Homeowners

2,288 Responses

Jim, on April 5, 2012 at 3:54 pm said:

Enraged

Regarding your sympathy for (not) ousting the coconspirator “buyer”:

I think the point of no remedy is called the statute of limitations

And with everything that’s been in the press I question whether bfp is a valid position anymore where foreclosures are concerned. The whole planet is on notice of bank shenanigans
Nancy Drewe, on March 29, 2012 at 11:15 am said:

DAMN
IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION
CENTRY 21 ARE ‘DEBT BROKERS’ WHO ACQUIRE LIENS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH WELLS FARGO BANK NA FOR FANNIE MAE 1003 APPLICATIONS IN SECONDARY MARKET
Denise, on March 9, 2012 at 12:32 am said:

Hey Lisa you can file a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. I am in the process right now. It stops the process of foreclosure and gives you an opportunity to get finances in order and possibly get 36 to 60 months to pay your arrears. Hopefully this info is not to late
Abby in CA, on February 29, 2012 at 12:48 pm said:

CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS PRESS RELEASE 2-29-2012 ANNOUNCING HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83231093/2-29-2012-Press-Release-Kamala-Harris-Homeowner-Bill-of-Rights
Gary, on February 28, 2012 at 4:28 pm said:

Can anyone tell me what is ” Form 603A” in terms of Lehman Brother’s Bank Mortgage Purchase Suspense Notice”. I found a document in my QWR response Titled:

Purchase Suspense:
Underwriting Condition, Additional Requirement; Provide a letter of permission to removed the prepayment addendum. Per Form 603A
PrePays are not allowed in the State Georgia of GA., if owner occupied and <$333,700.00.

There was a 2nd letter from Aegis wholesale titled: Letter of Intent,
where Sr. Exceptions Processor,Richard Spadola, states that he intends to re-record the deed of trust. "It was never re-recorded"

Thanks

Gary G: gold8165@boxbe.com
Morgan, on February 23, 2012 at 11:07 am said:

I need an attney in Dallas fort worth Texas to defend in gmac forclosure. . We have been doing this for five years and put Atty pulled out after filing suit and paid him over $10,00″. My husband passed a few months bk and out atty wanted further immediate funds within two days to fe a TRO. When not received by his deadline . He pulled representation . I have forclosure sale in march which is very quick .
Steve, on February 21, 2012 at 6:11 pm said:

Federal Trade Commission: Loan Securitization Audits Are Scams

February 3rd, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/02/federal-trade-commission-loan-securitization-audits-are-scams/
boots, on February 14, 2012 at 10:25 pm said:

i think you have to file MOTION TO COMPEL.
Richard, on February 14, 2012 at 5:56 pm said:

Hello I am not an attorney but I hadresponded to a set of interrogatories and the plaintiff did not like my response.They filled a motion to compel better responses. Maybe this is what you need to file.Good luck
Rik, on February 14, 2012 at 5:32 pm said:

Hi All,

I am still fighting the good fight ProSe and could use some more guidance.

We have a 2nd hearing regarding a FDLG motion for summary judgement that was read at a hearing in December. I attended in person, and FDLG was on the phone. The Plaintiffs lawyer on the phone was not aware that I had 5 outstanding motions, and the judge referred my file to local counsel for review and we get the outcome tomorrow I hope, which IMHO should be a dismissal of the Motion for Summary Judgement and a continuation of the case through the hearing of the various motions. Update on the hearing to follow!!!

FDLG/Wells Fargo has replied to my Discovery and Interrogatories request with around 75% of the replies stating that the information is client / business confidential, irrelevant or requires excessive effort on the part of the plaintiff / representation.

I saw a note in one of the many e-mails I get from the LivingLies site about a motion to get them to answer the questions, but cannot find it again. I would like to file a motion but am uncertain of the content.

Can anyone provide an example or instructions on what is needed to do this?

Thank you in advance for any help you all can provide.

~ Rik ~
ilona, on February 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm said:

Can my lawyer file a quiet title suit in New York’s Supreme Court if the property is located in Illinois?
His argument is yes, because the securitization happened in New York. Can anyone tell me if this is true before I retain him?
Ken Dost, on February 7, 2012 at 3:10 am said:

The standard language in a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Uniform Security Instrument or more commonly known as the ‘Deed of Trust’ that millions upon millions of people signed contains the following:

“MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS.

The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS. This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note.

Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Interest, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of these interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.

Many of those same millions, either as pro se or with counsel have poured through the language the above text time and again, Scholars have analyzed and dissected it, and the courts have ruled on it. From this researcher and pro se warriors position, it is not the text that is at issue, rather specific representations that have been intentionally concealed that should be primary issue. Adding the representation that is absent, the same passages should be read as follows:

“MERS”® is Mortgage Electronic TRADEMARKED Registration Systems, Inc. MERS® is a separate corporation that is acting solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS® is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. MERS® is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS.

The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS® (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS®. This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note.

Borrower understands and agrees that MERS® holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Interest, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS® (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of these interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.

Following the Trademark of MERS® would have led us to the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (‘USTPO’) database, namely the Trademark website. http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm
Curiously though, should you type the words ‘Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems’ or ‘MERS’ in the Assignee/Assignor space, you would be returned an answer of none found. Hmmm, a glitch in the website of labeling or is it something more?

However, enter the words ‘Mortgage Electronic Registration’ opens to a page listing registration number 2084831 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. clicking through brings you to the Trademark Assignment page. http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&asnrd=MORTGAGE%20ELECTRONIC%20REGISTRATION%20SYSTEMS,%20INC.
Click the registered number 2084831 link which brings up another page, clicking than either the serial number or registered number, bringing up another page, which you will than click the ‘Trademark Document Retrieval’ link. This brings up the last link in which you will place a check in the ‘Select All’ box, thereafter clicking the ‘Download Pdf’.

As you review the document ask yourself, would you, or for that matter would anyone have ever signed the loan documents. I don’t about anyone else, but we were told upon inquiry, as the closing agent was pushing papers before us in a hurried sort of way, that Mortgage Electronic Registrations System was national database to track loans. The documents recorded in the Trademarks database say a hell of a lot more that. Although not all MERS secrets are revealed in its registration documents it does make clear MERS is deals with the trading of Mortgage Servicing Rights (“MSR”), which is not the same as a mortgage. A Servicers right to payment its fee for passing through loan payments does not qualify anywhere near a mortgage.

What is contained within the MERS registration documents are an issue in itself and worthy of study and research, which I have done for the past couple of years and have quite a bit to write on. But, on the issue of the Trademark representation being what we have to assume is an intentional omission of material fact in the loan documents. “Coke Adds Life” Coca-Cola, absent the representation, Coca-Cola®, is not the same as MERS® misrepresented as MERS. As “Coke Adds Life” MERS ® takes lives away.
Trademarks are distinctive pictures, words, and other symbols or devices used by businesses to identify their goods and services. Trademarks fall under a separate body of law, Trademark Law, regulated by the Lanham Act of 1946 and the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1051). Trademark owners grant to users exclusive rights to their marks, which to a larger degree are spin off products of a patent, but does not necessarily have to be. Trademarks also serves the consuming public in the recognition of products and consumer expectations of consistency in quality in the products it buys with the mark. Additionally, marks reduce consumer confusion in the identification of goods and services, in the case of a Service Mark, which more accurately describes MERS.

MERS Service Mark as it is officially registered states:
Reg. No. 2,084,831
Registered July 29, 1997

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC. (DELAWARE CORPORATION)
1125 15TH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

FOR: REAL ESTATE DATABASE SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING A REGISTRY OF THE TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE SERVICING RIGHTS. MORTGAGE OWNERSHIP, SECURITY INTERESTS IN MORTGAGES AND THE RELEASE OF MORTGAGES FOR USE BY THOSE IN THE MORTGAGE
BANKING INDUSTRY, IN CLASS 36 (U.S. CLS. 100, 101 AND 102). FIRST USE 2-1-1996; IN COMMERCE 2-1-1996.
SN 15-031,300, FILED 1-21-1995.

Unfortunately, there is no private right of action under the Lanham Act and Trademark Law which if ever a case materialized it would be on behalf of consumers, meaning a class action suit. Assignments of trademarks are very, very, interesting and worthy of exploring in great detail. Of course, there is the fundamental issue as to omission, and the concealing of implied contracts. All of the above become ever the sweeter for legal exploration the deeper we go, as my friend Vermont would say, ‘down into the rabbit hole.’

We are battling these issues of foreclosure as if they are real property issues, and certainly this absolutely correct. We are heavily engaged against MERS on legal issues of beneficiary, nominee, and legal title holder, and making some progress in some courts, where MERS has been tossed from the court. Than along came the schmuck that was tossed in a room and told to ‘robo-sign’ thousands of documents.

No disrespect is intended over the next few sentences to follow, especially to those who have fought hard in the trenches these past couple of years who have achieved great success. Although in a defensive position, protecting our real property and title, this the battlefield in which we fight is of our choosing, and MERS has happily engage our real property battlefield. It is argued that MERS cannot be the beneficiary, backing it with the latest case law available. The same can goes for issues to beneficiary, and lastly to legal title holder. Like a stupid silly assed kid MERS response is, “because we are the nominee”, we are the beneficiary’, and ‘MERS does hold legal title’. Why, ‘because we do’. This just drives us nuts, as it confounds the legal system and has pissed off more than a judge or two.

What if, MERS is correct and all its nutball claims that they spill upon the court are correct? What if they are everything they claim, they are? …hear me out first before you click this of before you all start going off the rail……What if MERS is simply entertaining our legal arguments on real property issues, if say for reasons to divert our attention from something they do not want us to recognize and might begin to pay attention to. Stated differently, what if MERS is hiding the theft of our sovereignty before our very eyes in plain sight.

What if the first step was the intentional omission of MERS® from the borrower and all of society? What if the second was the industries crafting of public opinion labeling all subprime borrowers as liars, cheats, and thieves, thereby society casting aside borrowers and its empathies. What if MERS is hiding its secrets in plain sight and we are just not seeing it? What if the schmucks that were thrown in a room and told to robo-sign thousands upon thousands of documents had nothing to do with hiding sloppy paperwork, but a desperate attempt to conceal something much more damaging the banksters?

From the level ground where we stand, to the right may be Bank of America, to our left we see Ownit Mortgage, or Option One, or Indymac. Directly in front sits Litton Loan and behind us is First American Corelogic. In looking around MERS is nowhere to be seen, than suddenly before you, the street begins to open and up rises an underground elevator, prominently labeled MERS, and just as quickly as it arises its gone.

The oversimplified point being made is MERS is not a shiny building on the hill, MERS are all the entities before and around you and many, many more private members. The collective members are MERS and MERS is your entry portal and eventual exit portal, it is an electronic clearinghouse. On exit, the fabricated instrument by which you entered at closing, is fabricated again for your expulsion, that is with auction.

Welcome to the machine, an entirely automated underground economy that was secretly built around the turn of the century, dismantling our economy and democracy before our eyes. Doing so under a boasting Congress with the fanfare of Legislative Acts disguised as opportunity while other Legislative Acts quietly slipped past the revelry, but the damaging impact tremendous. Concealing its minion while they worked is MERS, the OCC and others, by late 2005 the automated economy we knew nothing about was fully operational, using Canada and Australia as the hub point to entirely globalize us in less than a year.
Pat1, on January 24, 2012 at 8:31 pm said:

Help,

Facing Unlawful Detainer in non-judicial Virginia after loosing Motion for Summary Judgement in Wrongful foreclosure case. My attorney is appealing our case. In the mean time I was served with Unlawful Detainer and have hearing coming up 2 weeks.

I am still in the home and trying to have nerves of steal but the stress is killing me!

Does anyone know what I can do next having a UD and an appeal running side by side is very stressful and not knowing if we will be evicted is worse.

Sadly judges here in Virginia are just not even opening their minds to the fraud at all they have decided our cases before we come into court. Has anyone had experience with UD or foreclosure n Virginia they can share that is positive?

I have been on these boards for four years and I am I know we are in the battle of our lives here. I have won several run in’s with the pretenders but tonight I feel so overwhelmed!

I know their is a possibility bond to stay while on appeal but this can get mighty expensive with payments to attorney also. It would be cheaper to move on and save my money but I just can’t do that this is my home.

Any wisdom or ideas would be appreciated.
helping consumers with mortgage and credit card related issues, on January 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm said:

Hi, i feel that i saw you visited my web site so i came to ?go back the prefer?.I am attempting to in finding things to enhance my website!I assume its good enough to make use of some of your ideas!!
Alex Benavides, on January 10, 2012 at 11:12 am said:

I live in Florida, I have all the bank statements, copies of the checks, and the letter of satisfaction from GMAC.
Daniel, on January 9, 2012 at 10:18 am said:

To Alex Benavides: what State are you in?
Alex Benavides, on January 8, 2012 at 7:46 pm said:

Back in 2005 in bought a home with an 80/20 loan (80 IndyMac, 20 GMAC), few months later I opened a HELOC with WaMu which paid off my loan with GMAC, when GMAC received the pay off check they said that the loan was already satisfied and even sent me a letter stating so, so GMAC sent the check back to WaMu, then WaMu credited the amount to my HELOC, about three months later the months later the amount of the pay off of the loan with GMAC suddenly disappeared from my HELOC, I called to verify if they had sent the money to GMAC, their answer was ”I don’t know”, so I called GMAC to ask if they had receive a check from WaMu for such amount and they told me “NO, the loan was satisfied a while back”, so I called the WaMu headquarters office, after about one hour on the phone I finally get a VP on the phone, I asked told him the situation, he proceeded to ask me what I wanted, so I said “I just wanna know where that money went”, and his answer was “I don’t know what to tell you sir, I don’t know”. the property was foreclosed back in late 2010. I am still having to pay for that money, every months they take the payment from my account,

Please Help
Accident Lawyers NYC|Injury Attorneys NYC|Injury Lawyers NYC|Personal Injury Attorney NYC|Personal Injury Law Firm NYC, on December 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm said:

Awesome issues here. I am very happy to look your article. Thank you a lot and I’m having a look ahead to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?
anotherStat, on December 5, 2011 at 12:22 am said:

If been fighting the auction for about 16 months, now it happened. How can I fight them more, where do I start, I didn’t even get a chance to fill a BK when I could have? Please advise if you know what my choices are, if it’s find an attorney, exactly for what. Please Please advise?
modusonmeds, on November 7, 2011 at 8:04 am said:

ForeclosureProSe,

Thank you for the reply. I suspect that things are progressing to a level that Pro Se is problematic. I am meeting with a lawyer who “gets it” this week and will see how she thinks I have done so far, and where we go from here.

Rik
Foreclosure Pro Se, on November 5, 2011 at 7:01 pm said:

Rik,
You need to take this very seriously. You need to do the following ASAP:
1) File an affidavit in opposition to the summary judgment.
2) Object to every affidavit they have filed.
3) Send your discovery request.
Do not delay.

www. foreclosureProSe . com
www. twitter. com/ foreclosurePS
Rik, on November 5, 2011 at 3:18 pm said:

Hi all,

It has been a while since I needed to anything on my case, but I have several outstanding motions (7) that have not been addressed by the courts but I received a notice of hearing for “Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgement Including a Hearing to Tax Attorney’s Fee’s and costs” today.

Would I be wrong in thinking that outstanding motions should be addressed before a motion for summary judgement can or should be heard?

One of the outstanding motions is actually a motion to dismiss the Motion for Summary Judgement and is based on my other motions for various responses/filings that the Florida Default Law Group has filed in my case.

Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Regards and thank you.

Rik
ilona, on October 27, 2011 at 12:36 pm said:

Can anyone tell me what are Net Funded loans?
Our refinanced loan is net funded by Taylor, Bean and Whitaker
We just found out from the bankruptcy court ruling in TBW case
eVa smith, on September 10, 2011 at 12:57 am said:

Do occ and the IRS And FBI and doj and FDIC aNd FTC , sec ,attorney general , no that , jpmorgan , banco bbva , is been run by a temporary sevice , that in some kind of way , is giving them self in so many wAys , a thought that they are the owner of Those companies , and they can do what they want . No that not it , yall are trust , and temp worker .start acting like too .
Mitchell Scott, on September 8, 2011 at 6:23 am said:

Very informative site you have Thanks.

What is the statues of time to file Lawsuit against the foreclosure processor in Calif.. There are a few requiremets that have now been recognized many months later…
Foreclosure Pro Se, on September 6, 2011 at 1:41 pm said:

Legality of Thousands of Mortgages Thrown Into Question

Robo-signing has been around a lot longer than originally thought, and could jeopardize the legality over the deeds of tens of thousands of homes dating back more than a decade ago, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

County officials across the country are finding mortgage paperwork that were improperly notarized or signed without proper review, dating as far back as 1998, the AP has found in its analysis.

For example, in Guilford County, N.C., about 74 percent of 6,100 mortgage documents filed since 2006 were found to have questionable signatures.

“Because of these bad titles, property owners can’t prove they own the properties they think they bought, and banks can’t prove they had the right to sell them,” Jeff Thigpen, the registrar of deeds in Guilford County, N.C., told the AP.

Since last fall, banks have faced investigations over “robo-signing” procedures, which consists of shortcuts of approving and reviewing mortgage paperwork and foreclosures. The “robo-signing” scandal has brought many foreclosures into question as home owners have challenged the validity of their mortgage documents.

Mortgage documents with robo-signed signatures could throw into question the ownership of the properties, says Katherine Porter, a professor at University of California Irvine School of Law.

Furthermore, if invalid documents are discovered in the chain of ownership, shoddy mortgage paperwork has the potential to delay the sale of a home or make it difficult for buyers to get a mortgage because title insurers won’t write a policy for the property, says Justin Ailes, vice president of government affairs of the American Land Title Association.

Source: “Widespread Robo-signing of Mortgage Documents Found as far Back as 1998 Could Haunt Owners,” Associated Press (Sept. 1, 2011)
dianne seton, on August 28, 2011 at 8:45 am said:

I am writing this to creect last note with wrong email address.

Sir Even though I have ALL paid notes and everyone I talk to about this sees proof that Countrywide is about to illegally foreclose on my home where I have 2 disabled children I am not able to get help to fight them. I have no resources now to fight and suddenly this months new item is a completely fabricated lost note affadavit by a loan person in duval florida who submitted to clerk a paper stamped by the Vet Ad that my VA NOTE was lost and missing so they couuld receive a NEW note for a va loan in 1987 that removes all past trustees and places me as the originak 1987 VA loan purchaser , This note was filed for by countrywide in Feb 2011 in Florida . I live in this house in Virginia and purchased it in 1992 from person who did assume the original VA loan and passed this assumption to me. I have no VA Status nor eligibility and did not live here in 1987. This will be SUDDENLY FORECLOSED ON Tues sept 30 2011. I never signed this note however I do have the paid off note since 2002 that was really signed by the man who took it out in 1987. It is not lost. The note they are using to foreclose on also has the same document dumber as the one original that I had the clerk of the city where I live affirm and certify as paid in full. Why can Countrywide receive a new note on a home after they sold this to BOA and I have been fighting with them since they aquired it ? Why would they need to do this in another state if they no longer have an interest in it? How and why would the Vet Admin affirn that the note was lost and verify that the lost note information was correct when it is not? Am I now a certified veteran? Why did I get a VA LOAN ? If I am a proud owner of this home that they want to foreclose on do I have a right based on their validation of this note to get paid rent from the mortgage servicer ,BANK or the Vet Admin for rental funds from 1987 until I really assumed it in 1982?

I do not want any money from this horriffic course of events . I will happily sign an agreement with any attorney who will expose this wrong. I have so much fradulent data on this case that no one wants to help. I have even shown it to Congressman Wevv and Warner who both stopped it one time and then it comes again in a few months. I will share my store with Congressional Inquiry panel and do have proof. Mom just died and I am tired ……Attorney can have 95 percent of any settlement I want 5 percent . HELP ME PLEASE
IT is very sad when you realize you are worth more to your children if you no longer are there. I am a widow
dianne seton, on August 28, 2011 at 8:40 am said:

Sir Even though I have ALL paid notes and everyone I talk to about this sees proof that Countrywide is about to illegally foreclose on my home where I have 2 disabled children I am not able to get help to fight them. I have no resources now to fight and suddenly this months new item is a completely fabricated lost note affadavit by a loan person in duval florida who submitted to clerk a paper stamped by the Vet Ad that my VA NOTE was lost and missing so they couuld receive a NEW note for a va loan in 1987 that removes all past trustees and places me as the originak 1987 VA loan purchaser , This note was filed for by countrywide in Feb 2011 in Florida . I live in this house in Virginia and purchased it in 1992 from person who did assume the original VA loan and passed this assumption to me. I have no VA Status nor eligibility and did not live here in 1987. This will be SUDDENLY FORECLOSED ON Tues sept 30 2011. I never signed this note however I do have the paid off note since 2002 that was really signed by the man who took it out in 1987. It is not lost. The note they are using to foreclose on also has the same document dumber as the one original that I had the clerk of the city where I live affirm and certify as paid in full. Why can Countrywide receive a new note on a home after they sold this to BOA and I have been fighting with them since they aquired it ? Why would they need to do this in another state if they no longer have an interest in it? How and why would the Vet Admin affirn that the note was lost and verify that the lost note information was correct when it is not? Am I now a certified veteran? Why did I get a VA LOAN ? If I am a proud owner of this home that they want to foreclose on do I have a right based on their validation of this note to get paid rent from the mortgage servicer ,BANK or the Vet Admin for rental funds from 1987 until I really assumed it in 1982?

I do not want any money from this horriffic course of events . I will happily sign an agreement with any attorney who will expose this wrong. I have so much fradulent data on this case that no one wants to help. I have even shown it to Congressman Wevv and Warner who both stopped it one time and then it comes again in a few months. I will share my store with Congressional Inquiry panel and do have proof. Mom just died and I am tired ……Attorney can have 95 percent of any settlement I want 5 percent . HELP ME PLEASE
IT is very sad when you realize you are worth more to your children if you no longer are there. I am a widow
Michelle C, on August 23, 2011 at 2:53 pm said:

I filed a complaint against Bank of America/Countrywide with the OCC. They closed my file and told me that the bank does not have to provide me with ANYTHING, so don’t waste anyone’s time by filing a QWR (qualified written request) and that all this was my own fault and doing and i should just give up this stupid fight and take responsibility for my own actions. She told me all this “MERS” and “robosigning” stuff i’ve been reading about is just a bunch of air and not real. she told me she makes HER mortgage payment each month and she will not use this office to help me get any records or ANYTHING to help assist me in getting my “home for free”. She said all you “Countrywide-type” people should just quit your crying and get over it! i couldn’t believe it….i thought i was talking to Bank of America, not the OCC! They would help with a “modification”, but anything else….my own fault and get over it! I guess she is all for giving the banks money to fix a mess THEY created, but not for giving the money to the deserving homeowners whose lives have been turned upside down by this nightmare! My husband is ill and has a feeding tube, i’ve got 2 children at home and one leaving for Afghanistan in the Air Force on Sept. 11th (yes, 9/11). So, needless to say, i do not have money for an attorney and am doing my best to try and fight this “thing” myself. I thank you for the wealth of information on your site, but i still have not found anyone who will actually LISTEN to me (at Bank of America) so i can get this resolved….researching Quiet Title right now……
Foreclosure Pro Se, on August 16, 2011 at 11:12 am said:

Hello Ralf,
If is called supersedeas bond. Here is legal tactic worth discussing with your attorney.
File a motion to stay proceeding pending appeal. The judge will likely deny the motion. Then file an appeal on the denial of your motion for stay; that will stay the proceeding and give you some breathing room.
Ralph Madera, on August 14, 2011 at 11:44 am said:

Have any one heard of posting a bond in order to appeal a case in a higher court,in my case my lawyer and i ,we are appealing my case due to a lot findings on all the paper work done by Florida Default Law Group,they should be call crooks,and after a couple of hearings Judge William Thomas,in Miami Fl,took the decision to give me the opportunity to post a bond of 389,000 dollars in a property that right now is only worth 144,000 dollars in order for us to proceed with the appeal. All bonds companies out there have the requirement of 100% collateral or credit letter from a bank,in order to get any of those you good credit or money,which i don’t have,basically what it is a CATCH 22,to get you out the system and in that way the crooks behind the scam get away with everything,right know i think our judicial system suck and smell really bad and i think there is not that real justice portrait out there to the rest of the world from our great U.S.A.
Jackie, on August 13, 2011 at 1:03 pm said:

I’ve researched & am unable to find an answer on this. We refi back in Dec. ’09 & both we & our son are on the deed. Son has 10% ownership on deed & NEVER has been on the mortgage, however, when we refi’d the notary for the title co said I had to sign as the guardian of the est. for my son under “co-borrower” for the SOLE purposes in securing his name on the deed & he would NOT be responsible for the mortgage. I was hesitant & said I want to ensure that his name is only on the deed & not the mortgage, she assured that this is the way it’s done. Hmm…

I noticed in the county records, that the mortg/mers lists only my husband and I, however, I signed as guardian for my son’s estate as the 2nd co-borrow. QUESTION: Did they trick me into making him accountable for the mortgage although all mortgage & stmts docs received list only my husband and I. ANYONE? Appreciate someone’s input on this. Thank you kindly.
ALLAN (with a WSJ that lends support to Neil Garfield's contention YOU DON"T OWE THE MONEY), on June 25, 2011 at 9:55 am said:

Just as you, Neil predicted back in 2008. Turns out there are major problems with paperwork. Whistle-blowers have come forward to substantiate major fraud. Just as with mortgages, many loans were bundled into securities, and the original documentation is faulty, has gone missing, or was intentionally destroyed. Enter the “attorney liaison.”
wayne williford, on June 9, 2011 at 6:48 am said:

My name is Wayne Williford and I am a victim of a loan mod/principal reduction scam. I was contacted in Sep 2010 when the Notice of Default was filed in the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office on my primary residence at 5016 Snowberry dr Fontana, Ca 92336. The company that contacted me was Goldenkey Financial Services at 255 E Broadway Glendale, Ca contact person Daniel Hernandez (818)536-7442 and (213)804-2165. Others there that were involved in the initial meetings and instrumental in the agreement process were Fabian Ramirez and Alex Munoz. We did not know the process at first we were only told a generic outline of events of how the principal reduction program worked. We later found out that they were working with Qubelink Financial Services at 255 E broadway Glendale, Ca. Initially, we worked with Dante La Madrid dante_lamadrid@yahoo.com (no known telephone #) and then later Ricardo Ligad (818)207-5264 rick@qubelinkservices.com. We told that the fee was approx $5000 per house to be involved in the program, but we had two houses the other is 26295 Bogoso Lane Moreno Valley, Ca 92555 and we received a discount and paid only $6000 for the both.

The process officially began in Oct 2010. We were fast approaching the Trustee Sale that was on Jan 10, 2011. They assured me that they were taking care of it and all was well. It wasn’t, the sale took place as indicated by a Trustee Deed that was filed at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office on Jan 14, 2011. Goldenkey then put us in contact with Orlando Vera out of 7801 Telegraph Rd Montebello, Ca (562)522-8233. My wife was negotiating all the details with them because I was in Afghanistan at the time. Orlando explained that the sale was illegal and that they could get it reversed and if they did it would cost $3950. He elaborated in extent on his workings with minorities and lower income families and explained that he had been taken advantage of by them by working ‘Pro Bono’ in exchange for a payment plan. He was here to help and knew people that ‘Get it’ (reference to the mortgage industry defrauding Americans). They came back with an emphatic ‘We did it, we got the house back’ and we promptly paid. All the meanwhile, my wife was going back and forth from Fontana to Glendale to sign documents that Qubelink was preparing and filing or something.

Shortly after I came home from Afghanistan on March 30, 201, we were served with an Unlawful Detainer from Aurora Loan Services Attorneys. We acted quickly and got with, at the time I thought was our attorney, Orlando Vera, who said they were anticipating this move and began some motions. We were asked to pay for these extra services $660 for court filings, $1250 for services, $950 for services and another $1250 for services. All the time I was in contact with them and trying to ascertain the status of our case and get copies of the work they had done. I only received documents that were filed on our behalf that were clearly forged with mine signature and my wife’s signatures. We also received random copies of emails between him and several people.

Michael Tucker, paralegal, owner of APS admitted to the forgery because of exigent circumstances. As for the trustee sale reversal it was later put together by myself that Samuel Torres DRE#01743410 of Miracorp Properties 2101 E Fourth St Santa Ana, Ca 92705 setorres1@gmail.com (714)721-8518 was involved and instrumental in attempting to get the trustee sale reversed. He along with Orlando Vera and his associates placed my property, 5016 Snowberry Dr Fontana, Ca 92336, in a Bankruptcy filed by Deborah Ann Salas on March 25, 2011 Case *:11-bk-10166-TA. In the BK filing it states in Item 3.a.(2)(d), Page 3 that on Jan 7, 2011 a Grant Deed was recorded in the San Bernardino Country Recorder’s Office, where Wayne L. Williford and Janet Williford, Allegedly, transfered 100% interst in the property to Deborah Ann Sala as a gift for no consideration. I never signed such a document and nor can I find it online at the San Bernardino County Recorders Office. I also received a letter from Orlando Vera that I submitted for my background investigation for employment to answer for my credit issues. The letterhead was an attorney named Gary Jones at 1110 Roosevelt Irvine, Ca (949)732-1000 website http://www.universallegalnetwork.com who, I believe, is under investigation for misconduct. When I attempted to contact this agency I was emailed by a Leo Delgado (323)830-2832 leogoldenkey@gmail.com who claimed he knew of Orlando Vera, but did not know anything else. When I researched Leo Delgado I found a case where he was sued by RJCProperties International at 18100 Valley Blvd La Puente, Ca 91744 (626)854-2616 and lost. During my research I found a possible connection between David Alan Tika,l who was just indicted for loan mod scams, and Orlando Vera. I believe there is collusion between these entities in order to defraud homeowners in loan mod and principal reduction programs.

I have been strung along by these entities for almost 9 months. We are facing a UD hearing on June 10th, 2011 at the San Bernardino County Superior Court in Fontana. If we lose this case we will be evicted by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office. I am currently a military contractor, former ICE agent, US Army veteran who supports my wife, 3 children and my mother (who lives with us).

I have many documents and other information to support everything I have written to you. I am currently working again in Afghanistan and contact will primarily be through email. My wife is semi familiar with everything and she may be reached at 951-867-1378.

Thank you,
Wayne Williford
elaine wright, on May 17, 2011 at 8:38 am said:

My name is Elaine, I live in Ireland. Iv written to luminaq asking for direction and I know that American law has no juristiction over here, im very much alone in what im trying to do to help save our home from the clutches of a subprime lender. Having read loads of info on Mr Garfields site iv managed to find the equivalent statutes, codes and laws relating to lending in this country, but im finished, as there is no hope over here for me to fight the good fight like all of you over ther can. There is no one to do secutitisation reports, no one who is remotely familiar with securitised mortages. Luminaq were polite and answered me saying its not their jurisistiction and good luck with my efforts, but I saw Neil Garfield as my hope too, just like you over there. Im heartbroken too say the least, im without hope to save my home . I even went as far to look up doing a law degree , becaube I found out that here in Ireland lawyeres can do a 6mth course with an organisation to ger their qualification to pass either the California or New York state bar exams. I saw in our local paper that a girl in our town had done that and now she is dual qualified to practise law both here and in the states. In 2002 at 35 I went back to school to get an Honours degree in psychiatric nursing and id have no quams in going a law degree now to save our home if I could, but time isnt on my side . Here in Ireland im going to loose my home because no one will listen to me. Mr Garfield will never see my emails because they are screened by his assistants, who with the best intensions in the world decide what is for his eyes and what is not. But you know something Mr Garfield could help indirectly those of us in Ireland with securitised mortages if on his list of lawyers who get it was included dual qualified Irish lawyers who had taken the American state bar exams. Im going to loose everything and i dont think i will be able to hang around for Nua
ALLAN (with a belated happy birthday wish to Neil), on March 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm said:

Thank you, Esteemed Counselor, for mentoring this and many hundreds of foreclosure defense activists who’ve gone on impassioned to man the ramparts and carry aloft the torch of social and economic justice.

