        Case No. 2:08-CV-137 TC


        Lost his own civil action. He has no idea of the operational art.


        1. Honcho

          Not only did he lose, he had to pay $16,000 in costs to the defendants for his drivel.

          I wonder how long this attorney thought he could go before people actually started finding out what his past really looks like?

          His legal arguments have no merit. Courts recognize this. I’m sure he recognizes this. Sadly, his clients will recognize this if they follow his advice and get hauled off to jail.

    2. Kirk

      The foster parent gig was the first thing that popped into my mind. I felt a little bad, because we desperately need foster parents. But, there is no arguing that a lot of these foster parents just see the kids as income. I’m fairly certain that is the case here.

      1. Laura Louzader

        Hi Kirk.

        Having known people in my youth who grew up in foster care, and a few others who grew up in the orphanages that were beginning to close up at that time, I often wonder if the orphanages weren’t better.

        I get the impression that social services switched to foster care to reduce costs, using as an excuse the idea that the kid would have a more “personal” environment with the warmth of a caring family.

        Well, sometimes it works that way. There was a wonderful old lady in my neighborhood here in Chicago, a saint, who raised over 20 foster kids in her 2-room apartment over a span of 30 years. She was rather poor, a gentle, tiny black lady, and she took in kids who had been abused and very neglected, and who had towering behavioral and developmental problems- and managed to raise them all to be productive citizens who went on to lead good lives.

        But mostly foster homes are not like hers. Foster parents are responsible for an disproportionate amount of really vicious abuse, and there is no way to supervise them effectively. Way too many families do it for the money and scimp on the child.

        The people who grew up in the institutions really seemed somewhat better off. There is more transparency in a public setting, and while the staff is a little impersonal, the kids form groups that serve them as family substitutes, and the people I knew were very close to each other through decades of adulthood, having forged their bonds in the orphanage. It doesn’t sound like much to someone with a real, loving family, but it is better than what they might have gotten in a foster home run by morons who abused them and made them feel like discarded garbage, while taking the state’s money to care for them.

        1. Kirk

          I know one person who was adopted and even that didn’t work out real good. She was constantly running away from home.

          I’m glad to hear that someone knew at least one good foster parent.

          1. Laura Louzader

            Full adoption is different than providing foster care- it at least requires real commitment, and adoptive parents are usually vetted much more thoroughly than foster parents, for whom the bar seems really low.

            Yet adoption is still only second best, a last resort. I know four people who were adopted, and two sets of adoptive parents, and certain things strike me about their respective relations with their adoptive parents or kids.

            The two people I knew well, who were adopted children who feel that their parents could have been their biological kids and who feel the sort of close, intense familial bond with them that we associate with close biological relationships, just happen to have been their adoptive parents’ only children- there were no biological children present, and the parents were moreover older, 35 and above, when they won the right to adopt this one child.

            Additionally, the children came from backgrounds and ethnic groups very much like those of their parents. At the time these kids were adopted, social workers exerted themselves to “match” the kids to the parents, and these kids were of the same Scandinavian-German descent as their parents.

            Things did not work out so well for the people who grew up in homes where the parents also had their “own” biological children. Surprise, surprise! Blood may be thicker than water, after all. These two people (who live 300 miles apart and do not know each other) both grew up lonely, and feeling like distinct Outsiders in their families. One man was fortunate enough to reunite with his birth-mother 3 years before his death, and it was as though long-lost lovers had found each other. Their similarities in tastes, outlook, and life philosophy were striking, and the man felt that the three years he was able to know his real mother (who’d never wanted to give him up, but, hey, this was 1943), felt that his life had been redeemed. He had been so lonely and bereft before, and had never felt loved or accepted by his adoptive family.

            What chills me the most, though, is the relationship, or lack thereof, that the adoptive parents I know, have with their grown adopted children. If they hadn’t told me, I’d never guess they even had children. No photographs, no little mementos, no stories of their childhood escapades. One man told me he wanted nothing to do with his adopted children now that they were grown. The other couple had quite forgotten about theirs and did not include them in major holidays with their siblings, nieces and nephews.

            If there’s anything in the world I’m grateful for, it’s that I have my own loving mother, and couldn’t imagine having any other parent. Better one parent who you are at one with and who you know loves you unconditionally than some “ideal” family for whom you’re only some kind of accessory or a way to pad the income.

    3. Orlando Divorce Lawyer

      I know it said that they had foster children, but I don’t think that all of the children with them were foster children. I do not believe they would be allowed to have foster children while living in a hotel. Also, they said the children were home-schooled. I am not certain on this either, but I think foster children are required to go to public school.

  19. Moz

    hey , isn’t mustang drive , simi close to where countrywide (b of a ; whatever it is now ) had / have a humongous servicing center ?

    that’s 2 weird 2 be concidental , ain’t it?


