“Thank you Jon, you'll all be in our prayers at dinner tonight. Please thank all your team for us too. Thank you all for your efficient work. Please know that your good work makes a huge difference in our family's life.”

--Client after post-foreclosure eviction stayed, 02/23/2011


“Jon- Thanks for all your help, [my wife] and I are grateful for your professional demeanor, knowledge and ability. Pretty much the first time I didn’t feel [run] over by the person on the other side of the table.”

--Client after pre-foreclosure bankruptcy, 06/13/11


“The foreclosure is void for failure to comply with the requirements of [Minnesota statutes].”

-- Scott County District Court Judge, 04/13/2011

“We require a foreclosing party to “show exact compliance” with the terms of the statutes. If the foreclosing party fails to strictly comply with the statutory requirements, the foreclosure proceeding is void. “

-- Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson, Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487, 494 (Minn. 2009), 08/13/2009

        On behalf of its clients, Drewes Law, PLLC has sued or otherwise litigated against the following entities on foreclosure-related issues:

1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC
AmeriCU Mortgage Company
Aurora Loan Services, LLC 
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Citizens State Bank of Shakopee
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Federal  Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Federal National Mortgage Association
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
National City Mortgage
PHH Mortgage Corporation
TCF National Bank
U.S. Bank, N.A
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
West Coast Servicing, Inc.
        On behalf of its clients, Drewes Law, PLLC has sought relief from illegal foreclosure practices in the following courts:

United States District Court, Minnesota

Anoka County District Court
Carver County District Court
Dakota County District Court
Hennepin County District Court
Ramsey County District Court
Scott County District Court
Washington County District Court
Wright County District Court
        This website is designed to provide general information only. The information on this website should not be construed as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed without the express consent of Drewes Law, PLLC regardless of your review of this website or your contacting Drewes Law, PLLC by email or otherwise.
Foreclosure is a complicated process with many practical and legal consequences.

Before foreclosure, before a sheriff’s sale, after a sheriff’s sale, or even when facing eviction:

Call NOW for a consultation: (612) 285-3051.

Once your questions are answered, the fear and uncertainty you may feel will be replaced with a plan. Whether it means keeping your home or walking away, we empower you.
Other Interesting Information About Foreclosure and Real Estate:

Analysis of Common Foreclosure Defenses in Minnesota

        Foreclosure laws vary state-by-state, meaning that typical on-line searches about foreclosure defenses often lead clients astray.  In Minnesota, a few keys to understanding foreclosure (from my firm’s perspective) include:


        1.  “Show Me the Note” is not a legitimate defense in Minnesota, unless there is a valid reason for disputing who a creditor actually is. “Plaintiff asserts that if Defendants cannot produce the original mortgage and note, they lack standing to foreclose on Plaintiff’s mortgage and the foreclosure sale must be set aside. This is not correct. The foreclosure statutes do not require production of the original note at any point during a foreclosure proceeding.” Smith v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Civ. No. 10-4341(D. Minn. April 7, 2011).


        2.  “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” is not a sham entity and assignments of underlying indebtedness is not necessary in the public record prior to a foreclosure sale. See Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. 2009).

        3.  Dollar bills in your pocket (U.S. Federal Reserve Notes) ARE legal currency. They are printed under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Although Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution prohibits a state from printing a currency, Article 1, Section 8 states that "Congress shall have the power... to coin money, regulate the value thereof."  Congress delegates that power to the Federal Reserve, but maintains oversight thereof and can dissolve the Federal Reserve at its will. The wording about "gold and silver" sometimes cited on websites discussing the "Daly case" only restricts the actions of state governments and not of Congress. Perhaps you can create an analogy: Congress alone, under the same Section 8, is able to "provide and maintain a navy", although the Pentagon, with Congressional oversight, truly makes the decisions related to the maintenance of the navy. "Defendant's fourth contention involves his seemingly incessant attack against the federal reserve and monetary system of the United States. His apparent thesis is that the only "Legal Tender Dollars" are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed. This contention is clearly frivolous." United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8th Cir. 1973).


But plenty of foreclosure defenses are legitimate:

        4.  Strict Compliance with non-judicial foreclosure statutes is required:

        As recently as 2009, Justice Paul Anderson of the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed its position spanning more than a century requiring strict compliance with Minnesota’s foreclosure by advertisement statutes:

        "Foreclosure by advertisement was developed as a non-judicial form of foreclosure designed “to avoid the delay and expense of judicial proceedings.” Because foreclosure by advertisement is a purely statutory creation, the statutes are strictly construed. We require a foreclosing party to “show exact compliance” with the terms of the statutes. If the foreclosing party fails to strictly comply with the statutory requirements, the foreclosure proceeding is void." Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487, 494 (Minn. 2009) (citations omitted).  See also Sheasgreen Holding Co. v. Dworsky, 231 N.W. 395, 396 (Minn. 1930). “One who avails himself of [foreclosure by advertisement] provisions must show an exact and literal compliance with its terms; otherwise he is bound to profess without authority of law.”  Moore, 128 N.W. at 579 (emphasis added).
        Additional support for strict compliance may also be found in numerous cases in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  See, e.g., Oleisky v. Midwest Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc., 398 N.W.2d 627, 635 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (stating that “Foreclosure by advertisement is a harsh remedy.  Strict application of the law is necessary to prevent abuse and to discourage illegal conduct which often goes undetected due to the consumer’s lack of knowledge.”)

        5.  Federal law provides a number of defenses related to the lending origination itself. Please call for a consultation as to other possible defenses that may be addressed by your particular case.