ALLAN
Miami & Boston
CLVU (City Life/Vida Urbana) Boston, MA
BeMoved (at) AOL (dot) com

Remember this from 2 years ago?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Happy Birthday to our Founder – Neil Garfield
Posted on February 20, 2009 by Neil Garfield

Homeowners who have been equipped to fight by this blog

OR

Lawyers That “Get It” who have gained new clients and won cases

Perhaps we might honor this man’s efforts at shining the light of truth on the fraud that is being perpetrated on the American public and his efforts to rally and educate competent lawyers by clicking the link at the top of the front page and filling out the donation form today. There is still much work to do we have only begun the fight.

Or post a comment of thanks here…

Happy Birthday Neil

Livinglies staff
michele, on March 11, 2011 at 9:15 pm said:

28 Responses

1.
michele, on March 11, 2011 at 9:12 pm said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

you are paying your monthly payments on time everything is great.
one day you find a notice of default taped on your door or inside your mail box.(never seen the person whom delivred it.) nod states you are behind on your payme ts and if you dont pay per say $25000 tour home could be sold at our auction. stamped by a notary republic whom is a good friend of the familys…..they may ask you to pay the full amount of the originall balance.
so you are streesed you know your payments are current and you still worry about the foreclosure .
the phone rings its the nice man from TILA who is looking out for you (but he really works for the bank)so becareful .he wants to help you stop foreclosure on your home and offers you a loan modification in wich stops your foreclosure and re does the loan this is only for them to actuelly get the note that they dont actually have in their possession now…… they tell you that you dont want to go to court the banks got billions ! and you have nothing dont buy this they dont want to you to take the bank to court because everything comes to light in trial….and in this state of Ca its a felony to forge documents and committ fraud and so on….
the vice president of ahms decides he wants a 5 million dollar castle made from bricks in texas and he needs some money so he prints a nod pays strangers to sighn them for 10 bucks and sends them to 50,000 homeowners and demands thousands or your home will sell at their auction……and send them to the po box listed on this nod. so he collects and pockets your hard earned money and gets his beautiful home in texas . while you continue to work hard and pay your bills wich include 2550.00 a month to you lender …
one year goes by everything is great your paying your mortgage on time then one day you find a nod on the door in the mail box stating you are in default and if you dont pay $25,0000 your home will be sold at thei auction(and i emphasize when i say their.)or they may demand the full amount of the loan ……. this time you investigate and search day night to find this out ….. the servicer sending you the nod does not own your note…. & getting the loan modification is just tricking you into signing your home over to them and all the payments youve been working hard to pay have been pocketed and split among these predatory whatever there called (not human robo mabey?) so now you cant go to court and litigate because the loan mod gave them the note….. my suggestion would be this: take your money inveast in a lawyer who will file quiet title so you come out free and clear ,,,,,if you keep making your payments you will always go into foreclosure the inevitable is this you will never own your home , when the ceo from some lending co wants to purchase his 5 million house he will pick and choose your home to forge and fake with his good friend of the familys notary send thousands of nod out to the american hard working folks whom become so gullable when they recieve a nod and most will pay, over and over and over till you have no more money thats when they will take your house after they have stolen all your money the last thing the bank wants is your home???have you heard this before??? please trust in the lord because he will guide you in this prossess of the evil lenders that will steal 180,000n from a man who has brain damage to fill their greedy pockets without remorse……. it will not be long that they go to thee place that they will enjoy eternity . God bless america and the middle class trust in the lord and nothing can harm you GOOD LUCK IN YOUR FIGHT …….
homeowner, on March 4, 2011 at 7:24 pm said:

If passed by the house what will AZ SB1259 do for current trustee sales, since there is no provision on being retroactive? Will I be able to file suit once the house passes this bill? My home is set to foreclose at the end of March. So, obviously #1 & 2 of the provision did not occur. How will this help me?
Artie Gold, on January 31, 2011 at 8:34 pm said:

WANTED 40 Aurora Loans
Forty (40) Borrowers needed nationwide.
To Add Aurora Loan Services, LLC., as a Plaintiff to the 50 State, Ronald v. Bank of America, Mass Joinder law suit. ( US Dist. Court, # CV-10-5740-R.

Also Offering To Stop Foreclosures Sale with “No Up Front Fees” with under VTSD program.

Call for free consultation:

Artie Goldman
678 235-4995
Gold8165@boxbe.com
Artie Goldman, on January 25, 2011 at 8:01 pm said:

Verified Trustee Sale Delay

The Last Option
Guaranteed Service
No Up Front Fees

It is well known that banks are illegally foreclosing on homeowners in Trustee States since the foreclosure process is lightly monitored by government agencies.

In Judicial Foreclosure states, a judge reviews the legality of the foreclosure proceedings to ensure the homeowner is being protected against greedy lenders and yet still the lenders are not properly following the foreclosure laws correctly.

In Trustee States, lenders employ a “third party” trustee company to replace the legal function of a judge and orchestrate the foreclosure process. If banks are not legally foreclosing when they know a judge reviews the case what do you think they are doing when they only have to go through a trustee that they pay? Our service requires the trustee to verify a comprehensive list of issues related to the legal nature of the foreclosure proceedings enacted by the lender, which as a byproduct, you as the homeowner still retain full ownership of the property and live there comfortably. Since the trustee assumes the liability in auctioning the property, they will not foreclose on the property if there is a potential violation pointed out to them prior to the Auction Sale Date as they could face sanctions and ultimate lose their license. Trustees are incredibly busy and generating huge profits so they will continually postpone the sale date with adequate time to research and respond to the issues raised by our company to protect themselves.

Program Highlights: Legal foreclosure delay strategy

Your lender is never contacted so you can still modify your loan or short sale your property.

You can:

*Stay in your home for 6 – 40 months after Notice of Trustee Sale has been posted
*Avoid bankruptcy on your credit, less costly than BK attorney’s fees
*Experienced professional trustee knowledge working for you, not against you
*No title transfer (never transfer your title to anyone else to delay a sale, scam alert!)

Our Trustee Verification Delay Program is designed as another option for homeowners that are considering bankruptcy, loan modification or short sale as a way to delay the foreclosure auction. Some of our clients have been denied for modification or a short sale and are out of options. Some are still trying to get approved for a Modification or short sale and just need more time.

Other clients realize that they are so far upside down on the property and it is not worth paying the high mortgage payment and would rather live in their home than less than what an apartment would cost to rent. Even renters can utilize our services to stay in the property longer with less expense than renting. No matter what your reason for delaying your foreclosure, we can help.

Bankruptcy Is Not The Answer……

NOTICE: DO NOT SIGN OVER A SMALL PORTION OF YOUR GRANT DEED TO SOMEONE IN BANKRUPTCY! Companies are approaching homeowners offering a delay product involving signing over 1% or 1/16th interest in the property to someone
who is in bankruptcy. This is EXTREMELY illegal. Bankruptcy Fraud!

Amount of Delay

Delay Time Chapter 7 Bankruptcy (21 – 45 Day Delay) – Banks are very aware that many homeowners are filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to delay their foreclosure. When filed, a Chapter 7 will put an automatic Stay on all of your debts. That means that no creditors can proceed with debt collection. Therefore, immediately after the bank is notified of the filing they send their legal team to court to file a motion to lift the stay. Most banks are doing this so fast that the stay only keeps the homeowner in their house for 30 – 45 more days. As soon as the stay is lifted, your house is back on the auction block and you now have a bankruptcy on your record and likely will be calling HomeLife anyway.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (21 – 60 Day Delay) – Similar to Chapter 7, when a Chapter 13 is filed it will stop creditors from collecting debts immediately. The difference is that Chapter 13 is the reorganization of debts. This will buy the homeowner a few more weeks, but the banks will still file a motion to lift the stay. Homeowners who are this delinquent are at a disadvantage in court against a valid creditor who has not been paid in an excessive amount of time. Again, as soon as
the stay is lifted your house is back on the auction block and you now have a bankruptcy on your record.

HomLife Delay Solution (6 – 40 Month Delay) – 3 months 15 days is the fastest any homeowner has lost their house in this program with the longest being 3 years and 4 months. You will not have a bankruptcy on your record
and can still work out a modification or short sale while in our program.

Bankruptcy

Filing any type of bankruptcy will have very strong consequences. Homeowners who file just to prolong the sale of their house disqualify from filing again for 7 years (in a Ch. 7).

Therefore, you are vulnerable for that entire period. What happens if there is some medical emergency that incurs tremendous bills? You will not be able to protect yourself against getting your wages garnished. No matter what the debt or situation, you are no longer allowed to protect yourself because you used your ‘free pass’ on your foreclosure, which could have been handled much differently.

Also, many companies pull credit and might not hire a candidate with a Bankruptcy on their record. In today’s job market, can anyone afford such a big disadvantage?

Federal Bankruptcy laws require that you complete your filing information and credit counseling courses no more than 45 days from initial filing date. If you don’t complete the filing the bankruptcy court will dismiss your BK, and the trustee can sell your property. So if you intention was to save your home, you only postponed the sale for 45 days. If your BK was dismissed you must wait at least 6 months before filing again.

Financial benefits

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – this strategy will wipe the slate clean for people who qualify (qualifying for a BK is now tougher than ever). When approved, most debts can be released. This is a good choice for homeowners with a lot of unsecured debt (credit cards, personal loans…). Your mortgage is secured by your home, meaning that even after bankruptcy is filed they can still take your property. So the financial benefits only include removing unsecured debt.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy – Chapter 13 is the reorganization of debt. A judge will work with you and your creditors to plan out an acceptable repayment plan to all of them. Often the property will be removed from the BK as the delinquency is extreme and it is a secured loan. This is not a great option for homeowners looking to buy time.

No Upfront Fees

Call

Artie Goldman
Sr. Affiliate
HomeLife Solutions
678.235.4995 – Direct
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8275556/
http://www.homelifesolution.com
Marcus, on December 23, 2010 at 11:28 am said:

Lenders ‘Foreclose’ Homes They Don’t Own

In dozens of incidents nationwide, confused banks have ransacked properties that were either not mortgaged at all or were mortgaged by a different lender or were a customer of the bank in question but were current on their payments.

For instance, Bank of America broke into Alan Schroit’s second home in Galveston, Texas, and turned off the power, allowing 75 pounds of salmon and halibut Schroit had caught on an Alaskan fishing vacation to spoil and create a reeking mess. Schroit had previously paid off the property. Schroit and the bank settled a lawsuit for an undisclosed sum.

Critics of the mortgage process say these kinds of incidents are evidence that the mortgage foreclosure business is flawed and needs to be reformed.

”Every day, smaller wrongs happen to people trying to save their homes: being charged the wrong amount of money, being wrongly denied a loan modification, being asked to hand over documents four or five times,” says Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

Source: The New York Times, Andrew Martin (12/22/2010)
Marcus, on December 15, 2010 at 6:28 pm said:

Wells Fargo Settles Pick-a-Payment Suit
Wells Fargo has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit involving pick-a-payment home loans.

The proposed settlement makes available at least $50 million in compensation for borrowers who lost their homes. The plaintiffs argued that these loans violated federal truth-in-lending laws because the documents didn’t adequately disclose the potential for the loan balance to increase if borrowers chose to pay less than the interest due.

Wells Fargo also agreed to offer loan modifications to borrowers who still reside in their homes and are in default and others who are at imminent risk of default.

The bank, which admitted no wrongdoing, said that it had already forgiven $3.5 billion in principal for pick-a-payment customers.

Source: Reuters News, Dan Levine (12/15/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on December 14, 2010 at 11:55 am said:

Judgment Reversed Due To Failure To Allow Discovery

In Alvarez v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (4D08-3498), the Fourth District reversed the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury verdict and remanded for a new trial because the plaintiff was not allowed to conduct sufficient discovery. The opinion began:

Relevant evidence in civil cases — that is, the acceptable knowledge base of facts for the jury — is found in an aggregate of historical facts, data, information, objects and opinions that the law allows the parties to place before the finder-of-fact to decide the case. To assist the parties in assembling all the knowledge fairly needed to prove a cause of action or defense, the rules establish a pretrial process called discovery, which (as its name implies) is also meant to afford a means of apprehending that which they do not know. Hence, the process begins with a wide sweep, gathering many kinds of knowledge only possibly germane (if at all), yet capable of leading to admissible trial evidence. At discovery’s end, the accumulated knowledge is distilled into the evidence the parties can lay before the jury.

When this discovery is not allowed to have its intended scope — for example, when one party is blocked from ascertaining and acquiring from the other party unprotected, relevant information and data that is admissible at trial — the sum of knowledge placed before the jury will be unfairly deficient, hence misleading. The whole structure of the trial will be faulty. The jury’s basis for resolving the facts will be tilted against the party denied that access. Trial then will be an expedition on an errant course. Because the possible factual base for the jury has been unreasonably curtailed peremptorily, a jury’s resolution of the facts will be unreliable, and its verdict untrustworthy.

The opinion provided a detailed account of the specific facts at issue and why it was error to refuse the plaintiff the opportunity to conduct the discovery. The opinion then concluded:

As we saw in the beginning, the apparatus of civil litigation has incorporated into its structure the right of all parties to discovery of facts, information and data involving the subject matter of the dispute. Denying one of the parties that discovery — especially as to essential evidence critical to proving a claim or defeating a defense — is a manifest injustice. Within the meaning of the harmless error law, the denial here was considerably prejudicial and perpetrated a substantial injustice on the plaintiff in this litigation.

Upon remand, discovery will have to resume, governed by the holdings of this opinion. Proper and full discovery will then require a new trial, at which both sides will have the right to lay all their relevant, admissible evidence before the jury.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
SF_Dan, on December 6, 2010 at 8:08 pm said:

Northern California_San Francisco Bay Area

Chris Gardas
Attorney At Law
530 43rd Street
Richmond, CA 94805
Phone: (415) 407-4918 fax: (510) 778-1273
chrisgardas@comcast.net
Sonya, on December 4, 2010 at 8:09 pm said:

GEORGIA RESIDENTS: Possible CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. Help people who have been tortured by Bank of America. I too, am one of their victims. Lender placed flood Insurance, 5 months of intent to foreclose letters, they stole my insurance money to repair storm damage, they have sent about 12 people in all to my house to peep in my windows. they added stuff to my escrow, they paid taxes on property that has nothing to do with my loan. GUESS WHAT? I DID NOT DO A HOME MOD, NOR AM I LATE ON MY PAYMENTS!!!!!! Contact us we might be able to help you. sonya36767@yahoo.com dfg@guldenschuhlaw.com 706-295-0333
Marcus, on November 29, 2010 at 2:00 pm said:

Title Insurance: More Important Than Ever

Understanding the tenets of title insurance is especially important considering the turmoil in the real estate industry.

Title insurance is intended to protect the insured from improper titling, including defects in foreclosure proceedings, forgery, or impersonation or cases in which no title is legally conveyed. Other defects are partial, such as a neighboring fence or garage encroaching on the insured person’s property.

The title insurance industry recently set down strict guidelines for when and if they will insure a title to a property on which there has been a foreclosure.

The buyer should be equally vigilant, insisting on a 60-year search and paying for an owner’s policy as well as the lender’s policy that the bank will demand.

Source: Washington Post, Harvey S. Jacobs (11/27/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 29, 2010 at 1:46 pm said:

Foreclosure Mess Leaves Some Buyers in Limbo

An increasing number of buyers of foreclosed homes are finding that they can’t close on the property because the foreclosure — and the sale — is derailed by a problem with the foreclosure paperwork.

“Many of these transactions will probably never close,” said Greg Rokeh, a manager of bank-owned real estate in Longwood, Fla., for Watson Realty Corp.

Rokeh said he has about 25 pending sales that are tied up in the document reviews. He predicts that most of buyers will give up and purchase a different property.

“We understand it is a huge inconvenience to buyers,” Freddie Mac spokesman Brad German said.

Source: Bloomberg, David Henry (11/24/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
DAMN, on November 28, 2010 at 3:25 am said:

Im going to cut straight to the chase, dont take this the wrong way because I really appreciate this site. But two things fail in everything that being presented.

First, battling a foreclosure in a State where judges are ignorant or just believe in the old fashion, “Pay your bill or get out” will fail. Solid evidence doesn’t even get you far. Hawaii to be exact.

Second, the key to a successful foreclosure defense lies in the real party in interest. A subject that has not been mentioned in quite some time. “Fannie Mae had to ratify Countrywides foreclosure in order for them to be successful”

Third, if the real party in interest who is not identified, such as a Fannie Mae investor, and Fannie Mae ratifies for the servicer, they could be challenged and liable for fraudulent transfer after the property is sold. Fannie Mae clearly states on their website that the mortgages go into a MBS trust and are not a Fannie Mae assets.

So why are these subjects not being touched on? The chain of title, which more than likely is held by MERS is a fraud itself.

Has anyone here ever challenged or sued Fannie Mae for illegally gaining possession of their home after the sale? Of course not, these attorneys who supposedly get it, don’t really get it. Simple. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t figure this out until after the sale which mooted anymore action.

But I will be the first one to sue Fannie Mae in the next few weeks. Mark it down……
ALLAN (with an EXCELLENT TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE by Stephen Gandel, on November 27, 2010 at 12:50 am said:

Foreclosure Foul-up: Tracking Down Those ‘Lost’ Mortgages

By STEPHEN GANDEL Monday, Nov. 29, 2010

One of a million foreclosures this year.
Anthony Suau for TIME
PrintEmailReprintsFacebookTwitter

MORE

Trevor Douglas, 54, may soon lose his Orlando house. Sure, Douglas hasn’t paid his mortgage in more than two years, which is what a Bank of America spokesperson tells me “is important to remember.” It is. Still, if it happens, I will feel partially responsible. I helped push Douglas closer to eviction.

Like many other home loans, Douglas’ IOU was bought and sold numerous times and finally packed into a bond. So when his foreclosure notice finally arrived, the entity trying to kick him out was one he had never heard of, something called GSAMP 2005-HE3. Worse, GSAMP said it had lost the original document — called a promissory note — to prove they owned his loan. Douglas hired a lawyer, who got the foreclosure put on hold. And that’s when I showed up. Much of the ire focused on the banks recently has been on their use of robo-signers — low-wage workers hired by banks to witness and sign hundreds of thousands of foreclosure notices without verifying that the grounds for the evictions were valid. On Thursday, a Federal Reserve official told lawmakers on a House Financial Service subcommittee that U.S. bank regulators are conducting a review of the banks’ foreclosure practices. In hundreds of thousand of cases, the promissory note that proves a bank owns a borrower mortgage is now gone. Vanished. Some borrowers may walk away scot free. In other instances, banks may be forced to dramatically reduce what a borrower owes. Many foreclosures have already been halted by the courts or by the banks themselves. Still, bank officials say, even if they are missing the original promissory note, they have the paperwork to prove they own the mortgages.

(See pictures of Americans in their homes.)

Just how bad is the problem? TIME dug into the mortgage of one troubled borrower. What we found suggests that many promissory notes are not lost. In an effort to rush homeowners to foreclosure, and hide damaging information, bankers’ have needlessly created a huge legal mess that once again questions the financial industry’s credibility and ethics. “They [banks] don’t comply with the law when they’re taking people’s homes,” says Michael Olenick, who owns Legalprise, a legal research firm.
Douglas’ mortgage broker got him a loan from subprime lender Fremont General, which before it went bankrupt in 2008, was based in Brea, California. In mid-2005, Fremont sold the loan to New York-based Goldman Sachs, which packaged it up with other loans and sold it off to investors. In June, Iris Owens, an official in the servicing arm of Bank of Amerca, signed an affidavit attesting that after a “diligent search,” Douglas’ original note could not be recovered. But even without the bank’s internal record it took me about four hours to find Douglas’ loan.

(See pictures of TIME’s Wall Street covers.)

Where is it? About five miles east of downtown Minneapolis, in a warehouse owned by Wells Fargo.

A simple search of public documents on the Securities and Exchange Commissions website was able to produce the address and telephone number of the building it was in. Bank of America now concedes it made a mistake. Instead of calling Wells Fargo, an associate in Bank of America’s mortgage-servicing division requested Douglas’ note from Deutsche Bank, which runs the mortgage trust Douglas’ loan is in, but is not the document custodian. Wells, as the SEC documents say, has that job. What’s less clear is why Deutsche didn’t tell the associate to call Wells or why someone at Bank of America didn’t look up the same SEC filing I did. Instead, Owens, based on the information from her associate and doing no checking of her own, signed the lost-note affidavit. Douglas’ loan had officially disappeared.

(See 10 big recession surprises.)

In early November, based on my research, Bank of America retrieved Douglas’ original promissory note from Wells Fargo. The bank spokeswoman says it plans to soon file the note with the court. Bank of America says it is reviewing Douglas for a loan modification. But if he doesn’t qualify, now that Bank of America has the original note, Douglas is sure to lose his house. If Douglas’ mortgage is any indication of what’s out there, while embarrassing for the banks, it suggests the cleanup will be less costly than feared. Still, it’s not going to end soon. Multiply the four hours it took me to find Douglas’ loan by 400,000 — one professor’s estimate of the number of missing notes. Banks will be at this for a while.
This is an abridged version of an article that appears in the Nov. 29, 2010, print and iPad editions of TIME magazine.

See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.

See the top 10 bankruptcies.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2032110,00.html#ixzz16SvpzwNo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ALLAN
BeMoved@AOL.com
Marcus, on November 19, 2010 at 8:29 pm said:

The Long Process of Foreclosure Gets Longer

The foreclosure process is getting longer and longer. According to statistics from LPS Applied Analytics:

· Delinquent loans in five judicial-process states spend more than 500 days in the foreclosure pipeline with the average time in process at 358 days, a week short of a full year.
· In the case of loans where the borrower is delinquent for 90 days or more, on average no payments have been made for 16 months.
· States that take the longest time to process delinquent loans are Florida and New York among the judicial process states, and Maryland, California, Virginia, Nevada, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Arizona, among the non-judicial states.

Source: Bankrate.com, Marcie Geffner (11/17/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
ALLAN (with an EXCELLENT ROLLING STONE ARTICLE by Matt Taibbi "Matt Taibbi: Courts Helping Banks Screw Over Homeowners" ~ Retired judges are rushing through complex cases to speed foreclosures in Florida, on November 12, 2010 at 5:09 am said:

Matt Taibbi: COURTS HELPING BANKS SCREW OVER HOMEOWNERS | Rolling Stone Politics
Source: rollingstone.com

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EASY READ!

Mike Taibbi writes an insightful watershed piece which hopefully will bring this grave, growing, egregious injustice – experienced with unspeakable pain at the grassroots – to the Nation’s attention so that attorneys general, governors, legislators, the judiciary and the Obama administration CAN LOOK BACK and end this pernicious and spreading homeowners’ “Katrina” that is sure to severely damage this nation, the working and middle class, and its institutions for generations to come unless it is fully and finally addressed.

We are reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s on spot concern “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin (1802)

RSVP

ALLAN

BeMoved@AOL.com
Carrier & Ives Move & Relocation Management
CLVU (City Life/ Vida Urbana)
John Hand, on November 9, 2010 at 2:13 pm said:

I own a home in North Carolina, the property was 100 + % financed. the property is worth close to half what my mortgage is. I am trying to get BOFA to do a deed in lieu. they accepted, then asked me to list for a few more months. i did and they have not responded to me in months, my credit is getting killed, and i get no reponse from them. can i find an attorney who can help me get out of this mess???
usedkarguy, on November 5, 2010 at 2:51 pm said:

#

To everyone who is a NEWBY, GREEN PEA, freshly defaulted, just unemployed and trying to head a problem off at the pass, OR you really, really believe that you can somehow, someway, make a good-faith effort to WORK THIS OUT with a mortgage servicer who is handling your loan: FUGGETTABOUTIT! There is no “good faith” in anything the banks are doing. NONE! Don’t try to negotiate, don’t believe anything you are told.! THERE IS NO HELP FOR HOMEOWNERS. Let me illustrate.

I’m about 30 minutes into a phone call with an “Office of the President” representative (sounds impressive enough, huh? “I’m getting somewhere now” I think to myself, for about 3 seconds). As the call gets longer, the music-on-hold gets more and more “low key” (good thing, because I almost rubbed the fur off the top of the cats’ head I was so, you know, anyway)……. we’re just about to hear that “Windham Hill Sampler” music that makes you feel like committing suicide, and then……..

Hello, Sir? Thanks for holding, I appreciate your……..

“Madam,” I said, “please, before we go any further, please don’t lie to me anymore”

I didn’t lie to you!

“Well, you just told me there was no insurance on that loan.”

There is no insurance product on this loan.

“Yes there is! It’s in the SEC statements. It’s for 35%. You have been dinging the mortgage insurer since the December 06 notice of default!”

WELL, YOU’RE NOT PAYING FOR IT!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
LET ME REPEAT! I know people like you. Mamby pamby, always “nice” to everyone, you want to believe in your fellow man, pure as the wind-driven-snow, you go to church, you’re paying your bills, but the budget just got too tight. If you could just get them to drop a little…., you know, for awhile. Things will get better and then……….., then maybe we can go back to……..

STOP! STOP RIGHT THERE! THINGS WILL NOT GET BETTER! THAT’S NOT THE SUN ON THE HORIZON, THAT’S THE NEIGHBORHOOD 2 MILES AWAY BURNING DOWN!!!!

Nothing will be done. It’s in your hands.

THAT’S IT A-MAN. I’M GOING ALL-CAPS FROM HERE ON OUT!
marcus, on November 2, 2010 at 12:47 pm said:

Foreclosure Delays Provide an Underground Stimulus

The delays in the foreclosure process are giving what some people are calling a “stealth stimulus” to defaulting home owners who continue to live – or even rent out – their homes.

The subsidy is worth about $2.6 billion a month, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal. That’s about 0.25 percent of U.S. personal income and equivalent to what top earners receive from the Bush-era tax breaks.

Some defaulters are banking the money in hopes they will get a mortgage mortification, but most are just using the money for things like food, car payments, etc. Others are renting the properties out and making a few dollars.

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Mark Whitehouse (11/01/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on November 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm said:

Title Insurers, Lenders Haggle Over Indemnification

The four major title insurers that insure 90 percent of the mortgage market are pushing for an indemnification clause in future contracts that places most of the responsibility on banks. Banks are rejecting this proposal.

The title industry says a blanket agreement is necessary to keep sales moving, but the trade organization, American Bankers Association, insists that the market has operated just fine without these kinds of clauses and is arguing for a limited agreement that would allow for indemnification only when the market demands it.

In the long run, it is investors that may call the shots. Shares in the segment are down from 3 percent to 7 percent this year while the overall insurance index is up 10.3 percent this year.

“There is a lot of uncertainty about what’s going to happen, which is why shares are where they are,” said Jerry Bruni, who owns Fidelity National stock and oversees $425 million at J.V. Bruni and Co in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Source: Reuters News

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on October 27, 2010 at 5:25 am said:

FDIC’s Bair Fears Foreclosure Litigation Fallout

Lawsuits from borrowers booted from their homes by foreclosure could keep people from buying foreclosed homes, Sheila Bair, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., said Monday at a housing finance conference.

Bair called for foreclosure to be a “last resort” after all legal and procedural requirements had been exhausted.

Bair says she fears that foreclosure litigation would “ultimately be very damaging to our housing markets if it ends up unduly prolonging those foreclosures that are necessary and justified.”

Source: Associated Press

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on October 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm said:

Stern’s DJSP announces 300 layoffs

South Florida Business Journal – by Paul Brinkmann
Date: Monday, October 25, 2010, 10:45am EDT

Fallout from the national foreclosure crisis continues to impact companies associated with foreclosure attorney David Stern – one of the leading foreclosure attorneys in the nation.

His law firm has filed tens of thousands of cases on behalf of lenders and mortgage agencies such as Fannie Mae. The firm has been under investigation by Attorney General Bill McCollum for allegedly creating false documents in foreclosure cases.

Here’s the latest: The company that conducts support work for Stern’s law firm, Plantation-based DJSP Enterprises (NASDAQ: DJSP), now admits to about 300 layoffs since “recent developments” began.

I first reported that Stern’s law firm and affiliated companies were laying off hundreds of people on Oct. 12. At that time, Stern’s attorney, Jeffrey Tew, said there were fewer than 100 layoffs from the law firm, and they were temporary positions.

Another departure from DJSP’s board of directors was announced Monday – that of Mark P. Harmon, a Boston-based foreclosure attorney. We reported on the Oct. 19 departure of several officers and that Stern had relinquished the chairmanship of the board.

DJSP’s stock slipped briefly below the crucial $1 mark last week. The stock was up 7 cents, to $1.11, in Monday morning trading. NASDAQ’s policy allows it to delist stocks that fall below the $1 mark for 30 days.

Stern’s law firm has struggled with declining case volume since major lenders started putting a hold on foreclosure action in September, according to DJSP’s news release about the layoffs. Mortgage giants Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bank of America have stopped sending cases to Stern’s firm. The public company, DJSP, is dependent on paperwork processing from Stern’s law firm.

The law firm has defended itself in court against McCollum’s subpoena, calling his investigation overly broad and illegal. But, a Broward County judge has ruled in favor of the subpoena.

In broader related news, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Bank of America acknowledged some minor mistakes in foreclosure files as it begins to resubmit documents in 102,000 cases. The paper also reported on its website that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the agency was “seeking to determine whether systematic weaknesses are leading to improper foreclosures.”

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on October 25, 2010 at 5:03 am said:

These banksters must think we are idiots.

——-
Foreclosures Had Errors, Bank Finds

Even as Bank of America begins to restart foreclosure proceedings in 23 states on Monday, the bank confirmed that it had discovered errors, including incorrect data and misspelled names, in the paperwork it has reviewed.
For weeks, Bank of America has insisted its review had not turned up any serious errors, and emphasized that it had not found a single case where a homeowner was facing foreclosure in error.

But on Sunday, the bank revised its fairly combative public stance. Bank of America had found errors, but only in a tiny number of cases, Dan Frahm, a spokesman for the bank, said late Sunday.

“These are examples of exceptions that were caught early in the process through control steps,” Mr. Frahm said. “They do not reflect exceptions in final documents that are being resubmitted to the courts.”

Bank of America and several other institutions, including JPMorgan Chase and GMAC Mortgage, halted foreclosures in late September and early October amid a growing controversy over problematic documents, including so-called robo-signers — bank employees who say they signed foreclosure affidavits without reviewing the documents. Other foreclosure cases were initiated with missing documents or incorrect information.

As a result of its review, Bank of America has combined signing and notarization into one step, unlike in the past, when they were separate tasks. “We felt there was greater risk for error before,” Mr. Frahm said.

On Sunday, Bank of America maintained that no homes were foreclosed in error.

“The basis for our foreclosure decisions has been accurate,” he said, and he added that the bank would work to correct any problems.

Initially, Bank of America imposed the freeze in 23 states where judicial approval is required before a foreclosure can go ahead, and the bank extended it nationwide on Oct. 8. But on Oct. 18, the bank confirmed foreclosures would resume in the initial 23 states and declared it was confident in the procedures it had in place.

“We did a thorough review of the process, and we found the facts underlying the decision to foreclose have been accurate,” Barbara J. Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, said at the time. “We paused while we were doing that, and now we’re moving forward.”