  20. JessTT

    Their Attorney, Michael T. Pines, is DESPERATE to get his failing law practice (1 year old) on the map and get more business. He’s calling the MEDIA to come to the properties he’s breaking into. Perhaps you should talk to the Pines’ 4 clients who were evicted last month. He took their money, did not represent them and they are HOMELESS. Let me repeat: He’s bankrupt, he can’t save HIS OWN 7 foreclosed properties, he’s not breaking into his own foreclosed properties. But, he’s taking clients money and getting them arrested, telling them to go to court ON THEIR OWN AFTER HE TAKES THEIR MONEY, AND NOW THEY ARE HOMELESS – ANIMALS, KIDS AND ALL.
    Read his EMC lawsuit in UTAH. Michael T. Pines LOST HIS OWN HOME and is about to lose the 6 others, which he’s trying to protect in BK. He’s begging for media attention to get clients, but he ALWAYS FAILS THEM.

    Mr. Pines has ALL, yes ALL his properties in foreclosure and can’t save his own properties, so he can’t save yours. He is NOT a foreclosure relief expert. He’s a foreclosure expert. He’s left many victims in his wake from investors (some who are attorneys) in his ReVentures Real Estate investment group to legal clients, to seminar clients.

    Michael T. Pines filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on January 11, 2010, he miserably represent himself and it was converted to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Just GOOGLE “MICHAEL T. PINES” in QUOTES.

    Mr. Pines is insolvent, renting from his ex-wife Julie Phillips Pines and had his vehicle repossessed in December. He sued the bank, Zions, (case: Pines vs. Zions Bank) and as well as the repossesser (Pines vs. Fenders Recovery Service, because the took the vehicle he could not afford to pay – A Toyota, not a high end car. That case can be found online.

    Pines has NEVER won a case against a mortgage company. Pines sued EMC mortgage regarding his own foreclosure and lost. The judgments can be found online under UTAH COURTS.


    and here:


    And by the way, he’s NOT breaking into his OWN foreclosed properties.

    MICHAEL T. PINES has TWO Restraining Orders against him in San Diego County. You can find his Restraining orders on the San Diego County Sheriff’s website. Just type in “PINES” under *Restrained Last Name*.

    Michael T. Pines’ BUSINESS OFFICE is in Foreclosure, you can find it under San Diego’s grantor / grantee website.

    ALL of Pines’ foreclosed properties are ALL LISTED ONLINE IN UTAH, SAN DIEGO AND AK. Yeah, he’s Bankrupt and has MANY foreclosures….a credit nightmare. HE CAN’T HELP HIMSELF! HOW ON EARTH DO CLIENTS BELIEVE HE CAN HELP THEM?

    Pines’ foreclosed properties are as follows: (There are probably more, but this is what is available online)

    Address: 5 South 500 West Unit #1216, Salt Lake City UT 84101 – Parc at Gateway Condominium
    Notice of Default was Recorded on 8/26/09.
    Original Mortgage: 246K with National City Mortgage
    Notice of Default was recorded on 8/26/09
    Trustee is: ETITLE INSURANCE AGENCY, Phone: 801-263-3400 (please call to verify)

    Case # 09-81657
    1273 22nd Street, Ogden, UT
    Notice of Default was recorded on 9/1/09.
    Foreclosure sale scheduled for 1/15/10, This date was originally 12/29/09, but Mr. Pines asked for an extension Trustee is: ETITLE INSURANCE AGENCY, Phone: 801-263-3400 (please call to verify)

    Case # 09-81658
    Address: 1246 South Meadow Run, Saratoga Springs, UT
    Notice of Default was recorded.
    Foreclosure sale scheduled for 1/12/10, this date was originally 12/29/09, but Mr. Pines asked for an extension.
    Trustee is: ETITLE INSURANCE AGENCY, Phone: 801-263-3400 (please call to verify)

    Parcel #010610036
    Address: 2336 Madison Ave.
    Notice of Default was recorded on Oct. 7, 2009
    Trustee is Halliday and Watkins, Phone: 801-355-2886 (please call to verify)

    732 N. Coast Highway 101, Encinitas, CA 92024, which is his current office building!

    Case # 1171481
    Address: 21 Murphy Drive, Bella Vista, Arkansas
    Notice of Default was recorded in Sept., 2009
    Trustee is: Wilson and Associates, PLLC
    Phone: 501-219-9388 (please call to verify)
    Lender: National City Bank

  21. NJ evictions

    If the time limit for your written notice to quit is up and your tenant is still defiant, then you can head to your local authorities to take legal action against him. This is the second step on how to evict a tenant. The courts will issue your tenant with a summon giving him a date and time to turn up for a court hearing so that they can hear his side of the story.

Comments are closed.