Since the controversy began, Bank of America shares have been pummeled and the company has repeatedly sought to reassure investors that it does not a deeper financial threat from the controversy.

What’s more, it is facing pressure from large institutional owners of troubled mortgages, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco and BlackRock, to buy tens of billions in bad loans back from them.

That has forced analysts to rethink earnings expectations, with some warning that the mortgage mess represents a long-term drain on an industry that only recently has gotten back on its feet.

As the nation’s largest bank and the servicer of roughly one in five American mortgages, Bank of America is closely watched by the rest of the industry, and its decision to resume foreclosures was seen as an attempt by the big banks to put the growing furor behind them.

Still, it is far from certain that banks will be able to calm the public controversy easily or quickly. Aside from the robo-signers, lawyers for homeowners have found evidence that documents were lost or even thrown out. Armed with this information, lawyers are gearing up for protracted court battles.

Bank of America’s troubled mortgage portfolio is a legacy of its July 2008 acquisition of Countrywide, a subprime mortgage specialist that was among the financial institutions with the most troubled loans, as well as its January 2009 merger with Merrill Lynch, which was a major player in the business of taking mortgages and transforming them into securities to be sold to investors.

In addition, as the beneficiary of two capital infusions by Washington under the federal bailout, Bank of America was among the banks most dependent on Washington to help survive the financial crisis, receiving $45 billion from taxpayers. Of that, $20 billion came in emergency aid after Merrill’s losses were revealed.

That money has been paid back, but the bank remains eager to maintain good relations with the government, and has emphasized that restoring its public image was a crucial factor throughout the foreclosure controversy.

Last Wednesday, Bank of America reported that operating earnings in the third quarter hit $3.1 billion, in contrast to a loss a year ago.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
ALLAN (with an article from The Nation THE BANKS MAKE THE RULES), on October 22, 2010 at 9:43 pm said:

The Nation: Letting The Banks Make The Rules

Kai Wright

Friday, October 22, 2010 at 8:26 AM

As the nation deals with the fallout from the housing crisis, some of the policies that contributed to its downfall remain in place. Kai Wright of The Nation argues that as long as banks are allowed to write their own rules on forclosure, the same practices that brought down the housing market will continue.

Many homeowners are losing their homes, despite a 10-day freeze on foreclosures by Bank of America and other large banks.

Many homeowners are losing their homes, despite a 10-day freeze on foreclosures by Bank of America and other large banks.

Related Articles

Home Foreclosures Continue Despite Freeze

Delays over questionable paperwork have not eliminated the threat of foreclosure for homeowners.

A year and a half ago, I sat in the office of Jim Kowalski, a prosecutor turned defense attorney in Jacksonville, Florida, listening to him describe a crime that was, by then, known to anyone who’d dealt with the foreclosure process.

Kowalski worked with a small cadre of local attorneys trying to slow the area’s onslaught of foreclosures. In the aggregate, they were monstrously outmatched by banks with subcontractors of subcontractors dedicated to removing families from homes quickly. But on a case-by-case basis, they stole the advantage because they knew the mortgage industry’s secret: it had buckled under the weight of its own corruption. All you had to do was force the banks’ empty hand, and you could keep a client in her home.

The biggest tell came over list-serves that connected legal aid outfits and small private practices overwhelmed by the sudden demand for foreclosure defenses. As lawyers like Kowalski compared notes on the three big banks whose servicing arms controlled nearly half the mortgage market, they noticed case after case of irregularities. Once they forced the servicers into court, the pattern became clear: everybody involved in the securities process had cut so many corners in pursuit of record profits, had operated with such disregard for the many steps that ensure a safe and sound mortgage market, that they couldn’t even show who owned the debt.

In April 2008 Kowalski deposed a Citibank residential lending employee, Tamara Price, whose name had recurred on foreclosures. Price described a system for creating bogus mortgage assignments that was baldly deceptive, all the way down to the fake “vice president” title with which Price signed her name. The case was exceptional only in that Price was on record. Already, scattered judges had reached their wits’ end with the legal corner-cutting and were throwing out foreclosures. Lawyers in the trenches clung hopefully to the trend; most national advocates quietly said it would never prompt the sort of federal leadership that the foreclosure crisis demands.

More than two years and millions of foreclosures later, a deposition similar to Price’s — from a GMAC employee who admits to “robo-signing” 10,000 sworn documents a month — has revealed the fraud to the whole country.

Federal law enforcement officials have launched an investigation that could lead to a Justice Department suit, though both the probe and the potential suit will certainly be lengthy. In the meantime, some investors in mortgage-backed securities are making noise about wanting their money back, a disaster the banks have clearly feared from the start of this crisis. The banks, for their part, insist that the robo-signing scandal is just a matter of bad paperwork.

And the defrauded homeowners? They go right on facing foreclosure — at least those who still have homes. The same political advisers who guided Barack Obama into claiming, as a candidate, that he’d freeze foreclosures now fret about “moral hazard” and the systemic threat that protecting borrowers would create. They insist that we accept the fantasy of a mortgage and banking industry in need of tweaks, rather than confront the grotesque beast that ate millions of American dreams before devouring itself.

Obama’s arguments might be more convincing if the robo-signing fraud was exceptional. But it’s just the latest dirty open secret to make headlines. In the past three years, we’ve learned that originators, desperate for more loans to feed banks, steered borrowers to the no-doc, low-doc and other subprime loans that were required to keep the securities game going. We learned that those originators targeted seniors and people of color — or, in the parlance common at Wells Fargo, “mud people” — because they were the easiest to exploit. We learned that the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) found widespread lending fraud and malpractice at one of the largest subprime lenders, Washington Mutual, year after year for five years — and did nothing. Worse, OTS blocked other regulators who wanted to act. And we learned that credit-rating agencies inflated ratings of plainly shoddy loans. All this and more was required to fuel the securities trade that made a very few people very rich.

A number of big banks have voluntarily suspended foreclosures while they no doubt scramble to falsify more documents. It’s not the first voluntary foreclosure freeze. We last saw such charity when President Obama began crafting his foreclosure policy in early 2009. When it became clear that his policy would be toothless, the foreclosures resumed. Since then, the administration’s audits have confirmed the program’s widely predicted failure. A solution based on the industry’s good will couldn’t work then, and it won’t work now. Bank of America announced recently that it will resume business as usual in the twenty-three states where foreclosures require a judge’s approval. The bank insists that during its ten-day freeze it managed to review its foreclosure process in the relevant states and found nothing that demanded a pause. Just a few papers out of order is all.

Meanwhile, the president has thus far made it clear he will do nothing to force the banks’ hand. He has said there will be no foreclosure freeze, and his foreclosure prevention program still contains no cudgel to force meaningful rewrites of plainly bad loans. The federal probe into banks’ criminal behavior is welcome news, but millions of homeowners are fighting desperate battles right now and getting no real help from the White House or Congress, which has refused to pass the bankruptcy reform that would, finally, give borrowers the power to demand a fair deal. The president and his advisers tell us instead that holding banks accountable while helping families who are drowning in fraudulent debt is too dangerous for the housing market.

This position does not differ substantively from that of George W. Bush. Given what we’ve learned lately, it’s even less defensible. Mortgage servicers have shown that they have neither the will nor the ability to fix millions of bad loans. But until those loans are dealt with, there will be no housing recovery, any more than the broader economy will revive without job creation. The situation clearly demands that the government step in and lead. There is sadly not much more than that to add to the foreclosure debate; the solutions have long been clear. As long as banks are left to write their own rules, they will go on flouting law and decency. And as long as President Obama allows them to do so, he’s a willful participant in their ongoing scam.

[Copyright 2010 The Nation]

This article is filed in: Economy, US News

Also in Economy

Housing Guy Apologizes For Housing Bubble

A former Freddie Mac employee wants to apologize for encouraging so many people to buy houses.

Jobless In September: A State-By-State Look

Unemployment fell in 23 states and Washington, D.C., rose in 11 states and was unchanged in 16.

Fannie, Freddie Bailout Continues To Cost Taxpayers

The two mortgage giants — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — could end up costing taxpayers another 19 billion dollars over the next three years. That’s according to a new government report.

Tainted Forecloses Concern State Judges

Across the country many judges are concerned about the integrity of the foreclosure process, and this week some courts took action. In New York, there are new rules for lawyers in foreclosure cases; and Maryland has made it easier to stop a foreclosure if its based on bad documents. Nonetheless, in the 23 states that have judicial foreclosure, lenders remain in the drivers seat.
T Daane, on October 21, 2010 at 5:50 pm said:

We filed an EMERGENCY PETITION FOR
WRIT OF PROHIBITION in the NV Supreme Court to stop the revolving process of the foreclosure mill that goes around and around in Nevada, even with our special mediation program. The program was set up to give Nevada homeowners a legal judicial process to follow to save their home. The process could work if the banks cooperated, but in most cases they fail to follow the rules because they know any court ruling against them is Moot. if they do follow the rules they offer a loan mediation and trial period, but the loan is so bad it cannot be kept up, and sometimes even if the 3 month trial period if followed perfectly the bank proceeds anyway with foreclosure…

Once judicial review has been addressed and a judge has ruled a STAY against the banks process of foreclosure because of NON cooperation in the mediation hearing, then the process should stop. But the banks are just filing another NOD and moving on, even though there is a legal
order from the court to stop. Our Writ went into the Supreme Court this morning. The filing is an emergency filing to stop the process. Hopefully the process will stop and we will have a remedy that actually works. Wish us luck, if we win all Nevada homeowners will win, and have a remedy that will help, if they exercise it.
Fighting MERS in Ca, on October 21, 2010 at 12:28 am said:

STILL FIGHTING IN CALI

Please visit this website for the latest California specific defenses.
https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/
ALLAN (the one in the white cap) with a video of how we do foreclosure defense in Boston, on October 20, 2010 at 2:05 pm said:

Fellow foreclosure defense activists,

Check out PBS’ News Hour at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec10/foreclosures_10-19.html

Part II is tonight!

We need forensic auditors up here in Bean Town.

America is getting Kafkaesque! Let’s get the VOTE out!

ALLAN
BeMoved@AOL.com
STILL FIGHTING IN CALI, on October 18, 2010 at 7:10 pm said:

Have a hearing coming up in fed court…they are trying to dismiss my case… Lets just say, as Neil says they fix all the docs before hand, even though many have been submitted in court fraudulantly.. What can we say to get the issue off of the obligation and onto the collection rights issue, so we can keep this from getting dismissed? How can this new news of countrywide help me and others use the REMIC issues to our advantage? Thankyou
marcus, on October 18, 2010 at 1:28 pm said:

Buyers: Find Your Title Insurance Certificate
Buyers who purchased a foreclosed property in the last three years should check their title insurance to make sure that it would cover them if there were a claim on the property from the former owner.

Former owners are likely to seek payment instead of reinstatement and those claims will go to the title insurer, attorneys say.

“If you’re a bona fide purchaser with title insurance and no knowledge of any irregularities in the transaction, courts are going to be extremely loath to set aside the sale,” says Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

The situation isn’t as clear for buyers who paid cash and didn’t bother with title insurance. “Potentially, you face a legal battle in that situation.” says Tim Dwyer, CEO of Entitle Direct Group, the holding company for EnTitle Insurance Co., an Ohio title insurer.

Source: Associated Press, Dave Carpenter (10/15/2010)

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on October 15, 2010 at 1:48 pm said:

McCollum wins round in foreclosure battle
Source: South Florida Business Journal

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has won a round in his efforts to subpoena the records of foreclosure attorney David J. Stern’s law firm’s
records.

Broward County Circuit Court Judge Eileen O’Connor denied the Plantation attorney’s motion to quash McCollum’s subpoena.

O’Connor’s ruling was in contrast to a previous ruling in Palm Beach County, in which a judge told McCollum’s lawyers they could not subpoena the records of Tampa-based Shapiro & Fishman.

In August, McCollum launched an investigation into three South Florida law firms to determine if they engaged in unfair and deceptive actions in their
handling of foreclosure cases.

The foreclosure mess has since snowballed, with several banks putting a halt to foreclosures until they can determine if there was any wrongdoing.

Stern’s attorney’s said he would argue the case to the 4th District Court of Appeal, meaning the difference between the two cases may become an issue at the appellate level.

“We respectfully disagree with the judge’s ruling and plan to file an appeal,” said attorney Jeffrey Tew, who represents Stern.

O’Connor did not provide a reason for her ruling.

In his ruling, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Jack Cox said “only the Supreme Court controls the conduct of lawyers in the courtroom and in court proceedings,” and that McCollum’s office did not have the
right to subpoena the records.

Meantime, Stern’s support company, the publicly traded DJSP Enterprises, confirmed in a news release that it was cutting back 10 percent of its workforce. DJSP also said it hired attorneys from Greenberg Traurig to mount an internal investigation into growing allegations that its employees helped fabricate court documents in foreclosure cases.

The Business Journal reported Tuesday that Stern’s firms laid off up to 100 people. DJSP Enterprises had grown to about 1,100 employees during the height of the foreclosure
crisis.

McCollum has been at the forefront of the investigation. Earlier this week, he sent a letter to the heads of several banks and servicing companies, asking to meet to discuss ways to “redeem the integrity of the
foreclosure process.”

He also joined with 49 attorneys general in calling for a multistate investigation into foreclosures to determine whether banks and loan services used false documents and
signatures to push foreclosures through the courts.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on October 12, 2010 at 2:27 pm said:

States Plan to Investigate Mortgage Servicers
A coalition of attorneys general from as many as 40 states is expected to announce Wednesday the launch of a joint investigation of the mortgage-servicing industry.

The attorneys general say they intend to first determine the scale of the problem and correct the issues. Several of them also have said that they believe one of the results of the investigation could be an agreement that forces lenders and servicers to make mass loan modifications or adopt principal forgiveness plans.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray says, “I think the mortgage-servicing firms need to understand that they face real exposure now, and they would be well advised to take this very seriously, to clean this up by doing loan workouts to keep people in their homes, which up till now they’ve just paid lip-service to.”

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Robbie Whelan and Ruth Simon (10/11/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on October 12, 2010 at 2:20 pm said:

Foreclosure Logjam Threatens Fannie, Freddie

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae will force lenders to pay for any losses that the GSEs incur due to a breakdown in the foreclosure process.

Interim FHFA director Ed DeMarco said the firms want to take a “tailored approach” to the foreclosure logjam that is fair to delinquent householders, servicers, and mortgage investors and is beneficial to taxpayers and the housing market.

The mortgage giants could lose billions of dollars in a prolonged delay because they would be unable to sell properties that have slipped into foreclosure, explains George Mason University real estate professor Anthony Sanders.

Source: Washington Post, Zachary Goldfarb, Dina ElBoghdady, and Ariana Cha (10/12/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Jennifer Newton, on October 12, 2010 at 12:03 am said:

What is the benefit if any, of purchasing the title packages with comments at this time? If documents have been scrubbed already. We can locate all this information ourselves – why would we pay you to give us information we can get for free?
Foreclosure Defense Forms « Truth2Freedom's Blog, on October 9, 2010 at 7:28 am said:

[...] http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/ [...]
marcus, on October 6, 2010 at 1:27 pm said:

Source:South Florida Business Journal
10/06/10

Wells Fargo Bank has agreed to a settlement with attorneys general in Florida and seven other states after an investigation into deceptive marketing practices of loans made by its Wachovia Bank subsidiary.

That settlement includes a loan modification plan for about 4,000 Florida borrowers and a $10.2 million payment to Florida to help with foreclosure relief.

Payment option adjustable-rate mortgages, marketed by Wachovia as “pick-a-pay loans,” were one of the most toxic mortgage designs of the financial meltdown. They allowed borrowers to pay less than the monthly interest payments and let the balance of the mortgage increase until, finally, the loan resets and the borrower must make full interest and principal payments. This often causes a huge jump monthly payments and results in a mortgage that is severely underwater.

Option ARMs played a major role in the downfalls of BankUnited FSB, Washington Mutual Bank and IndyMac Bank.

Wachovia acquired a big pool of option ARMs by buying Golden West Corp. It stopped originating these loans in 2008 and was acquired by Wells Fargo later that year. Wells Fargo never made these types of loans.

According to a release from Attorney General Bill McCollum, Wachovia and Golden West’s marketing materials did not fully explain to borrowers that the minimum payments in the first years of the loans wouldn’t fully cover the interest and cause the balance of the loan to grow.

As part of the settlement agreement, Wells Fargo signed off on a plan to modify its loans starting Dec. 1 and running through June 2013. Borrowers who are either 60 days delinquent or facing imminent default would qualify for the program, which McCollum’s office said could include $388 million in mortgage relief in Florida.

The first step of the modification would be seeing if borrowers qualify for the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. If not, the bank would use an alternative assistance program in an effort to reduce the mortgage debt payments to less than 31 percent of the borrower’s income. This could be accomplished by reductions of principal and interest rates.

The attorneys general would monitor the bank’s compliance and receive quarterly reports on the number of modifications granted.

Read more: Wells Fargo settles deceptive loans claim – South Florida Business Journal
Sonja, on October 4, 2010 at 7:48 pm said:

SERVICERS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED…. TEMPORARY FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM IN MARYLAND!!!

In response to a request this weekend by U.S. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Dist. 7) of Baltimore, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has a signed joint letter with Cummings and Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler calling on “Maryland mortgage servicers to halt current and future foreclosure proceedings until Maryland homeowners can be assured they’re being treated fairly.”

The joint letter, a copy of which was contained in a press release from the governor’s office, was dated Oct. 4 and addressed to several companies, including Wells Fargo/Wachovia, PNC Financial Services Group, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America and CitiMortgage. A spokesman for the governor said the letters will actually be mailed Tuesday morning.

O’Malley said in the press release, “In recent days, several servicers, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and GMAC/Ally Finance, have acknowledged that they have failed to follow proper procedures by filing affidavits in foreclosure cases without adequate personal knowledge of the underlying cases, trampling laws that were designed specifically to protect homeowners in default. They have recently announced suspension of foreclosures in 23 states.”

Cummings, a senior member of the House Joint Economic Committee, sent a letter Saturday to O’Malley and Gansler, according to information on Cummings’ website, calling for a 60-day moratorium on foreclosures.

Cummings said in his letter, “Numerous new reports from multiple states suggest major lending institutions may have committed deceptive and fraudulent actions to initiate foreclosure proceedings against potentially hundreds of thousands of homeowners, including signing affidavits and other legal documents in bulk without confirming the accuracy of the information alleged in those documents …”

Cummings said on his website, “As a result of practices such as these, families may have been wrongly evicted from properties based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Foreclosed properties may have even been sold to new owners following such proceedings.”

Calls to mortgage servicers addressed in the joint letter calling signed by O’Malley, Cummings and Gansler were not immediately returned Monday evening.
marcus, on September 25, 2010 at 5:42 pm said:

I am happy to say that I was successful in quieting title on one of my properties. I really think that more homeowners should go on the offensive and file quiet title action while these bozos get their act together. This is an opportunity not to miss. I have documented the procedure at the link below. Keep in mind that this is in Florida.

xhttp://www.foreclosureprose.com/how-to-quiet-title/

marcus@foreclosureprose.com
DAMN, on September 25, 2010 at 11:58 am said:

Long story short, we lost on the lenders MSJ in June, and the judge order the foreclosure. We are now on appeal.

Because the lender was countrywide, Fannie Mae hires a local realtor who works for Century 21 to list the property. The title to the home has not switched and this realtor, while the appeal is still ongoing, comes to my house one day when we are not home and has some guy take my car of the property.

We immediately filed a police report and reported the car stolen, within an hour, my car is recovered (damaged and being ready to be scrapped) and the guy who took it states that the realtor told him he could have my car because it was abandoned.

I called the realtor and she denied telling this person to take my car, which is a crock of Sh!t. Cmon lady, the guy took my car in the middle of the day infront of 3 witnesses, whom he told all three what the realtor said he could do.

I plan to sue Century 21 and Fannie Mae, but does anyone know if this will be worth it to me. What kind of liability and damages can I claim.
Joan, on September 25, 2010 at 9:01 am said:

I have been actively seeking a knowledgeable, aggressive, true foreclosure fraud defense attorney for > 1 month to assist with active foreclosure litigation in TN. I have contacted everyone I could find online and posted the following message in this forum on 9/8/10:

“Current foreclosure litigation in TN (Sevier County).
Injunction filed “pro se” to stop foreclosure sale.
Attorney for defendants (Bank of America, Countrywide, MERS, et al) has filed a Motion to Dismiss…maintains servicer (Recontrust) has standing to foreclosure even though they don’t and that MERS was a “beneficiary” who could assign/transfer the security instrument.
I need legal assistance from an aggressive foreclosure defense attorney ASAP. Have been looking for several weeks with no success.”

I am desperate for legal help but can find none. Either there has been no response to queries, knowledgeable foreclosure defense attorneys do not practice in TN (even through local counsel), or they are simply already swamped and not available.

If you have any advise as to what else homeowners such as I, who are trying to save their properties and are already in litigation but insecure with proceeding “pro se”, can do to
find competent legal assistance, please respond.

Our situation is urgent and time is of the essence.

Thank you.
tina, on September 20, 2010 at 8:39 pm said:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2010cv04193/474328/6/

FTC -v-CW/BAC may help some people
Reuben Nieves, on September 14, 2010 at 1:37 pm said:

Rik,

You need to ask your HOA if they gave notice to all lienholders. If they did the preliminary report which you should get, should have the title free and clear and the bank has an unsecured loan and you should immediately record a DECLARED HOMESTEAD. If they didn’t give notice then the sale should be void.
Rik, on September 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm said:

Hopefully this will be an easy one for someone with more experience than me.

My HOA foreclosed and got the default judgement, sold my house to themselves, but I paid the HOA off with savings and am still in my house.

Does FDLG/Wells Fargo still have a case for Foreclosure if the house has already been sold for a HOA Lien?

I ask this question because if I had not paid the HOA off, they would have sold the house to regain their costs, and I assume that unless Wells Fargo filed a claim all proceeds would go to the HOA.

Would this put the HOA in th first position for Liens and displace WF altogether?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Rik
Marcus Aurelius, on September 11, 2010 at 3:24 pm said:

Fake Cost-Bond

In order to circumvent the cost bond requirement (F.S. 57.001) the mill will post a bond with the clerk when challenged. The problem with the cost bond posted by the mill is that the attorney is acting as a surety for the plaintiff. That is illigal. An attorney cannot act as surety according to F.S 454.20 and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.060(f).
The Fourth Judicial Circuit Court Granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the pending foreclosure case for Plaintiff’s failing to post the statutorily required non-resident cost bond and stated, “The Florida Statutes require that a foreign corporation instituting legal action in the State of Florida post a bond with the clerk of court prior to moving forward with the legal action. Citigroup Global Markets v. Bumbu, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 737a (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, June 2, 2009.)

The mill will have a problem with this requirement because the REAL plaintiff has to obtain a bond from a third party SURETY company. As we all know, servicers use fake entities to foreclosure on people. A surety bond company will certainly not participate in their shell game for liability reasons. So the moral of the story is to keep pressing the issue. Don’t give up on the cost bond.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus Aurelius, on September 10, 2010 at 12:45 pm said:

Good news for foreclosure defendants on cost bond issue.
————————-

Fourth DCA Denies Petition Challenging Constitutionality Of Section 57.011, Florida Statutes For Lack Of Jurisdiction
Posted: 02 Sep 2010 06:27 PM PDT
In Achord v. Osceola Farms Co. (4D09-1906), a divided panel of the Fourth District released an opinion relating to the $100 bond an out of state plaintiff is required to post for defense costs in accordance with section 57.011, Florida Statutes. The majority opinion was written by Judge Warner. With regard to the statute, the majority stated:
Section 57.011 was first enacted in 1828, well before the enactment of even the earliest Florida constitution containing a provision for access to the courts. Art I, § 9, Fla. Const. (1838). The practical reason for such a statute is to obtain security for a suit being prosecuted by a nonresident plaintiff.
Notably, the court stated:
Further, section 57.011 does not set a condition precedent to filing a cause of action. Only the defendant may invoke its provisions. A defendant may also not opt for dismissal of the claim and instead rely on the alternative provided of looking to the plaintiff’s attorney to cover the cost amount.
The court’s conclusion:
Petitioners seek second-tier certiorari review of a decision of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity affirming a county court’s order dismissing approximately 1500 non-resident plaintiffs from a county court suit, because none of the plaintiffs posted the $100 bond for defense costs in accordance with section 57.011, Florida Statutes. We deny the petition as we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction under these facts.
***

The foregoing explains why we cannot say that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law or violated clearly established principles of law. Even the supreme court decisions appear to diverge when analyzing minimal fees or expenses involved in the litigation process. In a proper case brought to us on direct appeal, this issue would be ripe for our consideration. Our scope of review on second-tier certiorari is much narrower. Because there is no clearly established law to apply to this provision, we must decline jurisdiction.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Levine stated:
Petitioners make a compelling case for the merits of their position. In our constitution, access to the courts is one of the fundamental rights in the Declaration of Rights. Art. I, § 21, Fla. Const. (“The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”). It would be very easy to brush aside the requirements for second-tier certiorari jurisdiction to get to the merits of this action. But, we are constrained by the law and the limits of our jurisdiction. “There is a great temptation in a case like this one to announce a ‘miscarriage of justice’ simply to provide precedent where precedent is needed.” Stilson, 692 So. 2d at 983. That temptation also exists in this case, but we do not have the authority to succumb to that temptation and exercise jurisdiction.
The contours of jurisdiction are not so malleable for us to vindicate the rights of petitioners. As Justice Cardozo stated, “Jurisdiction exists that rights may be maintained. Rights are not maintained that jurisdiction may exist.” Berkovitz v. Arbib & Houlberg, 130 N.E. 288, 291 (N.Y. 1921).
In dissent, Chief Judge Gross stated:
I agree with Judge Cox’s well-reasoned dissent below that section 57.011, Florida Statutes (2009) is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional statute that barricades the courthouse to a group of indigent defendants is a violation of a “clearly established law” that results in a miscarriage of justice under Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 890 (Fla. 2003).

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Gary Goldman, on September 10, 2010 at 11:21 am said:

Dear Attorneys & Friends,

Take a look at this order we just got back from Lake County Superior Court, Civil Div., Indiana.

BAC Loan Serving, LP Case# 45D11-1003-MF-207
V.
Helen C. Goldman

The Judge mis-states the facts; because Mom filed her RMSJ on 09/01/2010
And not the day of the hearing, on 09/03/2010. And the judge had previously
Stated in the order for the 9/03/2010 hearing, that she would consider both
Issues on the 3rd.

But, look what the Judge says at #12: “The Plaintiff has no current title to the real estate and no right
To displace Defendant from the property.

And 13: “In such case, the Plaintiff would still have no title to the real estate and and no right
To displace Defendant from the property.

WOW,,,,,,

** WE are presently seeking an attorney in Lake County, Indiana to take over the case “Pro Bono”
Now that we have proven that we can do “The Heavy Lifting”. This case is all but won!!!

This case will change the foreclosure landscape in Indiana……..

I will post the order as soon as Neil contacts me.
deontos, on September 9, 2010 at 10:18 pm said:

Moses SPEAKS. No, not about a PROMISED LAND. But about Promise DENIED. That’s Moses S. Hall, don’t want any confusion here.

Don’t know the man, so I am not in anyway endorsing him. But I do AGREE. I DO AGREE. Where Oh WHERE is the California AG?
Mr. Brown? An Answer PLEASE?

=======================================

LAW OFFICES OF MOSES S. HALL, APC
2651 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 110
Fullerton, California 92831
Telephone (714) 738-4830
Facsimile (714)992-7916

September 9, 2010

Attorney General’s Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Edmund G. Brown Jr.
1300 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Benjamin G. Diehl
Office of the California Attorney General
300 S. Spring Street,. Ste 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013

Kathrin Sears
Office of the California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste 1702
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Civil Code §§ 2923.52 and 2923.53
The People of The State of California vs. Countrywide et. al. LC093076
Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Dear Colleagues and Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr:

As you are aware, my office represents homeowners caught up in the foreclosure crisis currently occurring in the California housing market.

You may recall that my office sought your assistance in the matter of Mabry vs. Aurora Loan Services. Wherein the 4th Appellate District Division Three acknowledged a private right of action to prevent foreclosures on a citizen’s primary residence, when the bank and/or mortgage holder has not complied with Civil Code § 2923.5. However, your office opted not to participated in what I believe was a landmark decision for homeowners in the battle against foreclosure prevention here in California.

Notwithstanding the Stipulated Judgment and Injunction that your office had obtained against Countrywide/Bank of America in the above referenced case, Bank of America filed an Amicus Curia Brief in the Mabry action espousing no private right of action and no obligation to modify distressed loans.

I am fully aware, grateful and commend your office for its attempts to crackdown on loan modification schemes that have swindled millions of dollars out of frightened and frustrated homeowners. Some homeowners who were and still are willing to believe against all logic or reason that the companies, whom practiced such schemes, could actually get the mortgage holder to give them some sort of State or Federal assistance that could prevent the losing of their homes and becoming homeless.

I further commend your office for its 2008 lawsuit against then Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Spectrum Lending, Inc., who are now commonly referred to as Bank of America N.A. and BAC Home Loans (BAC). An action which ultimately resulted in the successful acquiring of a Stipulated Judgment and Injunction against (BAC) on October 14, 2008.

The BAC lawsuit’s primary focus was on the predatory lending practices of the Defendants. The Stipulated Judgment and Injunction provides a remedy that creates yet another avenue for BAC borrowers to find relief and even the possibility of preventing the loss of their homes. The loss of a home is a threat that is ever too common, albeit avoidable with help from BAC, for numerous California BAC borrowers in this foreclosure crisis.

I wish this letter could end here or at least continue to praise your efforts and accomplishments as the present Attorney General of California. However, unfortunately, it must now turn to the present state of affairs and your lack of aggressiveness in the pursuit against the foe you identified and successfully prosecuted in the People vs. Countrywide, et.al. action.

I believe judgment obtained against BAC was merely the tip of the iceberg. You may or may not be aware that IndyMac Bank, now OneWest Bank, has been sued by their investors for providing false and misleading appraisals along with committing many underwriting violations, which gave thousands of Californians their present unconscionable loans [a copy of the court’s opinion is attached for your edification].

There are presently hearings scheduled on September 21, 2010 and September 22, 2010, that involve issues that would substantially curtail the foreclosures in California:

September 22, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 68 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Mabry vs. Preston Dufauchard, Commissioner For the California Dept of Corporations, Real Party in Interest Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No: BS 127903. Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
The issue: Whether possessing a HAMP program equates as compliance with California Civil Code § 2923.53.
September 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the California 4th Appellate Court Division Three Vuki vs. Superior Court of California, Orange County Case No: GO43533, Real Party in Interest HSBC. Oral Argument.
The issue: Whether a bad faith compliance with Civil Code § 2923.53 makes the foreclosing beneficiary (HSBC) a bona fide purchaser pursuant to Civil Code §2923.54.
September 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the California 4th Appellate Court Division Three Sanchez vs. Superior Court of California, Orange County Case No: G043300, Real Party in Interest Litton Loan Servicing LLC.. Oral Argument.
The issue: Whether a fully executed and performed loan modification is terminated by the lender’s inadvertent sale of the subject real property in lieu of Civil Code § 2923.54.
These decisions are being sought by my office to help clarify citizens’ rights under the present Foreclosure Prevention Statutes.

My office has been very instrumental in not only the prosecution of these issues, on behalf of my clients, but all citizens of the State of California.

Unfortunately, the BAC Stipulated Judgment and Injunction does not provide a component for a private right of enforcement. Thus, with respect to possible violations by BAC, such Stipulated Judgment and Injunction can only be enforced by your office.

My office would love to step into your shoes and be granted permission and the rights to enforcement under the Stipulated Judgment and Injunctions. That way we may stop all the Countrywide loan foreclosures presently scheduled and being conducted in California until each

prior Countrywide and/or BAC California borrower is offered the benefits under the Stipulated Judgment and Injunction your office obtained.

I do not believe that you could or are able to assign such a right, but I make it as a gesture of sincerity as to my conviction and belief of the wrongdoings of BAC.

I ask that you immediately seek Court intervention enjoining all Countrywide and/or BAC foreclosures proceedings that fall within the auspices of the Stipulated Judgment/Injunction.

Alternatively, you leave my office no choice but to seek a Writ of Mandamus asking the Court to instruct you and your office on your obligations as Attorney General of our great State. I realize your business and acknowledge that this may not be your primary priority, but if I do not receive a response indicating your intent by September 17, 2010, I will deem you have no intent to respond, investigate this matter, or take other appropriate action and at that time will seek the Writ of Mandamus.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned paragraph, I wish you well on your campaign to return to the position of Governor of our great State.

Sincerely
Moses S. Hall;
Msh:
Attachments.
Andrew, on September 9, 2010 at 9:43 pm said:

To Neil Garfield, Matt Weidner, Nye Levalle, or anyone else that is knowledgeable and has the ability to get the word out! Thanks!

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/a-hamleteer-w-an
deontos, on September 9, 2010 at 9:33 pm said:

New Rules! New Rules! New Rules!

=====================================

SUPREME COURT: CORPORATIONS CAN BUY JUDGES

x_http://www.zerohedge.com/article/supreme-court-corporations-can-buy-judges

Submitted by George Washington on 09/09/2010 18:40 -0500

You’ve heard that a recent Supreme Court decision said that corporations can give unlimited funds to politicians.

BUT DID YOU REALIZE THAT IT SAID THAT CORPORATIONS CAN GIVE UNLIMITED MONEY TO JUDGES?

As William K. Black – professor of economics and law, and the senior regulator during the S & L crisis – pointed out last week:

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allows businesses to make unlimited political contributions to judges and politicians. When judges are elected, the need for these contributions inherently turns judges into politicians. Sympathetic judges are corrupt businesses’ most valuable allies. CORPORATIONS AND THEIR SENIOR OFFICIALS CAN COMMIT CIVIL OR CRIMINAL WRONGS WITH IMPUNITY IF THEIR CASE IS ASSIGNED TO A FRIENDLY JUDGE.

The Robber Barons often had judges on their payrolls.

Judges can serve a corporation as both a shield and a sword. They can declare statutes and regulations unlawful. They can issue favorable decisions when corporations sue their critics, which can intimidate, tie up, or even bankrupt the critics.

The fact that corporations are “investing” so heavily in getting pro-business judges elected demonstrates that their CEOs believe that the election of friendly judges will increase their incomes and decrease the risk that they will ever be sanctioned.

It’s a business decision – not a decision based on which judicial candidate would be more qualified or better serve justice. CEOs want to win cases when doing so would be unjust and contrary to the law, which is why they hire top attorneys and make the contributions necessary to elect judges they believe will be allies.

The empirical evidence in Texas shows that judicial elections and contributions produces perverse dynamics. One study showed that hiring the former law firm of a Texas Supreme Court justice markedly increased the chances that the Texas Supreme Court would exercise its discretion and hear your appeal from an adverse decision. Hiring the former law firm of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court produced an even greater chance of having one’s appeal heard.

As Yves Smith noted recently:

A Mother Jones article, “Permission to Encroach the Bench,” (hat tip reader Francois T) discusses how already big ticket battles over state supreme court seats are likely to rocket to a new level of priciness:

For a down-ballot category that even well-intentioned voters pay little attention to, judicial races are astonishingly expensive. In 2004, $9.3 million was spent in the race for a single seat (pdf) on the Illinois Supreme Court. That’s higher than the price tag of more than half the US Senate races in the nation that year. In 2006, three candidates for chief justice in Alabama raised $8.2 million combined.

But those sums could look paltry compared to the spending likely to be unleashed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. In all, 39 states elect judges—and with the stakes including everything from major class actions to zoning and contract cases to consumer protection, workplace, and environmental issues, corporations have always taken a major interest in those races.

The US Chamber of Commerce, Forbes reported in 2003, HAS DEVOTED AT LEAST $100 MILLION TO ELECTING JUDGES SYMPATHETIC TO ITS AGENDA.

“No organization has had more success in the past 10 years of judicial elections,” says James Sample, a professor at Hofstra University who studies judicial reform issues. “Its winning percentage would be the envy of any sports franchise.” CITIZENS UNITED HAS ESSENTIALLY WIPED OUT NOT JUST FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN SPENDING, BUT MANY STATE-LEVEL REGULATIONS AS WELL, Sample notes, and that’s “going to increase the ability of corporations, and to a much lesser extent unions, to engage in electioneering that is basically aimed at winning particular cases.” And given the low profile of these races, it may not take that much to sway that outcome, notes Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the advocacy group Justice at Stake. “A judicial election is a better investment for anyone spending money” than, say, a congressional campaign.

Note the reference to Alabama, a state I know a wee bit about, and my local sources say the Mother Jones figures are greatly understated, and attorneys in the state who’ve turned over a few rocks put the price tag for a state supreme court seat at $12 million. I’ve had a quick look at a Supreme Court justice’s house. It is in an implausibly costly district for his income (and no, there’s no heiress wife to explain the discrepancy).

Why is Alabama such a valuable state to control? It used to be a favorite venue for class action lawyers, since juries often handed out multi-million-dollar awards. Getting business-friendly jurists in place at the highest court has meant that any verdict, no matter how egregious and damaging the violations, is cut to $1 million.

And the degree of banana republic behavior is reaching new levels. CONSIDER: A ONCE PROMINENT CORPORATE FIRM HAS BEEN REDUCED TO BECOMING PRIMARILY A FORECLOSURE MILL. However, because longevity counts in the South, and many of the firm’s senior partners still dine with judges, it has clout well in excess of its fallen standing.

On a case which is now being tried, this fading firm (WE’LL CALL IT BILL’EM) has managed to get the case (which is being heard only by a judge) moved from the court before a decision has been rendered to a sympathetic appeal court judge. In addition, Bill’em is appending four other cases which that have already been decided and are past the time frame for appeal (in Alabama, you have 43 days in which to file an appeal). The rationale is that these cases present similar issues, but that still has the effect of reopening cases which under existing law are settled. For lay reader, if you miss the deadline for appeal, you can’t appeal…..except in when the right people in Alabama want it to occur.

So this isn’t merely having judges who will provide the opinions big business wants.WE NOW HAVE A COURT RUNNING ROUGHSHOD OVER BASIC ELEMENTS OF PROCEDURE. The last bastion of defense of the individual is being gutted, to the point where even the forms of the law will be ignored if that’s what it takes to produce the outcome the big money interests need.

I wrote in April:

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said:

We may have democracy [or you can substitute the word "republic"], or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.
***

OF COURSE, ANTITRUST LAWS WERE ENACTED TO PROTECT THE ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY, but – like the Depression-era laws separating depository banking from investment banking – ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED.

AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD USE EXISTING LAWS TO FORCE ILL-GOTTEN GAINS TO BE DISGORGED (SEE THIS AND THIS), FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS TO BE VOIDED AND – PERHAPS – EVEN BONUSES GAINED AT THE EXPENSE OF TAXPAYERS CLAWED BACK. Such actions would make the 800 pound gorillas a little smaller, helping to reduce concentration of wealth somewhat. But that would assume that America is still a nation governed by the rule of law.

Currently, it’s not. Only courageous prosecutors and brave judges can restore the rule of law to America.

I WROTE THAT BEFORE I REALIZED THAT THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZENS UNITED DECISION OPENED THE FLOODGATES TO CORPORATIONS BUYING JUDGES.
Rik, on September 9, 2010 at 10:28 am said:

Ok, so it has been a while since i posted but here goes. I have a VA Guaranteed Loan with what seems is Wells Fargo as the service although they are the ones who are foreclosing through FDLG.

The foreclosure started like 2 years ago. Since that time, I assume that Wells has made a claim on either insurance or on the VA for the loan as it has been in default for so long. How would I go about finding if this is the case?

The reasoning behind my questions is twofold.

Firstly, if they have been paid either with insurance or the VA Guarantee wouldn’t that negate the loan, and therefore the foreclosure by Wells Fargo?

Secondly, would this be a basis for a motion to dismiss if it can be proven?

Added Info – Last action was on my part in mid May of this year with a motion to compel and request for sanctions. No responses or actions by FDLG since.
Joan, on September 8, 2010 at 8:50 am said:

Current foreclosure litigation in TN (Sevier County).
Injunction filed “pro se” to stop foreclosure sale.
Attorney for defendants (Bank of America, Countrywide, MERS, et al) has filed a Motion to Dismiss…maintains servicer (Recontrust) has standing to foreclosure even though they don’t and that MERS was a “beneficiary” who could assign/transfer the security instrument.
I need legal assistance from an aggressive foreclosure defense attorney ASAP. Have been looking for several weeks
with no success.
marcus, on August 15, 2010 at 12:35 pm said:

A little update on my yesterday post. I have heart that the unconstitutional restriction on unrepresented parties has been experienced by people all around the state of Florida. This is a potential federal issue that may warrant an investigation by the US Attorney General.

It is imperative that people file complaints in writing.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on August 14, 2010 at 9:24 am said:

Hillsborough County Court Unconstitutional Restriction on Unrepresented Parties

Hillsborough county court in Florida has recently instituted an unwritten rule restricting access to court to unrepresented foreclosure defendants. All foreclosure pro se are now required to write a letter to the judge asking permission to schedule a hearing on their motions. This is a blatant attack on people right to due process; it is unconstitutional.
A new division has been created to handle foreclosure cases only. Those cases are being heard by several retired judges in such an expedient fashion that a defendant has little change to defend his or herself. This tactic is also known as “rocket docket”. It is being implemented throughout the entire state. Expediency should not be at the expense of justice.
If you’re a pro se and you are being denied due process right, please file a complaint with the State Courts Administrator and appeal to the District Court. This illegal practice must stop.

Laura Rush
General Counsel
Office of the State Courts Administrator
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900
(850) 488-1824

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on August 13, 2010 at 8:30 am said:

MAD AS HELL

Listen if you had New Century..they still have an active bankruptcy case in Delaware. A handful of us pro se homeonwers are fighting them up there. We filed Proof of Claims (some late, which were accepted as timely filed after motions) and we filed AP or Adversary Proceedings.

There is money still left. In fact just this past week New Century settled with investors in their stock (NCM) for $125 Million dollars.

One pro se has done judicial notice of the fraudulent signatures etc by New Century VPs.

Their bkr was started 4/2/2007 so anything done after that date (such as real property transfers etc) would have had to get Judge Carey’s and/or the bkr trustee’s approval.

The main case number is 07-10416 (KJC)
get a free PACER account and look it all up

(note–PACER charges you small fees once you are in and looking/downloading case filings)

The pro se’s APs have different case numbers.

Also go read these regarding New Century:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20887303/New-Century-Mortgage-Forgeries-Notarized-Illegal-Stamped-Signatures-Newsletter-Nagy

This is free guide on how to file an AP against New Century in their bankrupcty case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31013021/FREE-Guide-on-Filing-AP-Against-New-Century-in-Their-Bankruptcy-Case-in-Delaware-or-any-other-lender-in-bankruptcy

TIME IS OF ESSENCE —
mad as hell pro se, on August 12, 2010 at 6:54 pm said:

I too am pro se against Deutsche Bank, who foreclosed on my home in Jan 2009, and an Unlawful Detainer, which I lost in Aug. 2009, The original lender now defunct.
I filed my own suit against eight in June 2009, the case still pending, Deutsche Bank recently won to have the Lis Pendens removed, because the house is supposed to be sold. I have documents that are also recorded in records, that shows the VP for the original lender (New Century), assigning the deed of trust, then the same day and the same VP, signs a substitution of trustee for Deutsche Bank. I also have another recorded document that shows this same VP works for Ameriquest. This person has never worked for any of the three. The judge totally ignores this, as I have had it judicially noticed. Deutsche Bank also claims to have been assigned the deed of trust while I was default, because of a temp layoff in 2006, I defaulted in Nov. 2006 and fortunately was able to cure March 23, 2007, while the alleged assignment took place on March 7, 2007. It was non performing.
The other obstacle (other than the judge), is that the Attorney for DB has filed declarations of a person that works for him, as the manager of his eviction service, claiming to be an REO manager for DB. He also files proofs of service, that have totally different signatures of persons claiming to be the same, as well as a person that does not exist anywhere in the state of CA. My 3/60 foreclosure notice to quit has the Attorney signing as the ATTY for the new owner Carrington, then files the UD as Atty. for the owner DB. Due to the notice of right to cancel blank, and defective upon its face, it tolled the time to rescind to three years, which by QWR, I did 10 days before sale. The judge, not knowing the operation of a calender, sides with the ATTY, who claims the house was already sold. The sale date Jan.
29, 2009. The rescission date Jan 20, 2009. I received a response
from NC, who said Carrington owns the loan, Carringtons untimely response, states DB is the owner but respectfully declines to accept
the rescission (not their choice). Now DB I still have not heard anything from, except the Atty. and the UD. These issues also have
been raised. Don’t matter.
Yet another matter, the foreclosing trustee (Old Republic) filed the
NOD on June 3, 2008, but they were not executed until July 15, 2008
or effected (recorded) until Jan 08, 2009. The initiated the NOD 42
days before actually authorized, with no new notice. Also judicially
noticed, the deed of trust, the same, don’t matter. What do I do about
the judge, who is either stupid or paid, and the lawyer who likes to
evict people and lie, and commit perjury, subornation of perjury and
commit fraud upon the court, as well as allowing, aiding and abetting the fraud of his client. I am about to completely loose my home of
24 years, because of liars. If there is an Atty. out there PLEASE
mad as hell and pro se
marcus, on August 11, 2010 at 4:58 pm said:

Thanks a million Deontos. It is a brilliant defense tactic to use.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on August 11, 2010 at 4:25 pm said:

FROM The Market Ticker BLOG

Being Foreclosed With An Option ARM? **Read This**

Karl Denninger said,
“Incidentally, I know this attorney and this was one of the points I laid out for him. He turned it into a legal argument and, well, read this…”

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:
x_http://www.scribd.com/doc/35742964/Order-Granting-Defendant-s-Motion-to-Dismiss

No, this doesn’t get the guy a free house. It does, however, force the plaintiffs to pay the unpaid doc stamps, pay the homeowner’s attorney fees, and re-file once they’ve done so.

This is a potential stake in the heart of those banks that have negative-amortized loans on their books and try to foreclose – without paying the tax stamps, they lack standing.

More importantly if each transfer required payment then it gets worse, AS EACH ASSIGNMENT MAY HAVE TO BE PROVED AND THOSE FEES PAID TOO.

Welcome to reality.
THE A MAN, on August 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm said:

ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS: MAHER SOLIMAN CAN TALK TILL HE IS BLUE IN THE FACE AND HE IS CORRECT IN HIS ANALYSIS JUST ONE THING

ENRON WAS TAKEN DOWN WHEN GRAY DAVIS WAS RECALLED AND SHWARZENEGGER CAME IN.

THIS HURT THE POLITICIANS AND THEY TOOK OUT THEIR VENGENCE OUT ON ENRON.

IT CAN BE DONE ON THE CITY LEVEL REMOVE THE BANKS LICENSES FROM THE CITY AND GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

NEVER AGAIN
WE MUST STOP THIS HOLOCAUST
THE A MAN, on August 7, 2010 at 11:42 am said:

Abby please do it on the local level where the LOCAL DA OR COUNCIL PEOPLE WHERE YOU CAN SUSTAIN A PROTEST.

CITY OF BELL CASE STUDY THE WALKS ON WASHINGTON THEY KNOW WILL BE NEWS TODAY AND GONE TOMMOROW.

IN THREE WEEKS THIS WILL ALL BE OVER

USE NEIL GARFIELDS ANALYSIS WHICH YOU ARE WELL VERSED IN.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Abby in CA, on July 30, 2010 at 11:32 am said:

CALLING ALL HOMEOWNERS & OTHERS
JOIN THE SIT IN!!
FACEBOOK LINK for Homeowners or other individuals who want to participate in a White
House ‘sit in’ on 9-11-2010

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=132524423456615

AN ADVOCACY GROUP

This is intended to create a group of homeowners and individuals willing to go to Washington and
stage a sit in outside the White house in protest. We would stay there until we got answers to
questions that have something to do with reality; No spin or partisan politics. Just the truth. Why
are we allowing the banks to destroy so many lives? Why are we allowing predatory practices by
collection and lending institutions? Why is there not a moratorium in place that freezes all these
assets that are being systematically stolen by the bank system? Where did the bailout money go?
We do not leave until we have real answers and real advocacy for the people! Ideally we would
want 100,000 people but I have been told by a writer at the Huffington Post that if we can get just
100 people to commit and show up he will write about it. Target date 9/11! So please pass this
along and help support struggling homeowners and move past the apathy that is allowing these
corporations to destroy so many lives. Let’s make this message go viral and help change the
situation!
Abby in CA, on July 30, 2010 at 11:03 am said:

Read Richard Zombeck’s article of today

Treasury Used Bogus Information In Report to Homeowners

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/treasury-used-bogus-info_b_665357.html
marcus, on July 29, 2010 at 2:42 pm said:

The Florida Bar has a handbook teaching pro se how to do an appeal. Here is the link below.

http://prose.flabarappellate.org/toc.asp

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on July 29, 2010 at 11:37 am said:

Damage to your FICO score via your damaged credit reports?

Not only have I asked all 3 credit bureaus to include my consumer statement on my credit reports basically saying that any mortgage loan data being reported is in dispute and that I have filed lawsuits for fraud & predatory lending etc. against the mortgage lender etc.

All 3 credit bureaus report data back to Fair Isaacs, which is a company with sophisticated analytical software which generates your FICO score (credit worthiness used for obtaining loans etc.).

I am also contact Fair Isaacs to let them know about my victimization and to ask them to ensure they do NOT continue to report a low FICO due to my damaged credit reports from the lenders which I am suing.

If you are interested in contacting Fair Isaacs here is the info:

Dr. Mark N. Greene
CEO
FICO (Fair Isaacs)
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
901 Marquette Avenue
Suite 3200
Minneapolis, MN 55402 USA
TEL: +1 (612) 758 5200
TEL: +1 (415) 472 2211
FAX: +1 (612) 758 5201

Their software also does predictive analysis.
Abby in CA, on July 28, 2010 at 1:35 pm said:

Good Info on Promissory Fraud!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34961273/Promissory-Fraud-consider-using-if-you-had-predatory-lender
Abby in CA, on July 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm said:

The’ve already found a way to skirt the new financial reform laws!!!

7/28/2010
From Fox Business:

Goldman Sachs (GS: 147.93 ,+0.84 ,+0.57%) has figured out a novel approach to getting around the Volcker Rule’s restrictions on trading: it’s remaking its risk-taking traders into asset managers, and the rest of Wall Street may soon follow, FOX Business Network has learned.

The big Wall Street firm has moved about half of its “proprietary” stock-trading operations — which had made market bets using the firm’s own capital — into its asset management division, where these traders can talk to Goldman clients and then place their market bets.

The move is designed to exploit a loophole in the Volcker Rule, part of the recently signed financial-reform legislation named after presidential economic adviser and former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker.

Business Insider then picked up the story:

It seems like Goldman isn’t just circumventing the rule, but actually changing the role of prop traders. You’d assume that instead of trading with the firm’s money on prop trading desks, the traders will be trading with the firm’s clients’ money on the asset management team.

But proprietary trading can easily become related to client operations and very closely resemble the prop trading done on strictly defined “prop trading” desks. Thanks to a line in the Volcker Rule which specifies trading “operations unrelated to customer operations,” as long as the “prop trading” is done for client-related purposes, it’s OK.
M.Soliman, on July 24, 2010 at 10:34 pm said:

Deceit and fraud are defined separately in statutes. Under Civ. Code §§1709 and 1710, deceit is defined in simple terms. See Civ. Code §§1572 for both actual fraud and 1573constructive fraud.

Loook at Liability for actual fraud is limited to acts committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract with the intent to deceive another party to the contract and induce that party to enter into the contract. Look under Civ. Code §1572

Deceit is appropriate under a material beach or perhaps cause of action. The notion of a lender, who willfully deceives its borrowers or customers leading to foreclosure so to remedy an investor issue and to avoid recourse.

]I suggest you use it there or for the servicing argument for showing the willful intent to induce the consumer homeowners of a right to modifications ad compliance with 2923. to alter his or her position towards litigation (and eat up the balance of legal reserves their intended for a defense and their attorneys). These guys, I know all too well and it’s all too much. The consumer’s injury or risk is liable for any damage suffered as a result of the deceit. [Civ. Code §1709] etc, etc.

My take on this is too isolate the actual fraud that consists of any of the following acts, committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract who is the assignor and its agents and not the successors.

The argument is it is with willful intent a lost beneficial interest woefully deceives a trustor or mortgagor to the contract, solely to induce the other party to enter into the contract [see Civ. Code §1572]:

Deceit and Actual Fraud combined

•Servicing rights violate SEC 1122 AB,
•Accounting rules violations under FAS 140, FIN 115,
•Trust assets are restricted to passive investments,
•Lenders controlling interest revoke the powers of sale and foreclosure,
•Parties lack standing to bring a foreclosure by appointment,
•Conspiracy to commit fraud where Trustee, Beneficiary and Transferee are all one in the same
•Bid rigging at trustee sale
•Fraud perpetrated against the country recorder
•A nominal interest has powers that conflict in the original assignment,
•Violations of the Code of federal regulations “CFR”
Your feed back will be critical and evident where I have gone as far as I can. It’s not getting through to skilled litigators that still don’t get it. Maybe I am lacking your codifications eloquence and ledger capacity to zero into the abuses of GAAP in more subtle terms; LOL!

he head of the OCC stated in 2009 “I don’t know why getting relief from offering modifications is not working?”

It’s simple “BECAUSE LENDERS FORECLOSING DON’T OWN THE ASSETS THEY SOLD ….for starters.

That said, even after the effort and inability for the US Secretary to further tweak FASB to get them to completely roll over.

Few are winning here. Even Judges who are deciding the matter favorably are commenting from a wrong perspective. There is no demand on UCC judicial interpretations for perfection in a bonefide sale.

The District Courts hearing these chapter proceedings provide comments after deciding the matter favorably are merely suggesting it’s all about “get it right next time”. That wrong where it says’s to a lender they can bring it back, even when a decision is favorable.

The key arguments come down to the fact the lender transfers each receivable as a “whole loan” sale. For Pete’s sake, looks at the general ledger where the asset was entered as a “Receivable” and “Loan Held for Sale”.

That’s not “Loan Held to Maturity” but “Sale”.

The cost to capitalize and reserve a 30 year loan held to maturity defeats the arguments lenders are making that “they did not sell the subject loan. It’s the old “blank assignment” gimmick. Its arguments are lost in court where the problem peaks the Judges curiosity and that’s about it.

We know the value of the open assignment argument is defining for the court where it’s a bank surety and liquidity play. It’s also a GAAP disclosure fraud.

Therein the consumer is disadvantaged arguing defects after being instrumental in a lenders shuffling of assets for maintaining REPO requirements and in its pursuit for shareholder earnings and profitability.

My take on the matter is to let them have the consumer’s home. The consumer then makes the lender pay the price of foreclosure claiming recognition, for reclassifying the sales as debt and restating earnings.

These UD attorneys are so smart that they may cost these bank power houses a debt load totaling about $3 trillion and more in liabilities left off the books. It’s a scary thought actually where you put Citigroup out while not looking and as they still struggle with a $65 billion tax tab carried by consumer taxpayers. BAC may end fighting for their life with a private right to call receivership.

Foreclosures cannot continue in violation of GAAP and where lenders circumvent basis accounting laws while continuing to force the sale treatment issue and while denying they are controlling assets.

It’s the best of both worlds with sale on the front side and as if it was leveraged borrowing upon liquidation and egress.

As we sit I’ll show you the subtle instances of apparently innocent manipulation and confusion befallen o to the courts from errors and omissions which lenders are getting away with. That is happening as the courts say . . . . So what!

The errors and omissions are the desperate means for seeking to maintain some semblance of SFAS140 adherence while employing lawyers as third parties appointed by agents of agents by a nominal interest.
I personally have given up on the right MERS arguments as MERS is entitled to act as an accommodation and even a nominal interest, possibly.

It’s just so easy for one to see the obvious that it has become lost. The nominee cannot execute instruments upon being replaced by the signature below it. Hello guys, right! That’s the purpose of the nominee! And, while one courts rules in favor of the consumer it misses the call.

Something basic is getting lost and I’m not getting through. Unique “floating” entities cannot appear from nowhere to execute assignments by virtue of meritless appointments.

If one of your cases is picked up by the Fed it should register a nice settlement . As one District court judge put it with disgust. . . “The SEC is turning into a penalty and fine system where they are to quick to settle the matter for a couple hundred million every time allowing the defendants’ to save face.”

“That’s not bad!

The US AG office thinks there is a case for bid rigging but I’m not sure the AG’s office knows where to look. Yet as one Judge told me in court “speak English.”

The precise and distinct GAAP and FASB rules violation are clearly demonstrated in each foreclosure. Lenders are violating GAAP even with the recent codification, including revisions and interpretation.

It’s all mind boggling when you consider the distance in communication here and counsel’s alternative to grab the lowest hanging fruit. . . .A RESPA audit (what is that anyway) and a QWR that together are just not going to cut it.

These bank execs fail to realize maybe that these and other Enron style crimes, like those stated in the Fastow confessional, will gets you 10 years . . .at least.

M.Soliman
Witness to Counsel
Expert.witness@live.com
Vicki, on July 24, 2010 at 9:00 pm said:

DO you want to be rid of fear, worry , and anger? See this video and email me if you have any questions: cmysmile00@aol.com
Rose, on July 22, 2010 at 3:44 am said:

Has anyone checked out the firms such as PrimeFinancialCenter –they are working for a hedge fund that is buying up distressed mortgage notes cheap and then arranging with homeowners who are in foreclosure, under water, etc. to re-paper their mortgage at 90% of current market value. The hedge fund makes the difference on the spread – they can buy the notes for extra cheap since they have the assets to buy in bulk and have the relationships with the banks and the claim is that the homeowner wins since they get a principal reduction, can stay in their home, have a new lender, and restored credit. Is this too good to be true? What are the pitfalls to doing this from the homeowner’s perspective?
Joe, on July 21, 2010 at 8:36 am said:

Related News:U.S. · Bonds .Fannie Mae Subpoenas May Find $30 Billion of Bad Mortgages, Analyst Says
By Jody Shenn – Jul 21, 2010
Email Share
Business ExchangeTwitterDeliciousDiggFacebookLinkedInNewsvinePropellerYahoo! BuzzPrint Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator may identify as much as $30 billion of debt included in mortgage bonds that the companies can force sellers to repurchase, according to Joshua Rosner, an analyst who in 2007 predicted the collapse in the market for the securities.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency this month said it issued 64 subpoenas seeking loan files and other documents related to so-called non-agency mortgage securities bought by the two government-supported companies. The U.S. is trying to determine whether misrepresentations might require issuers to repurchase debt, producing funds from firms that may include Wall Street’s largest banks to help repay taxpayer money.

Rosner’s estimate of the amount of bad loans the FHFA might find doesn’t equal how much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may recover because banks can argue some misstatements weren’t “material,” the New York-based analyst at independent research firm Graham Fisher & Co. said in a telephone interview. At the same time, the move bolsters other investors’ efforts, he said.

“The most important thing is probably that the subpoenaed documents will support other private actions and other government-agency actions,” said Rosner, co-author of a May 2007 paper that said the failure of mortgage bonds would roil housing and financial markets. “It will cause a lot of unhappiness on Wall Street.”

Corinne Russell, an FHFA spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Fannie Mae, based in Washington, and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac have already been forcing repurchases of loans they insure or hold directly at a pace drawing industry complaints. In the first quarter, the companies required lenders to buy back $3.1 billion, up 63 percent from a year earlier.

Boosting Reserves

In 2006 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought $227 billion of bonds backed by subprime or Alt-A mortgages, according to a report to Congress by their regulator. Those years produced the worst-performing non-agency securities, which lack guarantees from the companies or federal agency Ginnie Mae.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. were among banks that reported adding to reserves for their representations on sold or insured mortgages as they announced quarterly results this month. JPMorgan Chief Financial Officer Michael J. Cavanagh said July 15 on a conference call that his New York-based bank had received an FHFA subpoena, probably along with “all the major broker-dealers.”

Alex Samuelson, a spokesman for New York-based Citigroup, and Rick Simon, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, declined to comment.

Litigation Over Disclosures

The FHFA, which is tasked with limiting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s losses after placing them into conservatorships in 2008, also oversees the Federal Home Loan Banks, the 12 government-charted cooperatives owned by U.S. financial firms.

At least three of the FHLBs have filed lawsuits against Wall Street firms for mortgage-bond disclosures, with the San Francisco FHLB in March suing nine dealers over $19.1 billion in securities. Similar lawsuits by other investors have been dismissed by judges before reaching discovery because bondholders failed to offer enough evidence of inaccurate information.

Mortgage servicers have hindered investors’ efforts to get debt repurchased by denying them access to loan files, citing a right to do so if they don’t own at least 25 percent of the deals, said Bill Frey, head of Greenwich, Connecticut-based securities firm Greenwich Financial Services LLC.

“The subpoenas will hopefully stop the silliness,” Frey, who sued Bank of America’s Countrywide unit in 2008 over its servicing practices, said in a telephone interview.

‘Fraud Involved’

Almost 38 percent of subprime mortgages contained in non- agency bonds are at least 60 days late, in foreclosure or already have been turned into seized property, according to Bloomberg data, which doesn’t cover liquidated debt. For loans deemed Alt-A because they fell between prime and subprime in terms of expected defaults, the figure totals almost 29 percent.

“With what’s happened in the mortgage sector, we realize there was a great deal of fraud involved,” William Sidford, a senior vice president at AllianceBernstein LP, which manages almost $200 billion in fixed-income assets, said July 15 at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association conference in New York. “That being said, investors aren’t in a position to enforce the claims on those reps and warranties, rather we’re relying on the trustees and servicers to take action for us.”

Those parties are often affiliates of the companies that would be forced to buy back bad loans, a conflict of interest that limits their actions, Laurie Goodman, an analyst at Amherst Securities Group, said at the conference.

“I’ve had situations where a flagrant fraud is flat-out ignored,” Frey said. “A couple of years from now, these subpoenas will be seen as the first concrete step toward the recreation of the U.S. mortgage market.”
Brent Meadows, on July 19, 2010 at 2:38 pm said:

Okay, so what do I do now. I re-financed my home woth TBW. They in turn transferred it to B of A. But I was not aware of this until some 3 months later. I had already made two house payments on it. When I lost my job, I was trying to get a loan modification that is when I found out the loan was transferred. How does what TBW legal issues affect me? Is there cause for a class action suit? How do I know if those payments were processed. Or were they included in the HUD/B of A loan modification that did go through. It is my understanding that B of A should not have taken the loan from TBW because TBW was clearly in violation of lending laws.
Can I negotiate a better rate now with B of A?
marcus, on July 16, 2010 at 4:30 pm said:

Foreclosures Likely to Surpass 2009 Levels

Repossessions climbed 38 percent in the first six months of 2010 compared 2009 and were up 5 percent from the first quarter, foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac announced Thursday.

In all, lenders repossessed nearly 528,000 homes in the first six months of the year. If that rate continues through the end of the year, repossessions will likely top 1 million in 2010, up 100,000 from 2009.

Historically, about 100,000 homes per year in total are repossessed, according to Rick Sharga, senior vice president for RealtyTrac.

More than 7.3 million home loans are in the foreclosure process, with one in 78 U.S. homes receiving a foreclosure warning in June.

On average, it takes home owners 15 months to actually lose their property after they receive the initial warning, reports Lender Processing Services Inc.

Source: Associated Press, Alex Veiga (07/15/2010)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
phantom, on July 15, 2010 at 9:30 am said:

Neil / Chris , when will you get back to me on my securitization review? It has been since May 26, 2010, when I placed the order.
Daniela Mars, on July 13, 2010 at 3:51 pm said:

FGIC default swaps worth 26 pct in auction

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0712360920100107
Daniela Mars, on July 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm said:

U.S. RMBS Ratings Affected By FGIC, MBIA,
And XL Capital Rating Actions
The following tables provide the issuers, series, and CUSIPs for the classes of U.S. residential mortgage-backed
securities (RMBS) transactions affected by the Feb. 26, 2008, insurance-related RMBS rating actions.
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/media/subprime_rmbs_fgic_mbia_xl_022608.pdf
Daniela Mars, on July 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm said:

Link to find your CUSIP No.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38496015/SP-Structured-Finance-Financial-Guaranty-Insurance-Co-ratings-12-19-07
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2010 at 1:38 pm said:

CoreLogic: 1Q Foreclosure Run-Rate at 1.23 Million Units

By National Mortgage News Online

July 13, 2010

Residential foreclosures could top 1.23 million units this year, according to figures compiled by CoreLogic, Los Altos, Calif. In the first quarter 309,194 homes went into foreclosure, the company found, a 17% jump from the same period last year. In 2009 1.16 million homes went into foreclosure, a record.

Meanwhile, figures CoreLogic calculated for The New York Times suggest that more than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars is seriously delinquent.

The newspaper reported, “Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.” A CoreLogic senior economist noted, “The rich are different: they are more ruthless.”

In other housing news, U.S. home prices rose 0.9% in May after a 1.3% monthly increase in April, according to the CoreLogic housing price index. The CoreLogic HPI, which is not seasonally adjusted and includes distressed sales, is up 2.9% since May 2009. Excluding distressed sales, the year-over-year price increase for May was 0.9%.

“Home price appreciation stabilized as homebuyer tax credit driven sales peaked in late spring,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic. “But given that the labor market and income growth remain tepid, we expect prices to moderate and possibly decline the rest of the year,” he said.

The top five states with the highest price appreciation in May, including distressed sales, were: California (7.9%), Virginia (6.8%), Massachusetts (5.7%), Rhode Island (5.5%) and Vermont (5.1%). The top five states with the greatest price depreciation in May, including distressed sales, were: Idaho (-6.6%), Alabama (-5.3%), New Mexico (-4.2%), Maryland (-3.1%) and Wyoming (-3.1%).
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2010 at 4:53 am said:

Fannie, Freddie U.S. Regulator Subpoenas Firms That Sold Debt to Companies
By Lorraine Woellert – Jul 12, 2010

The Federal Housing Finance Agency subpoenaed firms that sold mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the regulator aims to determine whether issuers can be held liable for losses on the debt.

FHFA, which has overseen the government-sponsored mortgage companies since they were placed under conservatorship in September 2008, issued 64 subpoenas seeking loan files and transaction documents, FHFA said today in a news release. The U.S. is trying to determine whether misrepresentations or omissions might require issuers to repurchase loans, FHFA said.

“By obtaining these documents we can assess whether contractual violations or other breaches have taken place leading to losses for the enterprises and thus taxpayers,” FHFA Acting Director Edward J. DeMarco said in the statement.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest sources of funding for U.S. residential mortgages, relied on so-called private- label debt backed by subprime loans to help meet a federal mandate to promote homeownership. The federal government took control of the companies in 2008 after the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market pushed them toward insolvency. They have been sustained by a promise of unlimited Treasury Department aid that has yielded $145 billion for the companies so far.

FHFA said documents were being sought only for securities the agency plans to review and declined to say which companies were subpoenaed. Recipients have 30 days to provide the requested documents, the agency said in its statement.

Financial Inquiry

“This is a financial inquiry, not an investigation or a lawsuit,” FHFA said. “The conservator seeks the information to determine whether losses sustained by the enterprises are the legal responsibility of others and to ensure that the obligations of the various parties involved have been met.”

Mortgage-backed securities issuers including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are fighting lawsuits from private investors who claim they were misled about the health of loans they packaged and sold.

Fannie Mae, based in Washington, and Freddie Mac of McLean, Virginia, own or guarantee more than half of the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market. As of May, Fannie Mae owned $87.1 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities and Freddie Mac held $168.1 billion, according to regulatory filings.

Given their role in the mortgage market, Fannie and Freddie had the data necessary to determine whether the pools of loans they were buying were healthy, said Anne Canfield, executive director of the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, a Washington trade group of residential mortgage lenders.

“Of anybody in the market they had the ability to assess what the underlying quality was of those mortgages,” Canfield said today in a telephone interview.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net.
Abby in CA, on July 11, 2010 at 6:25 pm said:

Bank of America Says $10.7 Billion of Trades Wrongly Classified
By David Mildenberg and Dakin Campbell – Jul 10, 2010

Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. bank by assets, said it wrongly classified as much as $10.7 billion of short-term repurchase and lending transactions as sales from 2007 to 2009 to reduce its end-of-quarter assets.

Bank of America said the inaccuracies aren’t material and “don’t stem from any intentional misstatement of the Corporation’s financial statements and was not related to any fraud or deliberate error,” according to a May 13 letter released yesterday from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“A $10.7 billion accounting error would be a material event for about 99.9 percent” of U.S. banks, said Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University School of Law. “It’s hard to see how the SEC can accept BofA’s rejoinder as being sufficient.”

SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment.

The SEC sent letters to finance chiefs at about two dozen firms in March asking whether they employed accounting strategies like those at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The bankrupt securities firm was accused of using repurchase agreements called Repo 105s to move assets off its balance sheet to hide leverage, thereby improving its capital ratios.

$2.3 Trillion

Bank of America had disclosed in a March 31 financial filing that “certain sales of agency mortgage-backed securities should have been recorded as secured borrowings rather than sales,” bank spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said. “The handful of transactions did not have a material impact on the company’s balance sheet or earnings. They need to be viewed in the context of our $2.3 trillion balance sheet.”

In April, the SEC asked Bank of America to disclose whether its transactions were intentionally mislabeled, and to prove that the trades were immaterial. The Charlotte, North Carolina- based bank said in an April 13 letter that it stopped the transactions after the first quarter of 2009, the SEC said.

The Bank of America transactions involved six so-called dollar-roll trades completed during 2007, 2008 and 2009. The amount of the trades represented 0.1 percent of total assets in the December 2008 quarter and improved the company’s Tier 1 capital leverage ratio by one basis point, or one-hundredth of a percentage point, during the September 2008 quarter, the bank said.

Bank Review

The bank said in its May 13 letter it did an “extensive review” of repurchase agreements and similar transactions and didn’t find more errors. The mistakes didn’t affect credit ratings or management compensation, hide any failure to meet analysts’ consensus estimates, “mask” other trends or put the bank out of compliance with loan and capital requirements, the bank said.

Bank of America was led by Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis from 2001 through the end of 2009, when he retired and was succeeded by Brian Moynihan. In January, Moynihan moved Joe Price, the chief financial officer since January 2007, to run the company’s consumer banking unit. In May, the bank hired former Northrup Grumman Corp. executive Charles Noski as CFO.

The bank transferred mortgage-backed securities to a trading partner with the idea of receiving different securities later and classifying the deals as sales, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. The securities the bank received were similar to those it got rid of, meaning the transactions can’t be considered sales, the newspaper said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net David Mildenberg in Charlotte at dmildenberg@bloomberg.net
MSoliman, on July 10, 2010 at 6:25 am said:

Partial Victory in SB 1137 Case June 7, 2010 Liz Freeman
in Compliance BulletinCompliance BulletinsPublic
June 7, 2010
Comments by M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com

The recent June ruling by the California Court of Appeals renders its decision in a lawsuit filed contending section 2923.5, which was codified by SB1137 in 2008. SB1137 was enacted in response to the significant rise in residential mortgage foreclosures due to the financial crisis.

In arguments the primary purpose of the statute was to require mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, or their authorized agents (hereafter, “lenders”) to explore alternatives to foreclosure with their borrowers before filing a notice of default.

The primary mechanism established was the requirement by the lender to wait 30 days after contacting the borrower (or 30 days after satisfying specified due diligence requirements) before filing the NOD.

The borrowers in this case, who seek to act on behalf of a class of similar plaintiffs, sued Aurora Loan Services to prevent foreclosure on the grounds that it did not comply with Section 2923.5.

In particular, the borrowers alleged that Aurora failed to describe specifically how it attempted to contact them (Aurora used generic language indicating compliance with Section 2923.5) and failed to certify that the declaration was made under penalty of perjury.

The trial court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction based on the allegation that Aurora did not contact the borrowers as required (the facts are in dispute), but later ruled that the suit was preempted by federal law (Aurora is a subsidiary of a federal savings association), and that plaintiffs were required to tender the full amount of the deficiency as a prerequisite to bringing an action under Section 2923.5.

CBA filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Aurora on the issues of private right of action, specificity of specificity, and the alleged penalty of perjury requirement. Last week, the Appellate Court rendered its decision.

The following is a summary of that decision.

Private right of action. Section 2923.5 does not provide that a private right of action to enforce the statute is either allowed or disallowed. In finding that plaintiffs may sue to enforce compliance with Section 2923.5, the Court relied on the disputed precedents that a private right of action may inhere within a statute when such a right is necessary to achieve the statute’s policy objectives.

It noted that the 2923.5 is imbedded within a series of statutes (from Section 2924, together with Sections 2924a through 2924l) in connection with rules involving foreclosure.

Section 2924g(c)(1)(A) sets forth the grounds for postponement of foreclosure sales, and includes the possibility that a court may issue an order postponing sale.

Reading the two statutes together, the Court held that Section 2923.5 allows a remedy of postponement of foreclosure. As the right conferred by Section 2923.5 is for the borrower to be contacted to assess and explore alternatives to foreclosure, it would defeat the purpose of the statute to require the borrower to tender payment as a condition of enforcement.

Therefore, no tender is required.

The Court did not adopt authority supporting the proposition that if a defaulting borrower requests a court to exercise its equitable powers to stop or set aside foreclosure proceedings, the borrower must first “do equity” by tendering the entire loan amount prior to the sale.

The Court also did not respond to the argument that, even if there was a violation, borrowers could not demonstrate what harm is caused.

However, the Court did hold that an action may not be brought under Section 2923.5 as a class action because the question of the adequacy of the attempted or actual contacts is fact-specific.

That is, they differ from one member of the class to the next. Thus, it would be nearly impossible to determine whether a lender complied with the contact requirement in any specific instance without an examination of individual claims separately.

This is an important holding, as viewed by the banking community as it removes much of the incentives and leverage that plaintiffs attorneys need in order to bring these suits.

Preemption. The Appellate Court rejected Aurora’s argument that Section 2923.5 is federally preempted as to a subsidiary of a federal savings association. As the statute is narrowly drawn, the industry did not discuss preemption when the bill was negotiated in the Legislature. Real property law has traditionally been the exclusive domain of the states, and the Appellate Court did not find any specific provision in the Home Owners’ Loan Act that indicated a legislative intent that the federal law of thrifts preempts state laws on foreclosure procedures.

The Court arrived at this conclusion in the face of OTS regulations that could easily be construed to preempt Section 2923.5. 12 CFR Section 560.2 lists numerous categories of state laws that are preempted. The Court reasoned weakly that 2923.5 did not require lenders to engage in any of these activities, only that they contact borrowers, assess their condition, and explore other options.

However, the Court suggested that an action brought under 2923.5 could be deemed preempted to the extent that expansive remedies are sought beyond simply “assessing” and “exploring” alternatives to foreclosure. For example, the Court considered an action under 2923.5 not to survive a preemption challenge if the borrower sought to compel the lender to consider a new loan application or provide loan counseling, as those are preempted servicing and origination activities.

Specificity of declaration. The Appellate Court agreed with CBA’s argument that the mandatory declaration need only track the language of Section 2923.5(b) and need not delineate precisely how any particular means of contacting the borrower was attempted. From a practical standpoint, the Court recognized that different, multiple persons may be involved in contacting borrowers and preparing declarations, making it unlikely that the Legislature intended that each declaration is required to be custom drafted.

The upshot is that, because an action under Section 2923.5 may not be brought as a class action, and the only remedy is a delay of foreclosure until the contact and other requirements are satisfied, plaintiffs counsel will have less incentive to bring these actions in the future.

This is the text of Aurora’s statement: “The Beneficiary or its designated agent declares that it has contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by California Civil Code section 2923.5, or the borrower has surrendered the property to the beneficiary or authorized agent, or is otherwise exempt from the requirements of section 2923.5.”

© This CBA Regulatory Compliance Bulletin is copyrighted by the California Bankers Association, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the prior written consent of CBA.
Alina, on July 9, 2010 at 11:13 am said:

Marcus,

In Florida, a retired judge has the same authority as an elected judge. We used a retired judge for all our eminent domain cases in Orange County because the case load was very high.
marcus, on July 9, 2010 at 9:15 am said:

Rocket Docket Spreading Across Florida
I have noticed that a lot of counties are now bringing retired judges to hear foreclosure cases. If you witness some of the proceedings you will see that justice is not served. Most of time the judge has no knowledge of the case and entirely rely on the oral argument of whom ever happened to be present. He rules with no evidence to support the decision. I am wondering if the order of a retired judge is legally binding; after all he/she is not elected by the people.
Instead of seeking real solution to the crisis, they are taking the easy road of speed at the expense of justice.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on July 7, 2010 at 2:19 pm said:

Palm Beach County Courts Hire Foreclosure Help
Source: South Florida Business Journal
07/07/10

With nearly 53,000 pending foreclosures clogging the courts, Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller Sharon Bock is beefing up her payroll.

The clerk said the court will hire as many as 15 temporary employees devoted solely to helping clear a backlog of foreclosure cases.

The clerk’s office is using $403,000 it received from the Florida Legislature to hire the temporary helpers. Each of the state’s 67 clerks received a share of $3.6 million the Legislature appropriated earlier this year to help Florida’s courts speed up its handling of foreclosure cases.

All the temporary posts are expected to be filled by week’s end.

Bock said the additional funding still falls short of covering the full cost of processing foreclosure cases in Palm Beach County. She estimated the state’s cash would cover about 16 percent, or 8,400 foreclosures.

“We’re grateful for the money to hire additional employees,” Bock said in a statement. “However, a one-time appropriation is not a long-term solution to the crippling backlog we’ve seen in our courts.”

After foreclosure judgments are entered, each case requires an average of two hours of additional staff time to complete the paperwork. Then, in about a quarter of the cases, foreclosure sales are canceled and reset, which requires clerks to repeat much of the same work.

“We’re going to do the best we can to work quickly,” Bock said. “However, people must understand that the role Florida’s clerks play in handling these foreclosure cases is complex and involves multiple steps.”

Florida’s foreclosure crisis has hammered courts at the same time as many courts faced budget cuts. The Palm Beach County clerk’s office saw $7.1 million in budget cuts last year, prompting the elimination of 109 jobs. Bock estimated that her office faces a $3.2 million budget gap in the current fiscal year.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on July 5, 2010 at 12:37 pm said:

A Must Watch for Everyone

outstanding!! Indymac, OneWest & FDIC
M.Soliman, on June 28, 2010 at 3:21 am said:

Comments: The beginning of the fraud was pre-closing and closing of the loans prior to securitization.

Soliman – Forget the servicing, pooling and salvaging agreement. Its got nothing to do with securities. Claims are liited to the loan that was sold and that is that.

Whats sold is lost forever to the seller. So who is foreclosing on you?

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
M.Soliman, on June 28, 2010 at 3:15 am said:

We continue to conduct foreclosureinfosearch (LOL) into how lenders legitimize their actions versus uncovering the fraud. What I have seen or attest to know, so shall I witness and that is what I publish.

Upon reflecting I came up with a few interesting moments:

• A chain of title after the fact showing the foreclosing parties Deutsche Bank as the buyer and the foreclosed party as the seller on the date of the alleged auction.

•In trial a major lenders counsel questions a RE Broker (what) on the witness stand for 30 minutes before being asked to sit down by the presiding judge. The Homeowner as Plaintiff won.

•Upon testifying being asked by how the court can be certain the lender was not ripped off.

•A trustee’s sale where a county crier comes out and calls out the property address and asks for bids and while bids are made the person runs back into his office and locks the door.

•Seeing a borrowers transfer the lenders interest out of the lenders name and the court refusing to allow a lender to transfer title back to itself.

It’s a fact the practices and procedures in foreclosure are tainted and deceptive. A loan sold by the lender, a member bank, is conditioned by a repurchase, precedent to making any offers to assist a borrower in default..

Now you can see why so many modifications fail!

My years in this industry have shown where YOU must determine where the lenders actions are verifiably wrongful, impossible and willfully act against the consumers and investors best interest.

There is your opening and defense against a wrongful foreclsoure.

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Abby in CA, on June 25, 2010 at 1:42 pm said:

Bedbugs attacking Goldman Sachs employees!!

Huffington Post under the Goldman Sachs tab has the story about the bedbugs!! Floors have had to be evacuated, dogs who sniff out the bugs brought in, major spraying!!

Let’s hope the bedbugs are spray resistant!!
Abby in CA, on June 24, 2010 at 10:12 am said:

UPDATE -New Century – Home123 Corp bankruptcy chapter 11 — case 07-10416 (KJC)

from this mornings hearing: the judge and the trustee in this case are now worried about a ‘floodgate’ opening for a slew of homeowners victimized by the predatory lender (originator) New Century Mortgage or Home123 Corporation, who may file APs or Adversary Proceedings alleging TILA, fraud, fraudulent transfers, RESPA etc.

There are over 7 pro se’s now who have filed APs up there in New Century-Home123 bankrupcty case. There may be more that are unknown to me.

We have success with late filed Proof of Claims. Since most homeowners did not even know of the fraudulent and predatory acts by New Century or Home123 Corp until well after New Century-Home123 declared their bankruptcy on 4-02-2007. I don’t think any homeowner was paying attention to whether or not New Century-Home123 declared their bankruptcy. We’ve been filing Motions to Accept Late Filed Proof of Claims.

MY advice to ANY homeowner victimized by New Century or Home123 Corp is to consult an attorney and consider filing
an AP or Adversary Proceeding up in their bankruptcy case immediately.

In a prior hearing it was discussed that the bankruptcy case still has around $140 million dollars and that possibly more $$ might be coming from the New Century bankruptcy trustee’s 2 cases against KPMG (the auditor of New Century). The cases are billion dollar cases.

Negotiations between the trustee and the larger creditors is ongoing with settlement details not discussed in hearings.

Strongly advise victims of this predatory lender to contact reputable attorney to discuss APs.

The beginning of the fraud was pre-closing and closing of the loans prior to securitization.
Don-CA, on June 22, 2010 at 11:16 am said:

Did you see this one:

FROM CALIFORNIA ATTY. GENERAL BROWN re: foreclosure and mortgage servicing fraud

Brown Issues Warning about Rise of Foreclosure and Mortgage Servicing Fraud…

Wanna bet this will NEVER happen….
ALLAN (with the FBI's 2009 Report On Mortgage Fraud), on June 20, 2010 at 1:38 pm said:

Great graphics and stats and overall comprehensive report, but WHAT has the FBI done when we’ve complained to them about mortgage fraud?

Does the FBI even have a category for what we are experiencing at the hands of the creative gap-filling “due diligence” firms in the employ of the defrauding foreclosure mills?

(Aside to MSoliman: where can I find me a structured fiance’?)

RSVP
ALLAN
BeMoved@AOL.com
Abby in CA, on June 17, 2010 at 2:25 pm said:

FROM CALIFORNIA ATTY. GENERAL BROWN re: short sales

News Release
June 17, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: (510) 622-4500
Contact: Christine Gasparac or Evan Westrup, (510) 622-4500
Christine.Gasparac@doj.ca.gov or Evan.Westrup@doj.ca.gov
Print Version

Brown Issues Warning about Rise of Short Sale Fraud

LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today joined the California Department of Real Estate and the State Bar of California to warn homeowners about an alarming rise in short sale fraud across California in a field “rife with scam artists”.

A short sale is an arrangement in which a homeowner sells his or her home for less than the outstanding mortgage, with the consent of the lender.

“While short sales can provide homeowners with a last-ditch alternative to foreclosure, this market is rife with scam artists,” Brown said. “Homeowners and buyers, agents, and lenders should beware of short sale negotiators who operate without licenses, use straw buyers or charge illegal fees.”

With so many homeowners now considering short sales, an entire industry of so-called short sale negotiators has emerged. These individuals solicit homeowners by promising to expedite the process and help coax lenders into taking part in the transaction.

The Department of Real Estate is investigating more than 40 complaints of short sale fraud, up from “virtually zero” cases only three months ago, a spokesman said.

In April, the Obama administration launched a new initiative called the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program, which encourages homeowners in financial distress — especially those who have failed to complete a trial modification or qualify for a loan modification — to consider a short sale as an alternative to foreclosure.

Before working with — or paying — any short sale negotiator, homeowners should consider the following red flags:

No license
With limited exceptions, only licensed real estate agents or attorneys can engage in short sale negotiations with a homeowner’s lender.

Up-front fees
Licensed real estate agents wishing to collect up-front fees from homeowners for short sale transactions must first submit an advance fee contract to the Department of Real Estate and receive a no-objection letter.

Surcharges
With many distressed properties listed well below market value, negotiators and agents are charging potential buyers thousands of dollars in surcharges and hidden fees just to place an offer on a home. These illegal fees are frequently not disclosed and are paid outside escrow.

Straw buyers and house flipping
In this scheme, short sale negotiators misrepresent the market value of a property to a homeowner’s lender by only submitting offers on the property from an affiliated straw buyer. After the home is purchased below market value, the fraudsters immediately flip it and pocket the difference.

Short sale negotiators and agents use a number of titles including debt negotiator, debt resolution expert, loss mitigation practitioner, foreclosure rescue negotiator, short sale processor, short sale coordinator and short sale expeditor.

If you are a homeowner who has been scammed, contact Brown’s office at 1-800-952-5225 or file a complaint online at: http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php

.

Homeowners can also learn more about avoiding mortgage and real estate fraud by visiting the Department of Real Estate website at: http://www.dre.ca.gov/cons_alerts.html

. A complaint form can be accessed online at: http://www.dre.ca.gov/frm_consumer.html

.

“Short sale fraud appears to be the fraud of the moment, and it is proliferating statewide,” according to Real Estate Commissioner Jeff Davi. “Consumers, licensees and lenders must all arm themselves with the tools necessary to avoid such scams.”

Homeowners can file a complaint against a lawyer, a legal specialist or a company purporting to operate as a law firm with the State Bar by calling 1-800-843-9053 or visiting: http://www.calbar.ca.gov

.

Homeowners can learn more about the federal government’s Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program by visiting: http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/hafa.html

.

Non-profit housing counselors certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are also available to provide free help to homeowners. To find a counselor in your area, call 1-800-569-4287.

For more information on Brown’s work against loan-modification fraud visit: http://ag.ca.gov/loanmod
jeff, on June 10, 2010 at 8:33 pm said:

House Targets Underwater Homeowners
First Posted: 06-10-10 02:24 PM | Updated: 06-10-10 03:21 PM

The House GOP launched an assault Thursday on homeowners who walk away from underwater mortgages, arguing that such foreclosed-on former homeowners are using the money they save to dine out and go on cruises.

“The Wall Street Journal has reported on families that have chosen to stop paying their mortgage and instead use the extra money they are saving each month to ‘buy season tickets to Disneyland…take a Carnival cruise to Mexico…’ and go out to dinner more often,” says House Republican leadership in an e-mail to colleagues explaining the anti-strategic-default effort.

In other words, consumers with more money tend to spend it, spurring demand — exactly what the economy needs. More than a few economists argue that the ongoing jobless crisis is a direct result of a lack of consumer demand. A homeowner stuck in an underwater mortgage is, each month, paying off a mortgage that is worth more than their home. The increased cost of housing means that money that could otherwise could be circulated through the economy – at restaurants, Disneyland, or on cruises, for instance – is sent off to Wall Street, whose profits have been soaring despite the economic downturn.

The GOP offered its provision as “motion to recommit,” which is one of the minority party’s few ways to amend a bill on the floor. Known as an MTR, the motion is generally stripped out in the Senate if it is adopted in the House. Such measures are put forward more to score political points than to craft policy, but the mood of the House can sometimes be gleaned from the vote’s outcome. In this case, Democrats chose not to fight, and accepted the motion with a simple voice vote.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com and an adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, says that strategically defaulting is “a form of stimulus, a little tax cut.” Estimates of the number of homeowners are underwater range from 10 to 15 million.

Dean Baker, an economist with the progressive-leaning Center for Economic Policy and Research, agreed that strategic defaults are good for the economy, but also noted the irony that the GOP effort interferes with the market.

When Democrats were pushing to enact “cram down,” which would allow judges to rewrite mortgage contracts in bankruptcy court, conservative Democrats and the GOP argued that it would violate the “sanctity of the contract.”

Story continues belowThere is only sanctity, however, for one side of that contract. “It also disgusts me that the Republicans would use Big Government to interfere with the sanctity of contract,” said Baker in an e-mail. “Those who do a strategic default are complying with their contract. The deal was that the banks get back the house if the homeowner doesn’t pay the mortgage. Now, the Republicans are arguing that the nanny state has to look out for the little boys and girls at the big banks who are too dumb to understand contracts. They are going to use the power of the government to punish people because they acted on the terms of the contract to the disadvantage of the banks.”

Baker said that the GOP position should put to a rest the assumption that liberals favor big government while conservatives favor free markets. He doubted that it would, however.

“It’s kind of an overreach by the federal government, isn’t it?” teased Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the Education & Labor Committee, when told of the GOP motion. He said he hadn’t been aware of the voice vote, but said he was sure it wouldn’t become law. The motion, he said, is indicative of GOP priorities.

“They’re back to punishing the poor guy that got stuck with the subprime mortgage and we haven’t yet figured out what to do with the people who gave them the mortgage,” said Miller.

This story has been updated to include the Democratic acceptance of the MTR.

Read the GOP memo on their motion to recommit:

From: Vieson, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:15 AM Subject: WHIP LD Alert: Republican Motion to Recommit FHA Reform

The Republican Motion to Recommit H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act, would amend the bill to prohibit individuals who strategically default on their mortgage from accessing the FHA program and protect taxpayers from financing a bailout of FHA programs.

Strategic Defaults

A strategic default occurs when a borrower decides to stop paying their mortgage even though they can still afford their payments. It is usually undertaken by those who owe more on their mortgage than their home is currently worth.

The Wall Street Journal has reported on families that have chosen to stop paying their mortgage and instead use the extra money they are saving each month to “buy season tickets to Disneyland…take a Carnival cruise to Mexico…” and go out to dinner more often.

Companies have even sprung up to capitalize on the new trend with websites advising people (for a fee) on how to go about a strategic default. These companies actually advertise that after a few years an individual who chooses to default on their mortgage should be able to buy a home again, including through government loan agencies.

60 Minutes reported on individuals who defend their decision to strategically default saying, “…with the money savings that I will have in four to six years, I’m confident I’ll have money to buy my way into a house if I want to.”

Strategic defaults raise costs for responsible borrowers, many of whom may currently be struggling to make their mortgage payment themselves, but who take their obligations to pay their debts seriously. The MTR would ensure that no one who chooses to simply stop paying their mortgage, even though they can afford to do so, is able to benefit in the future from the government’s FHA program.

Future Bail-Outs

The Republican motion also protects American taxpayers from possible future bailouts of FHA programs. Washington currently has a bailout culture at the expense of hard-working Americans and this MTR puts into place protections against FHA receiving a taxpayer-backed bailout.

The Republican MTR is a vote to expose and prevent fraud and abuse from FHA and protect the American taxpayer from another Washington bailout.
Abby in CA, on June 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm said:

MORE FRAUDSTERS CAUGHT BY CALIF ATTY GENERAL BROWN!!!

News Release
June 09, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: (510) 622-4500
Contact: Christine Gasparac or Evan Westrup, (510) 622-4500
Christine.Gasparac@doj.ca.gov or Evan.Westrup@doj.ca.gov
Print Version

Three More Suspects Nabbed in Million-Dollar Bait-and-Switch Home Refinance Scam

LOS ANGELES – In a continuing probe into a defunct Southern California mortgage brokerage, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced the arrests of president and co-owner Sean McConville and two associates who used “deceptive promises and forged documents” to steal almost $1 million from homeowners falsely guaranteed attractive home loan refinancing packages.

“These criminals employed a classic bait-and-switch in their refinance scheme,” Brown said. “With deceptive promises and forged documents, they maliciously cheated homeowners who trusted them and just wanted a fair deal.”

Brown’s office initiated its investigation in October 2008 in response to more than 70 complaints against the defendants and their mortgage brokerage business, ALG Capital, Inc. The brokerage operated out of Calabasas from early 2006 until late 2007 and then moved to Mission Hills until it shut its doors in 2008.

Brown’s investigation found that f! rom April 2007 to October 2008, the owners and their associates lured dozens of borrowers into refinancing home loans by falsely promising low interest rates, minimal broker fees and other attractive terms. The brokerage then negotiated different terms with lenders.

When homeowners were presented with closing documents, they bore the terms promised, but which the lenders never approved. After homeowners signed the closing documents, key pages were removed and replaced with pages bearing the terms that the lender had actually agreed to. The homeowners’ signatures were then forged on the replacement pages, and ALG forwarded the forged documents to the escrow company.

Homeowners only discovered they had been defrauded when they received the final loan documents with the true terms and their signatures forged on closing cost disclosures, Truth-in-Lending disclosures, loan applications and other documents.

Additionally, ALG collected al! most $1 million in undisclosed fees, charging homeowners up to! $57,000 in broker fees. In total, dozens of homeowners were locked into almost $30 million in loans with terms they did not agree to.

As a result of this scheme, many homeowners were forced to sell their homes, come out of retirement, or tap retirement savings. Others paid significant prepayment penalties, including over $21,000 in one case. Borrowers also rarely received the large cash-outs they were promised as part of the refinance.

Sean McConville, 30, of Austin, Texas, president and co-owner of the brokerage, was arrested early yesterday morning at his residence. He is being held at the Travis County Jail in Texas pending extradition. He was previously convicted of robbery in November 1997.

Matthew Bourgo, 27, of Thousand Oaks, who posed as a licensed notary for the brokerage, was arrested yesterday afternoon at his residence. He is being held in Ventura County Jail and will be transferred to Los Angeles County.
Joseph Nguyen, 37, of Woodland Hills, a former loan officer for the brokerage, was also arrested yesterday afternoon at his business, where he worked as a chiropractor. He is being held by authorities in Los Angeles County.

The suspects are each being held on $29.5 million bail.

In September 2009, Brown’s office arrested three others involved in the bait-and-switch scam, including Michael McConville, 32, of Simi Valley, Sean’s brother and co-owner of the brokerage, Alan Ruiz, 29, of Huntington Beach, a former loan officer and Garrett Holdridge, 24, of Palmdale, who was convicted of seven felonies in March for his involvement in the scam.

Investigators located victims in dozens of California cities, including: Auburn, Altadena, Arroyo Grande, Azusa, Bakersfield, Berkeley, Burbank, Calabasas, Castro Valley, Chino, Compton, Corona, Fairfield, Fontana, Fremont, Fresno, Garden Grove, Glendale, Hemet, Highland, Huntington Beach, La Habra! , La Mesa, La Mirada, La Quinta, Lancaster, Livermore , Los Angeles, Lo! ng Beach, Manteca, Martinez, Monterey, Murrieta, Nice, Northridge, Oakland, Ontario, Palmdale, Pasadena, Perris, Petaluma, Pomona, Quartz Hill, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Reedley, Rialto, Sacramento, San Clemente, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Sierra Madre, Spring Valley, Stanton, Temecula, Whittier, and Winnetka.

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, includes the following charges: 38 counts of grand theft, 19 counts of forgery, three counts of elder abuse, and one count of conspiracy to commit grand theft.

Brown also filed suit against the McConville brothers in May 2009 for running a property tax reassessment scam which targeted Californians looking to lower their property taxes. The brothers billed tens of thousands of homeowners throughout California nearly $200 each for property tax reassessment services that were almost never performed and are available free of charge from local tax assessors.
# # #

You may view the full account of this posting, including possible attachments, in the News & Alerts section of our website at: http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1933
marcus, on June 9, 2010 at 11:46 am said:

Another reason to fight your foreclosure. These banksters really got some nerve…
—————-
Source: RISMedia (06/08/10)
Lenders Warn Foreclosure May End in Lawsuit
The housing crisis will spark a wave of lawsuits filed by lenders seeking to recoup loses on home sales and foreclosure auctions that do not return enough money to pay the mortgages in full, according to real estate and legal experts.
Experts predict that mortgage companies will begin to sue home owners in the next two years, including borrowers who ransack a house that has been lost to foreclosure and those who walk away from “underwater mortgages,” with hopes of discouraging others from such behavior.

Lenders are unlikely to target borrowers who negotiate in good faith or have defaulted on their home due to job loss or other unforeseen circumstances; other borrowers could be hounded by collection agencies that have purchased their mortgage debt from their lender.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
jeff, on June 9, 2010 at 8:16 am said:

WAMU APPRAISAL FRAUD

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_04868.htm
MSoliman, on June 8, 2010 at 2:23 am said:

No Foreclosure No Way Possible . . .that means they cannot recover losses by liquidating the subject property as in a foreclosure.
By MSoliman

Los Angeles/June 8th 2010 —I am often reminded by the claims of soured borrowers that a lender took advantage of them. The court said you took the loan correct?

It is so important to remain grounded and to continue to study research and better articulate claims that the lender cannot foreclose. Remeber your the holder of title in fee and must protect title from adverse claims and alienation.

First there are accounting rules that make it near impossible for a pristine clinical approach to structured fiancé to survive the various rules, amendments and other conditions for which a Trust can survive and foreclose on a borrower.

This is a tricky maneuver which establishes a basis in assets held and that employs gain on sale accounting. The evidence for laying claims in this one area deal with the FASB and the SEC staffs (EITF D-69) determination that gain (or loss) on sale accounting is not elective in a securitization that is accounted for as a sale. This is damaging to a lender who will have to explain how the withheld the assignment under a claim of changing accounting policies to benefit earnings, delinquency reporting and finally foreclosure.

How to consolidate and realize losses are another issue and the timing of such may be a monumental SEC violation for manipulative reporting of earnings and losses. Here is where prepayment, loss or discount rate assumptions may not be tailored so as to force a zero gain. In order to report zero up-front gain, the securitization must therefore be structured as a financing rather than a sale in virtually every case.

Little if any press or mention is given to derecognition which will become lost to the registrant lenders reporting subject to having to restate. Herein is where off balance sheet financing “gimmicks” were disastrously employed and required the Federal Savings Bank to release its rights to collateral and recovery.

Translated that means they cannot recover losses by liquidating the subject property as in a foreclosure.

What they received was valuable shares of stock and capital received from the sale of that stock which is now valued at market. In other words the stock is worthless.

A lender will jump back in and be portray to foreclose it does so in a secretive and deceptive manner employing debt collectors and agents in lieu of a fiduciary such as a trustee.

In doing so it believes it can reverse the structured financing arrangement and return the purchase and sale format into a subprime mortgage lending platform now solely designed to foreclose and replace defaulted consumers with new borrowers.

Call a qualified CPA and get the facts. Our take on all this is “No Can Do!”

MSoliman
Mail to: expert.witness@live.com
Mike, on June 5, 2010 at 9:35 am said:

Hello Mr. Garfield and/or anyone else having opinion.

I brought suit over a year ago in Seattle to enjoin the sale of my home. The suit named Wamu, Chase and Deutsche Bank. I gained a TRO through my local small town court, no problem.. And then the case was quickly removed to a Federal setting.. The Federal judge did not care one lick that the bank’s could not produce the note.. That was the end of my case.. but in this non-judicial state, the 120 day rule to foreclose was exceeded resulting in the sale being canceled – good for me for a while..

Next, I filed Chapter 11 stopping the next sale and then changed my mind and ended up not following through with the chap. 11, which bought me another 5 months…

Now the vultures are again knocking on my door, taking drive by photo’s and posting recycled paper on my door.. yikes.

My question for anyone is.. How best to proceed? I guess I could file chapter 11 again giving me time to collecct my BK documents.. (another temp. fix) or bring suit again..

If I were to bring suit again.. How can I keep the case out of Federal court? That is my main question. I have downloaded Mr. Garfields Objection letter which is a good launching point for a pro se guy like me going it alone and trying to draft up a complaint..

Any and all input graciously accepted..

Thank you for an excellent website and resources..
Gregory, on June 4, 2010 at 1:24 am said:

I recently logged into Pacer and I downloaded a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case where the debtor owns 9 homes from California to New York. The Bankruptcy Judge approved his Chapter 11 Plan which allowed the debtor to Strip Away the unsecured amounts of his mortgage loans. His 1st, 2nd and 3rd TD notes to the fair market value of his properties. Also allowed him to pay 2% interest only payments on the reduced principal amounts for 5 years and then the post I/O payments after 5 years are increased to 4% for 40 years. The unsecured amounts of the Strip Away the debtor pays zero. Therefore the 2nd gets nothing, the 3rd gets nothing and even the 1st is reduced to the fair market value.
The Case number is 08-bk-16828-MT filed on 09/10/2008 in California.
MSoliman, on June 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm said:

Lisa D., on June 1, 2010 at 5:40 am Said:
MSoliman,Subpoena who’s General Ledger … the Originator? The Trustee/Trust, the Servicer/Master Servicer, the Seller, the Depositor???

Good question. In fact I have not done this for a while . OUTSTANDING QUESTION ! As JFK would say…”let me say this about that!”

The originator is the lender then seller and then the depsoitor. The trust is a pass through so no trustee or master servicing agent to account for.

MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman, on June 3, 2010 at 6:34 pm said:

TILA violations are a tort and civil violation subject to penalties and other awards. The “recession is a suckers play whereby the lender has an out under a statute of limitations.

I’ll give you a ten day rescission right now…how will you tender the balance due to restore the parties to the time of the origination.

I am stuck on the appellate courts comments when denying these cases. (Remember, my deposition in a similar case) before the CA appellate court was enough to grant t a trial.

I have won my share of cases I was retained or allowed to consult counsel before testifying. There more than any attorney acting alone that I am aware of.

At a scheduled hearing I went to a hearing last week we had one calendared for the third time since the sale last November. Hmmmmmm.

At the other, the judge called out to the attendees asking for no more than 15 minutes. We went over an hour and my testimony was heard; the defense fought hard while in the wrong jurisdiction. The loss was inevitable due to lack of jurisdiction.

The comments made by the court are woefully sufficient to appeal due to jurisdiction over issues such as arguments the court should not have allowed introduced, Judges Lack of understanding by his own admission and plaintiff perjuring himself before the court. Oh yes, that attorney will see us again and have explaining to do I can assure you.

Collection companies reposes cars get it – not homes. They are debt collectors stepping in for the servicing agents hand off as called for in the indenture. What genius has allowed them to pursue a fiduciary role in a trustee sale? Really, the things I hear and read and the “gems” that get left out a re mindboggling.

I think the judges facial expressions told us he was begging to get the matter out of his courtroom. This is a general ledger matter and case of wrongfully prosecuting the terms of a note lost to the originator.

Here is a little freebie:

•Loans Held – Loans on Line = Gain / Loss on Sale.
•Loans Held – Loans on Line = Basis in Assets and Contribution value

I recently heard someone at the hamburger Hamlet say “make him stop? Why….why? Want to know the only was a lender can circumvent the above accounting representation? Get out of here, go away!

Lending cannot support financing gimmicks such as derecognition and provide a lender the basis in the asset underwritten solely to contribute to a denovo. Basis accounting, De novo and contribution value- still do not understand? Ask one of the other experts will you or your RESPA auditor (What is a forensic RESPA auditor . . . WTF)

Do you realize these loans were traded for securities 10 times their value and used as a depositor base for “other” preferable lending opportunities by the big three lenders? You (borrowers were nothing more than a source of capital that was tenfold the CD market and borrowers paid for their cost of capital.

Don’t like what you hear now. Then just turn it off as a TILA argument seeking rescission won’t help you ….AT ALL. It’s called mutual culpability. Instead of loving this fight and defending title you’re looking for a break no one else can find.

The lender is the servicing agent and cannot influence control over the asset sold as cannot the lender. Their willingness to circumvent the accounting rules FAS 140 (Enron) are subject to a dangerous confidence the public and courts cannot understand the relevance of complex financial structure. Judge Boyko decision and the recent findings of the audit of Lehman Bros. federal investigation yield the same arguments I’ve made since 2002.
But both miss the brass ring. The delayed assignments by MERS allows for their critical component of so called self insured risk mitigation.

They can add and subtract loans at will and maintain a zero delinquency in a robust market. Everyone in foreclosure just happens to be an asset owned by the foreclosing bank. Everyone else paying on time is a sold asset.
Get their Chief Financial Officer in a deposition and that person will incriminate himself and the company. I will force them into a difficult situation causing them to perjure themselves or to incriminate their firms.

I don’t see any of these attorneys who get it. I know what I am saying here.

M.Soliman
Expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman, on June 3, 2010 at 10:07 am said:

A side bar to Attorneys that get it,

Attorneys require the use of an expert. Your expert MUST be capable of having lived through the isuues surrounding the problems that end up in court.

Case law and theory wont cut it. An audit is a
Neil Garfield, on June 2, 2010 at 6:45 am said:

Marcus: Thanks for your opinion. I just want to make it clear that I cannot vouch for some of these attorneys. I also want to say that there are many more. My experience with George Gingo has been excellent and from what I have seen, I agree completely that Matt Weidner is a person who “Gets it” and a person to go to.
marcus, on June 1, 2010 at 2:26 pm said:

Top Florida Foreclosure Defense Attorneys

* Matt Weidner P.A
* Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk PL
* Ice Legal P.A
* Jon B. Coats Jr. P.A
* George M. Gingo P.A
* Stopa Law Firm

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Lisa D., on June 1, 2010 at 5:40 am said:

MSoliman,

Subpoena who’s General Ledger … the Originator? The Trustee/Trust, the Servicer/Master Servicer, the Seller, the Depositor???
MSoliman, on June 1, 2010 at 3:07 am said:

A good defense has nothing to do what so ever with winning back a home you stopped making payments on. FAS 140 are straightforward rules stating a transferor may only derecognize a financial asset, or a component of a financial asset, if it has surrendered ‘control’ over it.

Know this – upon de-recognition, a gain or loss is recognized for the difference between the carrying amount of the transferred asset and the proceeds received in exchange. Subpeona the genreal ledger for crying out loud.

To avoid prosecution and criminal indictments by the SEC and under banking and general accounting rules these lenders are using clandestine and secretive means to foreclose through third parties such as MERS and collection agencies.

Veterans fought for democracy and justice is blind where not made to see the crime. Open your eyes first to the accounting fraud and back off the legal interpretation.

These courts and judges are CRYING out for a wining argument and there it is …use it!

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Abby in CA, on May 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm said:

Barclays Announces HomEq Servicing Sale to Ocwen

May 28, 2010

Barclays Bank has agreed to sell HomEq Servicing, its U.S. mortgage servicing business, to Ocwen Loan Servicing, a subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corp.

The sale is for a consideration of around $1.3 billion, payable in cash on completion. The consideration is subject to an adjustment mechanism based on the unpaid principal balance of the servicing portfolio and the value of certain other assets at completion of the transaction.

“After thorough review, we have determined that HomEq is no longer core to our strategy,” Brandon Ashcraft, Barclays spokesperson, said. He added that as part of this transaction, Barclays has secured an agreement with Ocwen that will enable the bank to leverage the Ocwen platform to provide mortgage servicing to its clients when required.

As part of the deal, Barclays has agreed to provide Ocwen with about $1.0 billion in secured financing and may assist Ocwen in raising added third-party financing. The sale’s completion is subject to customary conditions such as competition clearance and is expected to happen in the third quarter.

HomEq is the U.S. mortgage servicing business of Barclays Capital and services mortgages with an unpaid principal balance of around $28 billion as at March 31. The principal assets subject to the deal are the mortgage servicing rights and associated servicer advances, as well as the servicing platform based in Sacramento, California and Raleigh, North Carolina.

Subject to regulatory approval, the sale is expected to have a small positive impact on Barclays core tier one capital ratio, principally as a result of the release of capital deductions. The transaction is not expected to have a material impact on the bank’s earnings per share.

“Barclays Capital is committed to providing first-class products and capabilities to our clients worldwide,” said Tom Hamilton, securitized products trading head at Barclays Capital. “We look forward to continuing to serve our issuer and investor clients from our position as a leading underwriter and market maker of securitised products.”

Above from Structured Finance News
M.Soliman, on May 28, 2010 at 5:58 am said:

May 28, 2010

Mortgage Bankers Association
The MBA

Gentlemen;

FAS 140 and related summary, conditions and events under codification provides consistent standards for distinguishing transfers of financial assets that are treated to date as sales. This to avoid and differentiate the transfers deemd in reality secured borrowings.

No GAAP rules interpretation has ever received so much attention.

The new administration has done all they can to change the “sale” accounting rules under GAAP and various pronouncements made over a decade under FASB.

Specifically FAS 140 and SFAS 140 are my concerns with no mention here for revised rules and codification. Summary of Statement for Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities-a replacement of FASB Statement No. 125 (Issued 9/00)

This Statement revised from earlier standards for accounting for securitizations and other transfers of financial assets and collateral requires certain disclosures, carries over most of Statement 125′s provisions without reconsideration.

Again, we are talking about accounting and reporting standards for bulk asset transfers and servicing receivables whereby the logical accounting practices address offsetting value by liabilities.

(Financial Assets – Liabilities) = Net Value
—————————————-
Servicing Assets

Controversy surrounds what I opine are two debilitating factors cause for the implosion of the markets. First is dereconginition or for the extinguishments of liabilities based on consistent application of a financial-components approach second focuses on controlling interest in assets sold subsequent to transfer.

The MBA by its own admission clearly states no modifications are possible but fail to include foreclosure in this discussion. The feasibility or prohibition of one event is linked to the other.

If a QSPE ceases to be qualifying because it no longer meets the qualifying conditions in FAS 140, a transferor of the loans to the QSPE would be required to record a ‘repurchase’ of any remaining previously transferred loans to the QSPE and recognize any liabilities assumed.

The effect would be an expansion of the transferor’s balance sheet to include loans to which they no longer have legal title and liabilities they are not legally obligated to pay, with negative financial statement and regulatory capital implications for the company.

Consequently, if it were determined that estructurings of troubled loans would cause QSPEs to cease to be qualifying, mortgage servicers could be discouraged from restructuring loans that are expected to end up in foreclosure, to the disadvantage of transferors, servicers, investors, borrowers and communities

The first leg of the transfer has no accounting purpose what so ever. Gain on sale accounting consisting of a proverbial whole loan asset to cash transfer that requires a gain on sale treatment. Therein are the colorful concerns for the “missing” assignments which are mute to this discussion.

Subpoena the general ledger of the seller. The second leg of travel is the transferring of cash for securities which is what I believe is capitalization of new business segments using tax payer insured deposits.

Come on FDIC regulatory chiefs of staff. This is a monumental fraud and you’ve known about it. Upon any transfer of financial assets, an entity recognizes the financial and servicing assets it controls and the liabilities it has incurred, derecognizes financial assets when control has been surrendered, and derecognizes liabilities when extinguished.

Either a “Repo” exists needed to foreclose or no foreclosure is possible. The fact these moron attorneys and brokers are foreclosing will either bankrupt America or continue to foster secretive and fraudulent acts by the parties trying to back door the lender into the asset they lost at sale.

Please see the clandestine use of MERS and nominal benficiary arguments then see the cause and need to employ this fraud. These mortgages are charged and written down to zero and you cannot recover zero. So the collection agencies are picking up homes from homeowners being diverted by offers of modification and short sales. These homes are up for grams and only the Fee Title holders can fight from a position of strength and fend off adverse claims lacking merit.

How many homeowners went to their financial death not even knowing the strength of their arguments which were made over two years ago? How many?

You’re not using these obvious accounting rules to your benefit? FASB and the MBA have evidenced in wiring the acknowledgement a lender who sold the loan cannot foreclose on the borrower.

Foreclosure equates to major Bank Default while foreclosure restraint equal proper “sale” accounting compliance. Your using these MERS situational conditions and third parties sham sales should result in over one trillion being added to the balance sheets of America’s strongest banks due from recognition and that would spell complete financial disaster.

Servicing assets a servicing company owned by a lender and whereby it they both control the asset subsequent event means the liabilities must be incurred. Only upon release of the right to foreclose can the lender or NA continue to derecognize financial assets when control has been truly surrendered, and it derecognizes the liabilities when extinguished.

Respectfully;

M. Soliman
Witness to Counsel
Tel. 213-880-6288
Mail to:expert.witness@live.com

Only an licensed attorney can offer or provide legal advice. The parties herein accepts no responsibility for written material, general opinions, comments, open answers and non binding responses to questions when providing information.

Only an attorney licensed in the state can offer or provide legal advice.
Bankruptcy, on May 26, 2010 at 7:27 am said:

Very great article with lots of great information. The workshops that you’ll be having look excellent! I’ll be sure to find a way so i can get out to one of them. That’s very interesting and shocking that around 11 million households are in the position of being underwater! Hopefully that will change and things will get better.
Deontos, on May 26, 2010 at 7:07 am said:

Lack Of Evidence Of Individual’s Authority To Execute Assignment Of Mortgage Sinks Foreclosing Assignee In Attempt To Lift Stay In Ch. 13 Proceeding

Home Equity Theft Reporter
Wednesday, May 26, 2010

In a recent ruling by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Boston, Massachusetts, a foreclosing lender was denied relief from an automatic stay to foreclose on a mortgage. As the basis for its ruling, the court pointed to the failure of the foreclosing lender, Property Asset Management, Inc. (“PAM”), who purportedly acquired its interest in the mortgage via an assignment, to prove that the multiple-corporate-hat-wearing individual who executed the assignment on behalf of the assigning company had authority to do so.(1) Accordingly, the court found that the foreclosing lender failed in its burden of proving that it had authority to foreclose, standing to move for relief from the automatic stay, and therefore denied the lender’s motion for relief from the stay, without prejudice to renewal upon proper proof.

For the ruling, see In re: Moreno, Case No. 08-17715-FJB (Bankr. D. Mass., Eastern Div. May 24, 2010).

(1) In denying the lender’s motion for relief from the automatic stay, the court made the following analysis (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text):

* As the party seeking relief from stay to foreclose a mortgage on the debtor’s property, PAM bears the burden of proving that it has authority under applicable state law to foreclose the mortgage in question and, by virtue of that authority, standing to move for relief from the automatic stay to foreclose.

***

* To show that it presently holds the mortgage, PAM must show a valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS to itself. PAM contends that it holds the mortgage by assignment from MERS. Accordingly, PAM must show that the assignment, which was executed for MERS by Denise Bailey, was within the scope of Bailey’s limited authority to act for MERS.

* Ms. Bailey’s authority to act for MERS is defined in the MERS Authorization in seven enumerated paragraphs. In each, Ms. Bailey’s authority to act is dependent on the existence of a specified relationship of Litton, the MERS member by whom she is employed, to the loan in question. PAM has submitted no evidence of the existence of any such relationship. The beneficial owner of the loan at the time of the assignment was Aurora Bank FSB, but there is no evidence that Litton was at the time the servicer of the loan for Aurora Bank FSB or was registered with MERS as such.

* The Court does not find that Aurora Bank FSB had not retained Litton as its servicer; there is simply no evidence on the issue. But the burden is on PAM to prove that it had, and PAM has not adduced evidence to that effect.

* Accordingly, by a separate order, the Court will deny PAM’s motion for relief from the automatic stay without prejudice to renewal upon proper proof.
Deontos, on May 25, 2010 at 7:21 am said:

Ancient Historical Quote From Neil Garfield, circa June 30, 2009

“…… I think we will be seeing more from Judge Bailey but bravo to the Judge for being so insightful ……. ”

—————————————————-

via: Matt Weidner Blog:

BOMBSHELL- Miami Judge Sanctions Florida Default Law-Wipes Out Mortgage on Home

May 25th, 2010

FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW IS AMONG THE MOST RUTHLESS FORECLOSURE MILLS OPERATING ACROSS THE COUNTRY- THEY COMMIT GROSS ABUSES EVERY DAY IN COURTROOMS ALL ACROSS THE STATE- READ HOW ONE JUDGE HAS SANCTIONED

The full transcript can be found here:
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/transcriptmiami.pdf

FROM THE FLORIDA DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW- MAY 25, 2010

All Orlando Eslava wanted from his lender was a loan modification to make his payments affordable. Instead, he got his $207,000 mortgage wiped out — and a crash course in the confusing way foreclosures are unfolding in a court system chock-a-blocked with cases. The teacher was Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Bailey, who cancelled Eslava’s debt after lender HSBC Bank USA ignored her previous order to post a $414,000 bond. Bailey said the actions of William Huffman, HSBC’s lawyer from Tampa-based Florida Default Law Group, were “contemptuous,” according to a court hearing transcript.

HSBC’s run-in with Bailey began in December 2009 when she granted the lender’s motion for the foreclosure sale of Eslava’s one-bedroom unit at El Dorado Tower in Aventura. But HSBC lost the note on Eslava’s property.

So the judge ordered the lender to post a $414,000 bond to indemnify Eslava in case another lender filed a claim against the unit.

According to court records, HSBC and Florida Default
DID NOT POST THE BOND AND PROCEEDED WITH AN APRIL 9 FORECLOSURE sale that gave the lender title to the condo.

Eslava and his lawyer, Sheleen Khan, sought to overturn the sale, claiming the lender violated Bailey’s court order.

At a May 6 hearing, Bailey dismissed the foreclosure case with prejudice, which prevents the lender from suing Eslava again.

THE JUDGE ALSO CANCELED THE MORTGAGE and ordered HSBC to return title of the condo to Eslava.

“None of us is above the law,” Khan said. “This is a landmark ruling.”

In addition to canceling the mortgage, Bailey chastised Huffman, according to a transcript of the hearing obtained by The Daily Business Review. “When the order is simply ignored … at the end of the day, you’re the lawyer, you’re responsible,” she said. Bailey did not sanction Huffman but said he should consider her order a “wake-up call.”

“Some day, this foreclosure crisis is going to be over, and you need to decide what kind of lawyer you are going to be,” Bailey told him. “Because at the end of the day, you are responsible for your client’s compliance with court orders.” Huffman apologized. He said his client failed to post bond because he had misunderstood the order, according to the transcript. “I don’t want apologies,” Bailey replied. “I want performance. I want responsible attorneys who meet the basic standards of knowing what … is going on in their files.” Huffman did not return a telephone call or e-mail seeking comment. Bailey’s frustration with the lender and Florida Default weren’t limited to Eslava’s case. She complained about the general “chaos and disorganization” of lenders and their lawyers. Suzanne Hill, who represented Huffman and his firm at the hearing, said Florida Default was weighing its options, which include appealing Judge Bailey’s ruling or seeking a rehearing. Hill, who is with the law firm of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell in Tampa, declined further comment.

An attempt to buy time

Eslava, 53, a residential agent with Carden Realty & Investment in Sunny Isles Beach, says he fell behind on his $1,800 monthly mortgage payments when home sales plummeted in 2008 and commissions became scarce. He retained Sheleen Kahn two months before the foreclosure auction and says he never sought to get his mortgage canceled. He just wanted more time to negotiate with the lender. “I wanted to lower the payments because I want to keep my home … this is my home,” said Eslava. He said he spent thousands of dollars to repair the unit after it was damaged by Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

Last Nov. 6, months before the foreclosure auction, HSBC had placed Eslava into the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The lender reduced Eslava’s monthly payments from $1,800 to $620 and put him in a three-month trial. Under such a trial, the reduction is temporary and the bank uses the time to decide whether the borrower can afford to make the reduced payment over the long term. Eslava said he never heard back from the lender after the trial period expired. But he says he continued to send payments to HSBC of $620 a month. Despite making those payments, the bank sold his condo.

His isn’t an isolated case, according to those who work with distressed homeowners. “It is not infrequent,” said Arden Shank, executive director and president of Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida in Miami. “We worked with families who had that happen to them.” His organization receives public funding to help owners save their home from foreclosure.

The agency recently helped another family obtain a loan modification in Miami-Dade County, but the lender did not cancel the foreclosure sale. Four months ago, the family lost the house in an auction. They got the title back after Neighborhood Housing hired a lawyer who convinced a judge to overturn the sale. Shank said actions like that can undermine national efforts of programs like HAMP to keep homeowners in their homes. That was the case of Eslava.

“If lenders are implementing the HAMP program and then their two different departments don’t communicate and don’t know what each other is doing, then that is kind of problem in implementing HAMP,” Shank said. Initially, Judge Bailey sided with Florida Default’s request to proceed with the sale but ordered HSBC to post the bond by April 2. On April 9, the bank sold the condo without posting the court-ordered bond. Kahn. Eslava’s lawyer, filed an objection to the sale. At the May 6 hearing, Judge Bailey expressed disbelief that HSBC had opposed canceling the sale when Eslava was still in the middle of a loan modification trial.

She called the bank’s opposition “idiotic,” according to the transcript.

“You are filing pleadings in court every day and you don’t even know what’s going on with the case,” she told Huffman, the HSBC lawyer. “In no other species or kind of law would that be remotely acceptable, or frankly, anything short of malpractice. But somehow in Foreclosure World everybody thinks that is just fine, that you can know absolutely nothing about your files and walk in here and ask judges for things left and right without even knowing what’s going on.”

Eslava, who had never been to a courthouse before his foreclosure case, said he never expected he would learn so much about the court system in such a short time. “This was a lesson for me,” said Eslava. Fort Lauderdale attorney Jed Frankel, who witnessed the exchange while awaiting a hearing in his own case, said he was stunned by the judge’s decision to cancel the mortgage, but not by the bank’s actions.

“It is very unusual to see this type of sanction entered,” said Frankel, who frequently represents condo associations on foreclosure-related matters. “That’s a very severe sanction. But it was a very well thought out ruling.” Frankel said he had a similar experience recently, when Deutsche Bank was sanctioned for not complying with a court order related to the foreclosure of a unit at King Cole Condominium in Miami Beach.

Frankel said Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge William Thomas ordered the lender to pay the condo association more than $4,000 for ignoring the judge’s court order to proceed with a foreclosure sale of a condo or pay $1,221 in condo dues. “Judges are looking at these cases a little bit differently than they would have four, five years ago,” said Frankel, who represents King Cole. “They are more aware of what is going on in the foreclosure cases.”
Abby in CA, on May 22, 2010 at 6:51 pm said:

General Question–yes, what you wrote is confusing. I can only comment on this:

I had a recorded document signed/notarized by a person on
May 27, 2007 but recorded on June 15, 2007 and it had a hand-written note on it stating ‘effective date April 4, 2007′. Thus they were trying to back-date it by writing ‘effective’.

I believe in Calif. this is not allowed, especially if the ‘effective’ back-dating was to accommodate the date the NOD was sent out, April 4, 2007.

The document was a Substitution of Trustee, so one would think it would be very important in a non-judicial state.

Recorded docs are important but you should have other ‘meat’ to your case.
marcus, on May 22, 2010 at 12:58 pm said:

GQ,
What state are you in? Some defenses are weaker than others. You may have better chance attacking the problem from another angle.
In order to beat a MSJ you need to plant seeds of doubt in the Plaintiff case.
1) is the plaintiff the original lender?
2) Does the plaintiff have the original note and mortgage/deed of trust?
3) Is the assignment date post-lawsuit or pre-lawsuit?
4) Is the notary proper on all affidavits and assignments?
5) Do you have any discovery pending?

All these should help you oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
GENERAL QUESTION, on May 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm said:

Defective acknowledgments: the judge determined that acknowledgments on a mortgage still renders the document valid as between parties so allowed the MSJ to be granted in favor of the lender. In short, equitable interests in the mortgages.

?: Because the document is not recordable, is the effective date the date the document is executed?

Warranty Deed Defective: we just discovered that the warranty deed that was signed is also defective because of the acknowledgments. The warranty deed is dated April 23, 2004 and not executed by the grantor until April 26..

?: the deed was not executed by the grantor until April 26, 2004 or 3 days after it was executed by the grantee. Does this affect the Mortgage if we did not have legal title to the property. (mortgage is lawfully seized of the property) All documents are not recordable and are deemed good as between parties.

Sorry if this is confusing
Abby in CA, on May 20, 2010 at 2:51 pm said:

Four Arrested, Five Wanted for Fleecing Hundreds of Homeowners Seeking Foreclosure Relief

**NOTE: Contact information for victims willing to speak with the press is available upon request**

LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that nine men engaged in a Southern California boiler room, tricked out in high-roller style with a roulette wheel and other casino equipment, have been charged with 97 criminal counts for stealing at least $2.3 million from more than 1,500 desperate homeowners who were promised loan modifications but received no relief.

Arrested Tuesday and Wednesday night were Gregg Scott Quinn, 37, of Camarillo and Juan Pierre Washington, 40, of Winnetka, who worked as company sales managers and supervisors. They are being held at Los Angeles County Jail.

Gary Arnold Eisenberg, 71, of Westwood, a top telemarketer with the company, and Ira Itskowitz, 58, a sales manager, each spent more than five years in federal prison for previous fraud convictions and are already in federal custod! y for violating parole in connection with their participation in the scheme.

The four principal owners of the business, Niv Iskin, 30, of Reseda, Reviv Karpman, 38, of Tarzana, Tomer Kogman, 29, of Receda and Avraham Yechizkia, 34, of Encino; and a sales manager, Barel Iskin, 23, of Woodland Hills, are still being pursued by law enforcement.

“This company was just a boiler room, long on promises and upfront fees but short on foreclosure relief,” Brown said. “Its operators cruelly defrauded citizens trying valiantly to hang on to their homes.”

Brown’s office initiated its investigation in March 2009 in response to numerous consumer complaints against the defendants’ Canoga Park-based loan modification business, which operated as Mason Capital Group, LLC and Gretchen Fox and Associates.

When agents executed a search warrant at the office, they found a Las Vegas casino-themed sales floor complete with craps, poker and bl! ack jack tables fashioned as workstations, and a roulette whee! l that top-selling telemarketers spun for cash bonuses (see photos attached).

Between January 2008 and June 2009, the four owners took in at least $2.3 million in up-front fees, which ranged from $1,000 to $5,000, from more than 1,500 homeowners throughout the country. In almost every case, no loan modifications were completed, as promised. Financial records indicate that the four owners spent hundreds of thousands on private school tuition, travel, entertainment, shopping and other personal expenses while running Mason Capital Group, LLC and Gretchen Fox and Associates.

To corral sales, the four owners used a telemarketing operation that targeted homeowners facing mortgage payment increases or foreclosure. During an initial call, the telemarketers touted the company’s team of “attorneys, forensic accounting personnel, and loan negotiators” available to negotiate reductions in interest rates, monthly payments and principal balances; their suppos! ed 90% to 100% loan modification success rate and refund guarantee. The telemarketers then collected financial information from homeowners to determine if they “qualified” for the company’s services.

Soon after the initial call, homeowners received a follow-up call to inform them that their case had been “reviewed” and “approved.” Telemarketers closed sales by insisting the approval would expire unless homeowners acted quickly, while reminding them about the refund guarantee if promised results were not achieved.

In fact, the company completed very few loan modifications, rarely contacted lenders, failed to honor the refund guarantee, employed unlicensed “loan processors” and had no legal staff negotiating with lenders.

While homeowners waited, they were told their loan modifications, or refunds, would be voided if they tried independently to contact their lender. Many lost their homes to foreclosure as a result.

To skirt the state’s foreclosure laws, avoid paying refunds and concea! l profits, the owners changed company names, claimed bankruptcy and shifted loan modification files to another business they created called, American Financial Group, LLC.

Investigators located victims in dozens of California cities, including: American Canyon, Anaheim, Antioch, Artesia, Atwater, Bakersfield, Ceres, Chico, Cotati, Cloverdale, Crestline, Delano, Elk Grove, Encino, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Fresno, Guerneville, Hanford, Hayward, Hercules, Hood, Indio, La Jolla, Lancaster, Laguna Hills, Lodi, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Manteca, Modesto, Montclair, N. Hollywood, Newhall, Newman, North Highlands, Oakdale, Oakland, Ontario, Palmdale, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, Poplar, Porterville, Redding, Richmond, Riverbank, Rodeo, Sacramento, San Jose, San Pablo, Santa Clara, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Stanton, Stockton, Tracy, Tulare, Turlock, Union City, Upland, Valley Village, Van Nuys, Visalia, W. Sacramento and Yuba City.

Brown’s office will seek restit! ution for victims of this scam.

By law, all individuals and businesses offering mortgage foreclosure consulting or loan modification and foreclosure assistance services must register with Brown’s office and post a $100,000 bond. It is also illegal for loan modification consultants to charge up-front fees for their services.

Non-profit housing counselors certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provide free help to homeowners. To find a counselor in your area, call 1-800-569-4287.

If you are a homeowner who has been scammed, contact Brown’s office at 1-800-952-5225 or file a complaint online at: http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php

.

Brown has sought court orders to shut down more than 30 fraudulent foreclosure relief companies and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for dozens of other deceptive loan modif! ication consultants. For more information on Brown’s action against lo! an modification fraud visit: http://ag.ca.gov/loanmod

.

The 97 criminal counts filed against the nine defendants, include 63 counts of grand theft, 26 counts of unlawful foreclosure consulting, 7 counts of tax evasion and 1 count of conspiracy.

The United States Postal Inspection Service assisted in the investigation.

Copies of the complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the Arrest Warrant are attached.
Abby in CA, on May 20, 2010 at 8:35 am said:

AIG Presentation explains their insurance process, tranches etc.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31638805/AIG-Presentation-insurance-investment-portfolios
Abby, on May 19, 2010 at 1:19 pm said:

Residential Delinquencies Jump, $1Trillion in Loans Past Due

By National Mortgage News Online

May 19, 2010

Residential delinquencies climbed to yet another new high at March 31 with 10.06% of all mortgagors behind on their payments, according to new figures released by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).

According to calculations made by National Mortgage News using MBA’s findings, that means $1 trillion in both first and second liens are now in arrears.

Compared to the same period a year ago, late payments rose 10%. Late payments worsened in all delinquency categories, but there was a slight respite in the “seriously delinquent” bucket which includes loans that are 90-days or more late or in foreclosure.

The trade group found that 9.54% of all mortgages were seriously delinquent at March 31, a slight improvement from the 9.67% number recorded at yearend.

At March 31, 7.24% of all loans were seriously delinquent.

The MBA also reported that first-quarter commercial and multifamily mortgage originations came in higher year-to-year but lower quarter-to-quarter.

Originations were up 12% compared to the same period last year but down 26% from the fourth quarter of 2009.

“The results of the survey showed changes in commercial and multifamily mortgage loan origination levels varied significantly between investor groups,” said Jamie Woodwell, MBA’s vice president of commercial real estate research. “However, it’s hard to draw conclusions based on first-quarter numbers given seasonal effects, such as the industry’s usual push to finalize deals before the end of the year, resulting in lower first-quarter origination activity.”
Daniel Gyurec, on May 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm said:

Investigations of Mortgage Security Fraud Widen

http://seekingalpha.com/article/205090-investigations-of-mortgage-security-fraud-widen?source=from_friend
Victoria, on May 13, 2010 at 8:48 pm said:

Is there anybody out there who could give the name of a lawyer in Los Angles County who is willing to fight instead of settle? I keep trying to get a good lawyer who is willing to really fight the fight and all they want is money and rush the process after charging their retainer upfront. All they want is easy cases.

IT’S URGENT!! PLEASE HELP!!
Florida Defense Team, on May 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm said:

The REAL reason Banks Won’t Modify Your Loan
Mortgage servicers are ripping off not only homeowners but the pension funds and hedge funds who have invested into Mortgage Backed Securities. What they’re doing is reminiscent of what was portrayed in the Martin Scorsese film, Casino, where the local mob Capos would “skim” large sums of money off the top of the casino revenues before they were counted and sent to the bosses in the mid-west.
You see many moons ago a group of financial wizards devised a scheme to auction off mortgages owned by the federal government and turn mortgages from long-term commitments (that only financial giants like governments, banks and insurance companies were willing to own) into a commodity that any investor could buy and sell.
Today, the vast majority of loans are originated with the intent of selling them on the secondary market packaged together in pools called special purpose vehicles or trusts by underwriters who represent government sponsored enterprises, investment banks or commercial banks. These special purpose vehicles are then repackaged and re-disbursed to investors all over the world. Bonds are issued for the different categories of payments, including interest payments, late payments, principal payments and prepayment penalties. Different groups of investors or tranches may get paid from different categories and in a different order.
Tax and accounting rules were set up to govern these trusts or Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs) and they were set up to ensure that the assets of the trust are passively managed. This means they are handled by someone else usually a servicer. This type of management is required because the trusts receives preferential tax treatment: so as long as the trust complies with these management guidelines, the TRUST IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY TAX ON ITS INCOME, thus increasing the profitability of the trust. Compliance also allows investors insulation from the bankruptcy of the entity that transfers the mortgages into the securitized trust. Without this protection, creditors from the originator could seize mortgage loans from the trust to satisfy debts incurred by the originator. This business model morphed into what is essentially a legally run multi-trillion dollar tax-free Ponzi scheme. This scheme is so large it makes Bernie Madoff’s empire look like a kindergarten production of the movie,Wall Street.
The only problem was the guys at Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the banks never consulted with the guys at NASA about Newton’s theories of gravity when they set this up. Who can blame them, they were bankers not rocket scientists. Once investors stopped buying mortgage backed securities, this created a domino effect across credit markets and eventually reached the homeowner. People stopped buying homes and property values plummeted faster than contestants on a Japanese game show. Overleveraged homeowners now owed more on their mortgages than their house was worth.

The rise of the MBS industry has created a new generation of loan servicers. Up until the meltdown, loan servicers were dutiful and passive in public, but yet behind closed doors yielded great power.
The sole purpose of these servicers was to collect and process payments on mortgage loans. While some specialize in subprime loans, some servicers specialize in loans that are already in default (so-called special servicers). There are companies that contain entire families of servicers: prime and subprime, default and performing. Some of these servicers are affiliated with the originating company. Nearly half of all subprime loans are serviced by either the originator or an affiliate of the originator. However even when the servicer is affiliated with the originator, it no longer has exclusive control over the loan or an undivided interest in the loan’s performance. Servicers are usually collecting the payments on loans someone else owns and then pay the Trustees on a quarterly basis and this relationship is governed by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement or PSA. The PSA is essentially the agreement between the servicer and the trust which details the responsibility of both parties.
Servicers receive their revenue two ways. First, they receive the majority of their revenue from acting as an automated pass-through accounting entity whose mechanical actions are performed offshore or by a computer system. Second, servicers generally profit from servicing fees based on a fixed percentage of the total unpaid principal balance of the loan pool and interest income on homeowners’ payments held by the servicer until the service has to make payments to the investor. They then deduct any pay outs at an inflated rate for taxes and insurance or any affiliated business arrangements from the payments to the investor.
After the meltdown, mortgage servicers were no longer willing to play a passive role in public. The servicers were smart and they quickly figured out that if they acted quickly they could profit from the financial chaos around them. Servicers were flooded with requests for modifications from upside down homeowners. They quickly seized on the idea that they could exploit their ability to skim off the top of the payments to investors by exaggerating their cost estimates and by increasing the outstanding balances of the loans in the trust. There was one problem with that idea; most homeowners in late 2007 early 2008 were not yet behind on their payments.
What servicers began doing next is shocking! They began to tell homeowners they would not negotiate a modification unless they were 90 days behind on their payments. Publicly the excuse was because they needed to rescue as many homeowners as possible before moving on to stable homeowners. This wasn’t entirely true. Let’s be honest, this was a blatant lie. What they weren’t saying is how much their profit margins increased by encouraging people to go into default. The longer someone stays in default the more profit they made by misleading both the trustee and the homeowner. This gave the servicers incentive to push homeowners into delinquency and keep them there indefinitely with or without a pending modification.
When the homeowner would submit the application for the modification, the lender would drag out the approval process by repeatedly claiming they lost the paperwork. Again, this all goes back to their profit margin on loans in default and the outstanding balances of the pool. This is why when HAMP was announced in 2009, servicers were included into the program. HAMP was intended to encourage servicers to modify loans but the cash incentives offered by the federal government were not large enough to entice the servicer to abandon the profitable business model of skimming off the top.
Another misleading statement made by servicers is that they need approval from the trustee to approve a modification. This is another lie. Due to the passive management requirement of the trust under REMIC guidelines, investors have little control and seldom influence the servicer’s actions when it comes to modifying a homeowner’s loan and thus have full discretion to negotiate a modification of a loan for the homeowner. Most PSA also impose no meaningful restrictions against servicers who negotiate modifications and actually authorize modifications. In most cases, the PSA immunizes the servicer from litigation from investors when they do modifications.
Servicers also use the excuse that REMIC guidelines penalize them from doing loan modifications. This is also not factual accurate. REMIC rules offer an “escape” clause. REMIC rules state that a loan can be modified when it is in default or a default is reasonably foreseeable.
The shocking thing about this whole scheme is its not independent companies doing it. It’s the major banks. Wells Fargo, JP Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, they all do it. That’s right. These banks who received corporate welfare checks in the billions of dollars are now pocketing money from some sweet old grandmother’s pension fund. So while grandma is forced to eat cold oatmeal because she can’t afford to heat it up, banking executives from Citibank and JP Morgan-Chase go in front of congress and claim they had nothing to do with it.
Dan Edstrom, on May 13, 2010 at 9:24 am said:

Thanks Abby, I left my comments. Remember everyone that they concealed, misprepresented and failed to disclose the fact that they would be using your credit and personally identifiable information in the offer and sale of securities to investors. If you doubt this note that they report your FICO score to not only the investors, but to anyone who has gains access to the banks trust investor reporting sites – and this access is freely given to anyone. I only gave permission to share my credit and personal information with any investors who would be purchasing my loan. The investors who purchased certificates issued by the trust did just that – purchased certificates and not my loan. That was not a part of what was disclosed to me before, during or after my loan closing. In my opinion this violates the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and represents identity theft (and probably numerous other laws). I would think that this information would be material to any investor purchasing securities from any trust. The primary goal of this rule is to protect investors. But we should remind the SEC that they should consider homeowners and borrowers rights also.

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby, on May 12, 2010 at 1:44 pm said:

Go to this SEC website and enter your comments

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-54.htm

The SEC is proposing new ABS rules and this includes what data about the borrower is to be included and published to the investors and at the SEC website for the world to see.
Abby in CA, on May 12, 2010 at 4:47 am said:

What is Wrong With This Picture??

At the same time that the Financial Times is reporting that JPMorgan Chase has made an average of $118 Million Dollars per day in trading profits in a loss free quarter (that is about $5 million dollars per hour), JPMorgan Chase is warning investors that more homeowners may walk away from their homes and mortgages!!

Francesco Guerrera wrote the article for the Financial Times story of May 10, 2010 titled ‘Goldman and JPMorgan Roar Ahead’

Shahien Nasirpour wrote the article for the May 11, 2010 Huffington Post on JPMorgan warning its investors.
Daniela Mars, on May 10, 2010 at 1:37 pm said:

The World’s Fiat Currency System Risks Collapse

On February 12th, NIA released an article entitled, “Greece Distracting from Real Debt Crisis in U.S.” in which we said, “We hope that Greece doesn’t get bailed out, because a bailout would cause foreign investors to become more irresponsible than ever and create even greater moral hazards. Unfortunately, not only is it likely that Greece will get bailed out, it’s possible our own Federal Reserve will get involved. The U.S. Federal Reserve has the ability to make loans to foreign central banks without disclosure to the U.S. public. European banks have already benefited $50 billion from the U.S.’s bailouts of AIG, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the Federal Reserve will intervene due to euro-zone countries being key U.S. trading partners.”

NIA was right, late Sunday evening the Federal Reserve announced the re-establishment of U.S. dollar liquidity swap facilities with foreign central banks, as a part of the European Union (EU)’s nearly $1 trillion bailout plan. The Federal Open Market Committee has authorized swap lines through January 2011 with the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Swiss National Bank, and the Bank of Japan.

While the Federal Reserve may say these swap lines are necessary “to help improve liquidity conditions in U.S. dollar funding markets and to prevent the spread of strains to other markets and financial centers”, NIA recognizes that this is nothing more than another transfer of wealth from the American middle class to bankers around the world through inflation. This program was originally enacted in 2008 when the Federal Reserve loaned $582.8 billion to foreign central banks without any disclosure of which central banks got the money.

NIA believes it is unconstitutional for the Federal Reserve to make loans to foreign central banks. Most likely, the Federal Reserve was pressured by Wall Street to re-establish the swap facilities because Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have about $2.5 trillion in exposure to Europe, and Wall Street doesn’t want to see their bets go bad.

Not only will Americans now be exposed to the European debt crisis through the Federal Reserve’s swap lines, but the U.S. will be giving money away to Europe through the IMF. The IMF is contributing up to 220 billion Euros as a part of the bailout, which equals $283.1 billion at the latest exchange rate. The U.S. represents approximately 20% of IMF funding, which means the bailout is costing U.S. taxpayers $56.7 billion, not including the potential losses from loans made by the Federal Reserve and the inflation it will create.

The moral hazards of the EU bailout are immeasurable. It sets a dangerous precedent that the ECB won’t allow any eurozone nations to fail, just like the Federal Reserve won’t allow any major financial institutions on Wall Street to fail. Eventually, if you don’t allow the free market to punish countries and financial institutions that recklessly speculated and made poor financial decisions, the financial crisis we are preventing will turn into a currency crisis that the western world will never be able to recover from. Although NIA still believes the U.S. dollar will win its race to the bottom with the Euro, we are now at risk of a total collapse of the world’s fiat currency system.

Imagine if baseball teams weren’t allowed to fail. You probably remember playing t-ball as a kid and at the end of every game, both teams were declared the winner. Think about what would happen if Major League Baseball declared there will no longer be losers at professional baseball games, both teams will be declared the winners of every game. Would you still pay $300 for a ticket to see a Major League Baseball game? Of course not, the value of the tickets would collapse to nothing, similar to how fiat currencies will soon lose their purchasing power if we don’t allow countries and financial institutions to fail.

NIA is almost done producing its nearly hour-long documentary ‘Meltup’. We spent quadruple the time and money producing Meltup than we did producing our previous critically acclaimed documentary ‘The Dollar Bubble’, which has already surpassed 710,000 views since November 23rd. We believe Meltup will be the best economic documentary ever produced in world history and a must see for yourself, your friends, and your family.

Last week, NIA conducted an hour-long interview with Gerald Celente, founder of the Trends Research Institute. We can honestly say that our interview with Mr. Celente was the single most shocking, insightful and informative interview we have ever witnessed or heard. NIA will be using footage from our interview with Mr. Celente in Meltup. We highly recommend that you visit Mr. Celente’s Trends Research Institute web site at http://www.trendsresearch.com and subscribe to his Trends Journal. We just got done reading his latest Trends Journal and it is one of the most compelling pieces of journalism we have ever come across.

If you would like your friends and family to be the first to see Meltup, please tell them to become a member of NIA for free by subscribing today at http://inflation.us
Mel, on May 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm said:

How can I find a knowledgeable attorney to help me defend a final judgement? i am in process of filing BK to stop the sale on May 13. Lender is contrywide and i am certain there are securitization issues to say the least with the loan. property is located in Miami Florida.

thank you
msoliman, on May 8, 2010 at 2:20 pm said:

No Right to enforce a presumption of interest
By MSoliman

1.Although OneWest Bank apparently purchased substantially all of IndyMac’s assets effective March 19, 2009 OneWest has never made a formal statement by affidavit to the successors and right of assignment in any case. The court admits all of the plaintiffs’ exhibits. No exhibits were tendered by the defendants, and the defendants’ list of exhibits stated that they “have no other Exhibits than those referenced by the Plaintiffs.”

2.The General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcy cases highlights more limitations for companies experiencing financial distress and who use the bankruptcy process to sell their assets “free and clear” of liens pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and pay the net sale proceeds over to their secured creditors. Section 363 also protects secured creditors whose collateral is being sold by enabling secured creditors to “credit bid” their claims at a section 363 sale to protect against a sale at what the creditors perceive is a below-market price.

3.Nonetheless, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC,2009 WL 3756362 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2009), recently ruled that debtors can preclude credit bids in asset sales conducted pursuant to a chapter 11 plan (not pursuant to section 363), where secured creditors receive the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. If followed widely, the Philadelphia Newspapers decision may limit the ability of secured creditors to use secured debt as currency to purchase a debtor’s assets, or to block an asset sale,under a plan for less than the secured debt.

4.The failure of First Federal was noteworthy not only for the collapse of another large thrift in the Golden State, but it was a key acquisition for OneWest. The federal government took control of Pasadena-based IndyMac Bank in 2008 in what regulators called the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history regulators shut its main branch citing a massive run on deposits. The bank’s 33 branches closed but the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reopen the bank on the following Monday as IndyMac Federal Bank, said the Office of Thrift Supervision Federal authorities estimated that the takeover of IndyMac, which had $32 billion in assets, would cost the FDIC $4 billion to $8 billion.

5.Regulators said deposits of up to $100,000 were safe and insured by the FDIC. The agency’s insurance fund has assets of about $52 billion. The institution First Federal was formed by a group of private-equity investors to take over the operations of failed IndyMac Bank, one of the first large victims of the mortgage debacle. OneWest did not pay a premium to assume all of First Federal’s $4.5 billion of deposits. It also agreed to acquire roughly all of its assets and share losses with the FDIC on a $5.3 billion piece of First Federal’s portfolio

6.Claims under judicial estoppel: The scope and purpose of the doctrine of judicial estoppel was fully explained in Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.1990),cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1260, 111 S.Ct. 2915, 115 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1991):The doctrine of judicial estoppel, sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, is invoked to prevent a party from changing its position over the course of judicial proceedings when such positional changes have an adverse impact on the judicial process. [citation omitted] The policies underlying preclusion of inconsistent positions are”general consideration[s] of the orderly administration of justice and regard for the dignity of judicial proceedings.” [citation omitted] Judicial estoppel is intended to protect againsta litigantplaying “fast and loose with the courts.” [citation omitted] Because it is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process, it is an equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion. Protecting the integrity of the judicial process is at the heart of this matter

7.Right to enforce a presumption of interest. A court must determine to what extent it can judicially prescribe that an entity or person to have been cloaked with apparent authority to settle certain matters (by right of implied or express assignment). ,

The appropriate response is that party(ies) if they do not have the authority found in the agreements and or contracts signed amongst a borrower and his or her lender or under the state or federal statute to authorize it on those terms.
erlinda, on May 7, 2010 at 9:01 pm said:

Dying truth,

thank you very much for the support. this article will sure help me a lot. to all homeowners who received a substitution of trustee , please make sure to gogle the names who signed the substitution of trustee and the notary who notarized the documents chances are it was done in the law office who is going after you in the court. mine was done in the law firm of mccarthy & holtus a law firm debt collector, who still insist they are not a debt collector. this is what i discovered
the lawyers who is filing a lawsuit to foreclose your property either in the BK court or in state & federal court are lawyers that were hired by a debt collectors. so don’t forget to include your causes of action the FDCPA violations. these law firms are also a debt collectors by any means . call their phone number and their message would said we are a debt collectors attempting to collect a debt any information bla bla bla bla. if someone being pursued by mcCarthy & holthus here in ca and other 8 western states, include them in your lawsuit because they are law firm whose main purpose is to collect a debts? you know these lawyers are not the one writing all those pleadings in the court i t was either the PROMiss solutions company,.LPS, quality loan services hiding as a Trustee for foreclosure purposes. be vigilant any documents these impostors submitted in the court are 100 % bogus. thanks
DyingTruth, on May 7, 2010 at 8:24 pm said:

erlinda,
I came accross some case law that might be helpful for your situation
Katchen v. Landy, 382 US 323 – Supreme Court (1966) at 329 “This power to allow or to disallow claims includes “full power to inquire into the validity of any alleged debt or obligation of the bankrupt upon which a demand or a claim against the estate is based. This is essential to the performance of the duties imposed upon it.” Lesser v. Gray, 236 U. S. 70, 74. The trustee is enjoined to examine all claims and to present his objections, Bankruptcy Act § 47a (8), 11 U. S. C. § 75 (a) (8) (1964 ed.)”
full case opinion here> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9683721947005602171
jeff, on May 7, 2010 at 8:19 pm said:

Homeowner Handed “Free” House
By GREG CERGOL
Updated 9:45 PM EDT, Fri, May 7, 2010

Print Share Buzz up!retweetFACEBOOK

Corliss Gittens of Lakeview turned forty-eight Friday.

Her birthday gift came courtesy of a Nassau County judge.

“It’s the best present I ever received,” said the smiling Gittens.

New York Supreme Court justice John Galasso handed the receptionist her home, free and clear of any mortgages or liens. The court decision was ten years in the making.

Back in 2000, Gittens bought her childhood home from her parents. She used a $144,000 loan from a local lending company to close on the house.

But when Gittens tried to make her mortgage payments, the lender wouldn’t cash her checks. At one point, she even sent some via certified mail. But the money was never accepted.

Gittens grew so frustrated she contacted the lender’s customer service department.

“The manager got on the phone and said, lady, you must be calling the wrong bank because you don’t have an account here,” said Gittens.

Apparently, all records of her mortgage had vanished.

“That mortgage is in a black hole,” said Gittens’ lawyer Fred Brewington of Hempstead.

“It has gone into deep, deep black space. It’s gone.”

What happened is unclear. Gittens’ original lender went out of business and its assets were bought and sold several times. JP Morgan Chase, said Gittens, is the company that now should be holding her mortgage.

But when Brewington originated a court action to have Gittens declared the sole owner of her home, no bank representative showed up to contest the case.

So, the house her late parents bought in 1961 is now hers, free and clear.

“I think my mom and dad are looking down on me, making sure nothing happens to their house,” said Gittens.

As for how she planned to celebrate her birthday, Gittens said she would enjoy a quiet dinner in her birthday “present” — enjoying the kind of ending that every homeowner dreams about
Deontos, on May 7, 2010 at 9:00 am said:
Deontos, on May 7, 2010 at 8:57 am said:

VIDEO: SWAT Team Storms Keith Sadler’s Home in Predawn Raid
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/video-swat-team-storms-keith-sadlers-home-predawn-raid
dave, on May 6, 2010 at 11:41 pm said:

ATTENTION ALL WITH INDYMAC LOANS & DEUTSCHE TRUST!!!!!!!

We are looking for all that have a loan with Indymac and/or Deutsche Trust. In an effort to support and substantiate the massive fraud that is being perpetrated by this bank against all homeowners, we need you help. This information will be used and provided to the SEC, FDIC and IRS to aid in their investigations against Indymac and Deutsche. Any and all info will be appreciated, helpful and will only be provided to the SEC, FDIC and IRS. Please contact stopindymac@gmail.com for more info.

Fighting the Good Fight!!
DyingTruth, on May 6, 2010 at 8:24 pm said:

erlinda,
whether your property address was 114 Persia, 131 Persia or 925 Persia, it does not come up in qu@liy’$ $ystem ergo they had no standing and it’s a mystery(well not a mystery vis-a-vis the long standing reputation judges in california for being scandalous) why the judge granted relief from stay, especially talking about “skin in the game” when from what I can see neither the judge nor quality had any but was obviously counting on peeling some. All of these judges who are handing down these unjust rulings SHALL reap the consequences by any means necessary justice so requires. we need to start making a judges of injustice list catagorized by jurisdiction, district, court level etc.. especially in cali, iv’e read some opinions from different districts from the one i’m in that OHHH MY GOD pisses me off. Even though none of the parties in the case have nothing to do with mine it infuriates me like when Lawrence J. O’Neill “ADMONISHES plaintiff not to abuse the judicial process to attempt to delay or obstruct rightful foreclosure of her home and that plaintiff is subject to sanctions if she attempts to do so.” that really gets to me. that guy’s number 1 on my list so far
MsOliman, on May 6, 2010 at 7:31 pm said:

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
COLLECTORS contends that motion to dismiss fails to state a claim under the FDCPA, because plaintiff did not allege that he disputed the debtor COLLECTORS. Plaintiff responds that the specific allegation disputing the underlying debt is not required, and that he has otherwise sufficiently plead a FDCPA cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8notice requirement.

To state a claim under FDCPA, plaintiff must allege that “(1) the plaintiff has been the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt; (2) the defendant is a debt collector as Defined by the FDCPA and (3) the defendant has engaged in an actor omission prohibited by the FDCPA.” Kaplan v. Asset care, Inc.,88 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1360-61 (S.D. Fla. 2000); see also Fuller v.Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1366 (M.D. Fla.2002). Section 1692a(3) defines the term “consumer” as any “natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.”15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). Section 1692a (5) defines the term “debt” as follows:

The term “debt” means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.

15 U.S.C. § 1692a (5). Section 1692a (6) defines the term debt collector and states, in pertinent part, as follows: The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another….

15 U.S.C. § 1692a (6). The FDCPA also enumerates certain prohibited collection practices. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

Specifically, the FDCPA states, in pertinent part, as follows:

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section 1) the collection of any amount (including any interest, Fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized byte agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

15 U.S.C. § 1692f (1).The Court finds that plaintiff adequately plead a claim under The FDCPA. Plaintiff falls within the statutory definition of consumer, and there is no assertion that COLLECTORS was not a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA. The Complaint alleges that COLLECTORS attempted to collect an amount greater than what was owed. (Doc. #4-1, p. 2, ¶ 4).

Having alleged that COLLECTORS engaged in a prohibited collection practice, plaintiff sufficiently stated a FDCPA claim in his Complaint, and the Motion to Dismiss as to Count is due to be denied.

msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Daniela Mars, on May 5, 2010 at 5:34 pm said:

http://video.ft.com/v/82938897001/May-5-Elizabeth-Warren-on-reform-and-Tarp
TARA, on May 3, 2010 at 6:38 pm said:

A forensic audit has been completed on my mortgage. I have the results but I am not sure if it’s anything worth while pursuing. I have defaulted on my mortgage -last payment since Dec 2008. I have been actively trying to modify my mortgage from a pay up front loan modification company (should have known better, they are no longer and they got my money), to working with my lender my self, to NACA. I am fortunately still in my house. Everyday I worry, that they will foreclose. The bank has advised they have postponed the date. The mortgage audit showed violations- Violations of Federal Statutes, Missing Mortgage Broker agreement Disclosures, Notice of Right to Receive copy of Appraisal missing and Booklet on closing costs not provided within 3 days of application. I am also missing from my closing documents Itemization of amount financed, good faith estimate & controlled Business Arrangement Disclosure. There is also only partial of all state required disclosures. I do not know what any of this means. The audit was done through NACA but I have not had any success with anyone explaining anything to me. I was told to contact an attorney- which financially may not be feasible. Is there anyone able to give me any insight. I am in the Phoenix, AZ area. I am trying so hard to keep my home. I have a first and 2nd mortgage. Thank you.
usedkarguy, on May 1, 2010 at 9:36 pm said:

Following story sent to me by Ed Harness, a superb Milwaukee, Wisconsin, bankruptcy and foreclosure attorney:

Eight Years of Foreclosed Home Inventory

Posted: 26 Apr 2010 12:42 PM PDT

According to the Wall Street Journal an 8 year inventory of foreclosed homes exists, LPS Applied Analytics estimated that foreclosures would create so much market supply that it would take 103 months to liquidate it.

As of March, banks had an inventory of about 1.1 million foreclosed homes, up 20% from a year earlier, according to estimates from LPS Applied Analytics. Another 4.8 million mortgage holders were at least 60 days behind on their payments or in the foreclosure process, meaning their homes were well on their way to the inventory pile. That “shadow inventory” was up 30% from a year earlier.

Based on the rate at which banks have been selling those foreclosed homes over the past few months, that entire inventory, real and shadow, would take 103 months to unload. That’s nearly nine years.

The HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) program started by the Obama Administration is trying to modify loans so that lenders will not foreclose:

According to Goldman Sachs, HAMP started less than 80,000 trial modifications in March, less than half the number in the peak month of October 2009. At the same time, a growing number of modifications are being canceled as borrowers prove unable to pay. By Goldman’s count, about 68,000 were canceled in March.

All this means that little can stop banks’ inventory of distressed homes from growing. Too many people owe too much more on their homes than they can afford. For the housing market, that could mean a long-lasting hangover.

http://www.StopWiForeclosures.com
brian davies, on April 28, 2010 at 5:59 pm said:

From Brian and Abby,
This is done for late assignments into a closed trust. It violates the SEC and NY Trust laws as well as the IRS.
Doing so would create a large tax burden on the actual creditors. This is criminal tax evasion.
If you have a late assignment the let the IRS shine the light on these creatures of the night.

Victor S.O. Song
Chief, Criminal Investigation IRS
1111 Constitution Ave NW Room 2501
Washington, DC 20224
April 27, 2010
RE: Indymac Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A5, pass through series 2007 E, with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated 3-1-2007. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee
Possible IRS — REMIC 2 tax violations
.Dear Mr. Song:

SEC file number 333-132042 Accession Number 905148-6-1500

I am making this formal complaint for an investigation against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee and each of it’s entities involved in the Indymac Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A5, pass through Series 2007 E, with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated 3-1-2007. I am submitting a certified copy of my the Assignment, a public record filed at the Riverside County Recorder’s office in Indio, California, which demonstrates the addition to a closed trust of a defaulted loan by assignment on 8-20-2009.
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed with the SEC shows that this trust was closed 3-29-07. Under IRS and REMIC Law and the terms of the PSA, all assignments were to have been completed within 90 days.

I would appreciate any information in regards to this issue.

Thank you.

Brian Davies
43277 Sentiero Drive
Indio, California 92203
760-904-4928
Abby in CA, on April 28, 2010 at 10:39 am said:

RIK-I am not a lawyer, but pro se, so from my experiences, you can file Motion to Compel production.

Also, as an alternative approach, do a Freedom of Information request to the SEC (securities and exchange commission) and you provide loan number(s), address of your property etc…as much info as you can give (names of banks involved etc.) and tell them in the request you need the exact name of the securities trust involving you loan, property etc…..and you’d like copies of an of the related SEC filings.

See what comes back to you.

I think at the SEC website there is a FOIA online form. But I like to also send a letter.
marcus, on April 28, 2010 at 8:09 am said:

Erlinda,
Everybody can see from the ruling that this judge is more interested in protecting the so-called “creditor” interest than getting to the truth. He certainly made a lot of assumption in favor of the pretender lender.
Keep up the fight.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on April 28, 2010 at 8:05 am said:

Rik,
You need to keep hammering them. File a motion to compel and set up a hearing. Discovery is your best change to get to the truth; they will put every road block they can. Be persistent.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Rik, on April 28, 2010 at 5:40 am said:

Hi All,

My effort continues with denied discovery, but it continues. I have some questions that I hope can be answered here without to much trouble.

To the best of my knowledge, my VA Loan, with Wells Fargo appears not to have been transferred to a trust, nor can I find any references to it in the SEC filings.

The note, filed by FDLG is just a few pages with two stamps on its front and my signature. No notations or transfers on the back or anything else.

Is it common practice for Notes to be put into a trust? What would stop this from happening?

FDLG is denying almost every question I put forward in Discovery, and their answers to other sections are vague or evasive. So finding more info is becoming a real problem to find the trust or the like.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Rik
MSoliman, on April 27, 2010 at 7:57 pm said:

PRO TANTO?

Timeliness or the statutory term requirements are necessary for making enforceable transfers of title for real property under an alienation of title claim.

Alienation and or adverse possession shall have been conducted in an “open” and “notorious” manner. Adverse possession maintains its own judicial requirements to be satisfied under a hostile claim brought against the ignorant or unaware property owner for who the claim is against.

And the mere willingness for a government to bail out its ailing banks does not lend the right to non government institutions to enforce a recovery under eminent domain. http://foreclosureinfosearch.com.
MSoliman, on April 27, 2010 at 7:53 pm said:

It is absurd to believe the lenders recourse is sufficient to honor each defaulted loan repurchase shortfall which is in fact a recourse provision necessary for a lender to perform a foreclosure, if even possible. Mortgage securitization is a chaotic financial process weighed down by underlying risk illustrated best in a world economic collapse. The misnomer is for a collateralized investment offering security whereby the assets are derivatives traded multiples of the collateral.http://foreclosureinfosearch.com
Abby in CA, on April 27, 2010 at 4:06 pm said:

TOMORROW: Marcy Kaptur to deliver Goldman petition endorsed by 140,000 people and a letter signed by 64 House members to the Justice Department. Both documents call for a criminal investigation into Goldman Sachs, an initiative sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and MoveOn.org.
erlinda, on April 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm said:

thank you abby for posting my case, when McCathty & Holthus a debt collectors law firm filed for relief from stay we objected it for the same reasons,that everyone here in this blog are fighting for “Legal Standing” to file that motion to lift from stay in BK in other words giving them the right to move forward to foreclosed our property. we disputed it based on “STANDING”. the judge are not interested in discussing the “STANDING” , HE IS MORE INTERESTED IN ADEQUATE PROTECTION ORDER (APO) than rendering his decision based on standing. the court order said we have to give the amount of money and have it send to creditors attorneys with interest until the party in interest has been determined which in his OPINION that the creditor will connect the DOTS in identifying the party in interest who has legal standing to foreclose. knowing of all this judge’s decision, we offered no pay but we want the APO be put to a neutral third party or open an escrow so the money will be safely protected. we don’t trust M&H to receive the APO payment. but the judge never mentioned about this proposal at all on his decision instead he portray us gambling the money to use for our other purposed. i hope no homeowners will go thru him when they filed their BK esp. when you are a Pro-Se. this judge will allow me to be the last t be heard in the hearing so he could say stupids things against me like , whatever the lawyers said he would believe them, even you raise the questions of fraudulent document submitted , JUDGE MONTALI WILL NOT HEAR IT. HE IS MORE INTERESTED IN APO AND IF NOT GRANTED THE MRS. I TOLD HIM HE IS PREJUDICE, BIASED AGAINST ME AND I ASKED TO RECUSE FROM MY CASE AND HE DENIED IT. what can you expect for a JUDGE who is MARRIED TO AN ACTIVE REAL ESTATE BROKER? and give away all those houses to debt collectors? isn’t this a conflict of interest? how could YOU expect a judge giving a decision OUTSIDE OF HIS JURISDICTION IN ONE OF MY PROPERTY? WHICH IS NOW PENDING APPEAL IN 9TH DISTRICT OF APPEAL OF SF. THIS JUDGE ALLOW LITTON TO STEAL OUR PROPERTY EVEN AT TIME THAT PROPERTY IS OMITTED BY MY PREVIOUS ATTORNEY IN MY SCHEDULE A? When we did appeal at BAP is was dismissed by MOOTNESS because the property was sold to LITTON by Quality ans now IM appealing it in the court of appeal. how could you trust this judge when He is also the chief Judge of BAP ? i promise to myself if it goes to the Supreme Court , i will. can i effectively reorganized under chapter 11 with this kind of judge absolutely NOT? i filed my lawsuit against aurora & litton in the federal court so i could exposed this IMPOSTOR to their “FRAUD” but judge monatli shut me off . his court is a “KANGARO COURT” and he is aiding and abetting this fraud through these foreclosure mills attorneys for refusing to give us our due process right. if you read between his writing of his decision you could tell how this judge are so prejudice that you could tell and smell his biased toward a pro-se litigant. i am not giving up for this fight. and maybe , you will ask why i did not file complaint against him? maybe , i will? who knows/? I am right in objecting the APO to M&H? YES, OF COURSE BECAUSE I HAVE PROVEN THAT M& H FILED A BOGOS AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO FORECLOSE AND COLLECT THE DEBTS. THAT IS THEIR BIGGEST MISTAKES FILING DOCUMENTS CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER.
Abby in CA, on April 27, 2010 at 11:04 am said:

FYI — California Bankruptcy Case Ruling — worth a careful read.

IN RE ANIEL

In re: FERMIN SOLIS ANIEL and ERLINDA ARIBAS ANIEL aka Erlinda Jose Abibas, Chapter 11, Debtors.

Bankruptcy Case No. 09-30452DM.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California.

April 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO RECONSIDER (PERSIA AVENUE PROPERTY)

DENNIS MONTALI, Bankruptcy Judge

In this chapter 11 case the pro se debtors have steadfastly and repeatedly resisted motions for relief from stay, while at the same time steadfastly and repeatedly refusing to make payments pending resolution of their disputes about the standing of those secured creditors to seek such relief.

The court is sympathetic with any debtor who finds it difficult, if not sometimes seemingly impossible, to wade through the maze of transferred notes, assigned deeds of trust, ethereal beneficiaries, and information and belief allegations about what some predecessor loan servicing agent did with the original note and deed of trust. But it is equally unsympathetic with debtors shedding crocodile tears about making adequate protection payments while at the same time claiming all the benefits the bankruptcy law provides them. If you want to gamble in the casino and hope to hit the jackpot, you can’t expect to win by using house money. You’ve got to put a “little skin in the game”[ 1 ]. Because these debtors have refused to do so, relief from stay could hardly be more appropriate.

On February 11, 2010, Fermin and Erlinda Aniel (“Debtors”) filed an “Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stay Supplements; Emergency Motion for Reconsideration on the Order for Relief from Automatic Stay; Objection to Claim” (“Emergency Motion for Reconsideration”) regarding the motion for relief from stay (“MRS”) filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5, its assignees and/or successors and the servicing agent American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“Creditor”) as to certain rental property on Persia Avenue in San Francisco (the “Property”). The court entered an order denying the Emergency Motion for Reconsideration on February 17, 2010. This memorandum decision explains the reasoning that led to the February 17 order.
FACTS
I. Background Facts

On January 25, 2009, Debtors filed their chapter 11[ 2 ] petition. According to their Amended Schedule A filed on August 31, 2009, Debtors hold an ownership interest in seven single family residences in San Francisco County and San Mateo County. One of these properties is Debtors’ home; the remaining six are rental properties. Debtors have been collecting the rents on the rental properties since the petition date but have not made any postpetition payments on the debts secured by various deeds of trust against the properties.[ 3 ] According to various proofs of claim and motions for relief from stay filed in this case, Debtors owe significant prepetition arrearages on the various notes secured by the properties.[ 4 ]

Ms. Aniel admitted at a chapter 11 status conference on January 14, 2010, that Debtors have been using the rental proceeds without obtaining authorization to use cash collateral; Debtors have used the proceeds to, among other things, pay the costs of litigation against many of the alleged deed of trust holders. Debtors have opposed the motions for relief from stay and many of the proofs of claims filed by these lenders for, among other theories, lack of standing. Notwithstanding these objections and oppositions, Ms. Aniel has admitted on the record that Debtors do not dispute executing the various notes and deeds of trust. She has also stated that Debtors do not intend to make any adequate protection payments on these various notes.
II. History of the Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

On November 20, 2009, Creditor filed the MRS. Debtors opposed the MRS on the grounds of standing and purported violations of the Fair Debt Collections Act (“FDCA”), state consumer protection laws, and the California Penal Code by Creditor and Creditor’s counsel in filing a proof of claim and the MRS. The court held a hearing on the MRS on December 10, 2009, and took the matter under submission. On December 16, 2009, the court entered an order overruling the FDCA and California Penal Code objections[ 5 ] but permitting the automatic stay to remain in effect as long as Debtors tendered adequate protection payments pending resolution of the standing issue. The adequate protection payments were to be held by Creditor’s counsel in an interest-bearing trust account; if Debtors ultimately prevailed on their standing defenses, the adequate protection payments plus accrued interest would be returned to them.

On December 23, 2009, Debtors filed a motion to reconsider or amend the December 16 order on the MRS. On December 31, 2009, this court entered an order granting, in part, this motion for reconsideration (the “December 31 Order”). The December 31 Order provided:

Debtors have a right to assert their substantive standing defense to the MRS, but they must provide adequate protection of Creditor’s asserted security interest pending resolution of the issue, particularly as no equity exists in this rental property and no payments have been made for ten months postpetition. 11 U.S.C. §§ 361 and 362(d). . . . To continue the automatic stay, however, the court requires Debtors to make the regular monthly payments for December, 2009, and January, 2010, in the total amount of $4,865.04, no later than January 11, 2010, and $2,432.52 per month thereafter, on the first business day of each month. All payments must be made to Creditor’s counsel, who shall hold these payments in an interest-bearing trust account pending further order of the court. If Debtors ultimately prevail, these payments plus accrued interest may be returned to them. If Debtors default in making the January 11, 2010 payment and the monthly payments thereafter, Creditor shall provide written notice to Debtors of the nature of the default. If Debtors fail to cure the default within ten days of the date of the notice, Creditor may file an ex parte declaration of default and upload an order granting it full relief from the automatic stay. Upon receipt of any declaration of default from Creditor, the court may grant full relief from the stay without further hearing.

On February 2, 2010, Creditor filed a declaration of default (at Docket No. 139) stating that Debtors did not make the January 11 payment, even after Creditor’s counsel sent Debtors a notice of default on January 13, 2010.[ 6 ] Therefore, on February 4, the court entered an order granting Creditor’s MRS.

On February 11, 2010, Debtors filed their Emergency Motion for Reconsideration because, inter alia, Creditor has not established a chain of title showing that it is an assignee of the underlying deed of trust. The December 31 Order directed Creditor to file, no later than February 5, a supplement to its MRS to demonstrate the chain of title. Creditor filed a supplement on February 2, 2010, but that supplement does not show how and when Creditor acquired its rights in the deed of trust.[ 7 ]

Nonetheless, because Debtors failed to make any effort to tender the adequate protection payment on January 11, the court entered the February 17 order denying the Emergency Motion for Reconsideration. The February 17 order specifically states that it does not preclude Debtors from challenging in state court the Creditor’s right to pursue remedies under the deed of trust and note and that it does not preclude Debtors from filing a separate objection to Creditor’s proof of claim in this chapter 11 case.[ 8 ]
DISCUSSION

In the past year or two, several bankruptcy courts have published decisions regarding the standing of creditors and servicing agents acting on the creditors’ behalf to prosecute motions for relief from stay. See, e.g., In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D. Id. 2009); In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). In general, these cases apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) (incorporated by Rule 7017, which is in turn made applicable to motions for relief from stay by Rules 4001(a)(1) and 9014), which provides that an action “must be prosecuted in the name of the real property in interest.” The real property in interest in a relief from stay motion is a party entitled to enforce the right being asserted under applicable law. Jacobson, 402 B.R. at 366.

Addressing the principles of “real party in interest” and standing in the context of motions for relief from the automatic stay, the Wilhelm court held that movants must show that they have “an interest in the relevant note” and they have been “injured by debtor’s conduct (presumably through a default on the note).” Wilhelm, 407 B.R. at 398. “Beyond that, [m]ovants must also show they have the right, under applicable substantive law, to enforce the notes.” Id. The court identified two threshold questions for establishing standing: (1) Has the movant established an interest in the relevant promissory note? (2) Is the movant entitled to enforce the notes? Id.

To resolve these threshold questions of standing, the courts have looked to the state law governing negotiable instruments. Hwang, 396 B.R. at 762. In California, section 3301 of the Commercial Code governs who is entitled to enforce a note:

“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, or (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. 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.

Cal. Comm. Code § 3301. A “holder” of a note is “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.” Cal. Comm. Code § 1201(B)(21)(a). When endorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone. Cal. Comm. Code § 3205.[ 9 ]

In general, this court agrees with the principle that creditors moving for relief from stay should establish a prima facie case that they have standing to enforce the underlying note or obligation.[ 10 ]

In this circuit, relief from stay hearings are “limited to issues of the lack of adequate protection, the debtor’s equity in the property, and the necessity of the property to an effective reorganization. Hearings on relief from the automatic stay are thus handled in a summary fashion.” Johnson v. Righetti (In re Johnson), 756 F.2d 738, 740 (9th Cir. 1985) (overruled on other grounds by Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007)). “The validity of the claim or contract underlying the claim is not litigated during the hearing.” Johnson, 756 F.2d at 740 (emphasis added). As noted by the Ninth Circuit BAP in First Fed. Bank of Cal. v. Robbins (In re Robbins), 310 B.R. 626, 631 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (emphasis added):

Stay relief hearings do not involve a full adjudication on the merits of claims, defenses, or counterclaims, but simply a determination as to whether a creditor has a colorable claim.

Here, Creditor has made a colorable claim that it has standing by showing that it holds the note, endorsed in blank. Debtors do not dispute that they executed the note and deed of trust which are the subject of the MRS. If Debtors wish to maintain the status quo pending resolution of matters that require more plenary proceedings than relief from stay motions (e.g., adversary proceedings for declaratory relief to determine the proper holder of a note; objections to the claim of the creditor; confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan that restructures the claim of the creditor, etc.), the conventional way to do so is to make adequate protection payments in the meantime.[ 11 ]

Because of Debtors’ adamant refusal to make such payments the court is less tolerant than the Wilhelm, Jacobson, and Hwang courts in one material respect: whether debtors should provide adequate protection payments to the Creditor until the standing issues are fully adjudicated. They have not made any payment on this note (or the notes secured by the six other properties in which Debtors assert an ownership interest) in over a year while they have been in bankruptcy. They failed to make at least five prepetition payments on the note secured by the Property. They have no equity in the Property. They have used cash collateral without permission.

Under such circumstances, justice dictates that Debtors make adequate protection payments pending resolution of the standing issues. The court will not continue the stay with all of the risk being borne by the creditor. In circumstances where there is no doubt that the Debtors signed the note that is the subject of the motion, (and, frankly, not much doubt that ultimately Creditor will be able to “connect the dots” by showing the chain of title of the note and deed of trust), denial of relief from stay when adequate protection payments could be made would be patently unfair to Creditor and impose on it all of the risk of further deterioration of its security without protection. Since Debtors have no inclination to make payments, it is abundantly clear that once the Creditor (and other similarly situated secured creditors on other properties of Debtors) proves its standing, Debtors will allow the Property to be foreclosed. There is simply no point in delaying the inevitable.

Debtors were not unprotected or left without remedy if they had made the adequate protection payments as ordered by the court. As the December 31 order provides, the adequate protection payments consist of the monthly payments due under the note undisputedly executed by them, and Creditor’s counsel was to hold such payments in trust pending resolution of the standing challenge. If Debtors had ultimately prevailed, the payments (plus interest) would have been returned to Debtors. Moreover, the order granting relief from the automatic stay does not preclude Debtors from challenging in state court the legitimacy of Creditor’s right to foreclose.

Debtors chose not to comply with this court’s December 31 order. They chose not to make the adequate protection payments. They must accept the consequences of their decision. Under the circumstances described in this memorandum decision, the court questions whether the Debtors’ challenges to standing are made in good faith. The court therefore did not and will not vacate the order granting relief from stay.
DyingTruth, on April 25, 2010 at 10:19 pm said:

The 2 reasons why nobody will EVER be able to get a case that’s either filed in District Court or ends up there by Removal to get to the Trial phase whether Jury or non-Jury are these 2 Laws: 5 U.S.C. § 8440a and 5 U.S.C. § 8440b. These are the Federal laws which are similar to the pension plan REAL ESTATE investment policies that CalPERS has, these “investment” policies create HEAVY conflict-of-interest provisions because their investment advisory council has made a fortune off of controlling the funds and now is telling(and using as an incentive) that the funds are gone and/or losing value and probably saying: “its those damn lousy borrowers who all got home loans and don’t wanna pay their bills, think the house is free” and “don’t let people rescind their loans, let servicers foreclose on the homes, we can turn around and sell them to make more profit for the fund” oh and don’t forget “oh yeah, make sure that you don’t allow any of these cases to get to trial, because in the event of a trial it will come out that you are a beneficial receipiant financially.” WHAT!?! oh did i forget to mention in the chapter that those 2 sections came from it completely protects the advisement council from liability, it’s like their holding this over judges heads because they know it puts them in a tight spot at the same time it disrpts their “imartiality” thus causing prejudice to all of our rights for a future benefit not guaranteed in and in violation of US Const art III. At this point no judges can hear any Real Estate or Mortgage related case because they all have a financial stake in it, only a Jury can decide and will have to decide all the cases that were heard by judges without juries.
ALLAN (with a QUESTION: Next bubble: $600 trillion?), on April 25, 2010 at 8:58 am said:

NEXT BUBBLE: $600 TRILLION?

Cities, states, universities could sink from monster derivatives meltdown

—————————————————————————
Posted: April 19, 2010
9:40 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
—————————————————————————
WorldNetDaily

As interest rates begin to rise worldwide, losses in derivatives may end up bankrupting a wide range of institutions, including municipalities, state governments, major insurance companies, top investment houses, commercial banks and universities.

Defaults now beginning to occur in a number of European cities prefigure what may end up being the largest financial bubble ever to burst – a bubble that today amounts to more than $600 trillion.

The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, now estimates derivatives – the complex bets financial institutions and sophisticated institutional investors make with one another on everything from commodities options to credit swaps – topped $604 trillion worldwide at the end of June 2009.

To comprehend the relative magnitude of derivative contracts globally, the CIA Factbook estimates the 2009 Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, of the world was just under $60 trillion.

Derivative contracts, therefore, have now reach a level 10 times world GDP, meaning even a 10 percent default in derivatives would equal world GDP.

The small 800-year-old town of Saint-Etienne in France has just defaulted on a $1.6 million contract owed to Deutsche Bank. The city entered into a complex currency swap arrangement to reduce the cost of borrowing some $30 million.

To cancel all 10 derivative contracts Saint-Etienne currently holds would cost the town approximately $135 million, more than six times the amount initially borrowed, largely because no bank or institutional investor would want to purchase contracts that are now on the losing side of the bet.

Saint-Etienne is only one of thousands of EU municipalities that bought into derivative contracts as a way to cut the costs of municipal borrowing.

A key problem with derivatives is that in the attempt to reduce costs or prevent losses, institutional investors typically accepted complex risks that carried little-understood liabilities widely disproportionate to the any potential savings the derivatives contract may have initially obtained.

The hedge fund and derivatives markets are so highly complex and technical that even many top economists and investment banking professionals don’t fully understand them.

Moreover, both the hedge fund and derivatives markets are almost totally unregulated, either by the U.S. government or by any other government worldwide.

But losses on derivatives are not limited to government entities.

HARVARD’S BILLIONS

Obama administration economic guru Larry Summers may end up being best remembered for having destroyed almost single-handedly the Harvard University endowment fund as a result of misguided instructions he gave the fund’s management during his tenure as Harvard University president from 2002 to 2006.

Summers, currently director of the White House National Economic Council, called for an aggressive investment strategy in which Harvard’ endowment fund engaged in risky strategies, including derivative strategies that have burdened the nation’ largest university endowment with billions of dollars in toxic assets.

As a result, the Harvard endowment, which peaked at $36.9 billion in June 2008, has since lost some 30 percent of its value, dropping to $26 billion, according to Bloomberg News.

In October 2009, Harvard University paid $497.6 million to investment banks to get out from $1.1 billion in interest rate swaps that were intended to hedge variable-rate debt for capital projects, Bloomberg reported.

In what amounted to Harvard’s biggest endowment loss in 40 years, the university also agreed to pay $425 million over the next 30 to 40 years to offset an additional $764 million in credit-swap deals gone bad.

Citing failed interest rate swaps that forced Harvard to pay banks $1 billion just to terminate the junk contracts, Bloomberg reported the Harvard endowment’s investments have become so toxic that even Summers won’t explain what happened during his watch.

The Boston Globe squarely put the blame on Summers’ doorstep, noting he came into office with a bold vision to expand the size of its science facilities by more than a third.

Average yearly expenditures for facilities jumped from under $150 million in 1995-2000 at Harvard, to $495 million from 2001-2005, to $644 million in 2009.

“Summers told the faculty not to think small,” the Globe wrote. “Its ambitions were limited only by its imagination, he said. “Harvard could always come up with more money from its ‘deeply loyal fans.’”

Unfortunately, deeply loyal fans and alumni with deep pockets were not enough to bail the university out from Sumner’s ill advised investment advice.

Bloomberg reported that cash-strapped Harvard recently asked Massachusetts for fast-track approval to borrow $2.5 billion.

The damage done to Harvard is not limited to plans to expand the science facility into blue-collar Allston. Now, the university is faced with slashing faculty and staff.

Last year, more than 1,600 of Harvard’s staff were offered early retirement, and more than 500 accepted.

“Loyal alumni have contributed generously to staunch the bleeding,” the Globe wrote, “but huge deficits remain in spite of all the reductions. Harvard will be a smaller place when the dust settles, with less educational and scholarly reach. It will employ fewer people and will contribute less to local and national prosperity.”

WHAT ARE DERIVATIVES?

While the hedge fund market is small in comparison to derivatives, hedge funds in the U.S. are still a $1.5 trillion industry.

Hedge funds and derivatives share a common characteristic in that both were set up initially by professional investment advisers to assist them in managing the risk contained in institutional investment portfolios, including mutual fund assets or pension funds that typically involved hundreds of millions of dollars.

One of the original ideas behind derivatives was the realization that professional money managers, including those in banks, investment companies and hedge funds, needed to make bets to offset the possibility of taking losses.

A popular form of derivative contracts was developed to permit one money manager to “swap” a stream of variable interest payments with another money manager for a stream of fixed interest payments.

The idea was to use derivative bets on interest rates to “hedge” or balance off the risks taken on interest-rate investments owned in the underlying portfolio.

If an institutional investment manager held $100 million in fixed-rate bonds, for example, to hedge the risk, should interest rates rise or fall in a manner different than projections, a purchase of a $100 million variable interest rate derivative could be constructed to cover the risk.

Whichever way interest rates went, one side to the swap might win and the other might lose.

The money manager losing the bet could expect to get paid on the derivative to compensate for some or all of the losses.

In the strong stock and mortgage markets experienced beginning in the historically low 1-percent interest rate environments of 2003 through 2004, the number of hedge funds soared, just as the volume of derivative contracts soared from a mere $300 trillion in 2005 to the more than $600 trillion today.

Bloomberg reported the number of hedge funds tripled in the last decade to a record of 10,233 at the end of June 2008, according to the Chicago-based Hedge Fund Research Inc.

More than one-third of those funds could be “wiped out” in the economic downturn that began in December 2008, Bloomberg said.

The Bank of International Settlements, or BIS, in Basel, Switzerland, makes no estimate of how much of the $604 trillion in outstanding derivative contracts are today vulnerable to collapse.

Losses in derivatives played a major role in the bankruptcies of both AIG and Bear Stearns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YIKES!!!

And some segments of the population do not want financial reform?

ALLAN
BeMoved@AOL.com
ALLAN (with a QUESTION: Next bubble: $600 trillion?), on April 25, 2010 at 8:51 am said:

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

WND MONEY

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

NEXT BUBBLE: $600 TRILLION?

Cities, states, universities could sink from monster derivatives meltdown
—————————————————————————
Posted: April 19, 2010
9:40 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
—————————————————————————
WorldNetDaily

As interest rates begin to rise worldwide, losses in derivatives may end up bankrupting a wide range of institutions, including municipalities, state governments, major insurance companies, top investment houses, commercial banks and universities.

Defaults now beginning to occur in a number of European cities prefigure what may end up being the largest financial bubble ever to burst – a bubble that today amounts to more than $600 trillion.

The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, now estimates derivatives – the complex bets financial institutions and sophisticated institutional investors make with one another on everything from commodities options to credit swaps – topped $604 trillion worldwide at the end of June 2009.

To comprehend the relative magnitude of derivative contracts globally, the CIA Factbook estimates the 2009 Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, of the world was just under $60 trillion.

Derivative contracts, therefore, have now reach a level 10 times world GDP, meaning even a 10 percent default in derivatives would equal world GDP.

The small 800-year-old town of Saint-Etienne in France has just defaulted on a $1.6 million contract owed to Deutsche Bank. The city entered into a complex currency swap arrangement to reduce the cost of borrowing some $30 million.

To cancel all 10 derivative contracts Saint-Etienne currently holds would cost the town approximately $135 million, more than six times the amount initially borrowed, largely because no bank or institutional investor would want to purchase contracts that are now on the losing side of the bet.

Saint-Etienne is only one of thousands of EU municipalities that bought into derivative contracts as a way to cut the costs of municipal borrowing.

A key problem with derivatives is that in the attempt to reduce costs or prevent losses, institutional investors typically accepted complex risks that carried little-understood liabilities widely disproportionate to the any potential savings the derivatives contract may have initially obtained.

The hedge fund and derivatives markets are so highly complex and technical that even many top economists and investment banking professionals don’t fully understand them.

Moreover, both the hedge fund and derivatives markets are almost totally unregulated, either by the U.S. government or by any other government worldwide.

But losses on derivatives are not limited to government entities.

HARVARD’S BILLIONS

Obama administration economic guru Larry Summers may end up being best remembered for having destroyed almost single-handedly the Harvard University endowment fund as a result of misguided instructions he gave the fund’s management during his tenure as Harvard University president from 2002 to 2006.

Summers, currently director of the White House National Economic Council, called for an aggressive investment strategy in which Harvard’ endowment fund engaged in risky strategies, including derivative strategies that have burdened the nation’ largest university endowment with billions of dollars in toxic assets.

As a result, the Harvard endowment, which peaked at $36.9 billion in June 2008, has since lost some 30 percent of its value, dropping to $26 billion, according to Bloomberg News.

In October 2009, Harvard University paid $497.6 million to investment banks to get out from $1.1 billion in interest rate swaps that were intended to hedge variable-rate debt for capital projects, Bloomberg reported.

In what amounted to Harvard’s biggest endowment loss in 40 years, the university also agreed to pay $425 million over the next 30 to 40 years to offset an additional $764 million in credit-swap deals gone bad.

Citing failed interest rate swaps that forced Harvard to pay banks $1 billion just to terminate the junk contracts, Bloomberg reported the Harvard endowment’s investments have become so toxic that even Summers won’t explain what happened during his watch.

The Boston Globe squarely put the blame on Summers’ doorstep, noting he came into office with a bold vision to expand the size of its science facilities by more than a third.

Average yearly expenditures for facilities jumped from under $150 million in 1995-2000 at Harvard, to $495 million from 2001-2005, to $644 million in 2009.

“Summers told the faculty not to think small,” the Globe wrote. “Its ambitions were limited only by its imagination, he said. “Harvard could always come up with more money from its ‘deeply loyal fans.’”

Unfortunately, deeply loyal fans and alumni with deep pockets were not enough to bail the university out from Sumner’s ill advised investment advice.

Bloomberg reported that cash-strapped Harvard recently asked Massachusetts for fast-track approval to borrow $2.5 billion.

The damage done to Harvard is not limited to plans to expand the science facility into blue-collar Allston. Now, the university is faced with slashing faculty and staff.

Last year, more than 1,600 of Harvard’s staff were offered early retirement, and more than 500 accepted.

“Loyal alumni have contributed generously to staunch the bleeding,” the Globe wrote, “but huge deficits remain in spite of all the reductions. Harvard will be a smaller place when the dust settles, with less educational and scholarly reach. It will employ fewer people and will contribute less to local and national prosperity.”

WHAT ARE DERIVATIVES?

While the hedge fund market is small in comparison to derivatives, hedge funds in the U.S. are still a $1.5 trillion industry.

Hedge funds and derivatives share a common characteristic in that both were set up initially by professional investment advisers to assist them in managing the risk contained in institutional investment portfolios, including mutual fund assets or pension funds that typically involved hundreds of millions of dollars.

One of the original ideas behind derivatives was the realization that professional money managers, including those in banks, investment companies and hedge funds, needed to make bets to offset the possibility of taking losses.

A popular form of derivative contracts was developed to permit one money manager to “swap” a stream of variable interest payments with another money manager for a stream of fixed interest payments.

The idea was to use derivative bets on interest rates to “hedge” or balance off the risks taken on interest-rate investments owned in the underlying portfolio.

If an institutional investment manager held $100 million in fixed-rate bonds, for example, to hedge the risk, should interest rates rise or fall in a manner different than projections, a purchase of a $100 million variable interest rate derivative could be constructed to cover the risk.

Whichever way interest rates went, one side to the swap might win and the other might lose.

The money manager losing the bet could expect to get paid on the derivative to compensate for some or all of the losses.

In the strong stock and mortgage markets experienced beginning in the historically low 1-percent interest rate environments of 2003 through 2004, the number of hedge funds soared, just as the volume of derivative contracts soared from a mere $300 trillion in 2005 to the more than $600 trillion today.

Bloomberg reported the number of hedge funds tripled in the last decade to a record of 10,233 at the end of June 2008, according to the Chicago-based Hedge Fund Research Inc.

More than one-third of those funds could be “wiped out” in the economic downturn that began in December 2008, Bloomberg said.

The Bank of International Settlements, or BIS, in Basel, Switzerland, makes no estimate of how much of the $604 trillion in outstanding derivative contracts are today vulnerable to collapse.

Losses in derivatives played a major role in the bankruptcies of both AIG and Bear Stearns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mike, on April 24, 2010 at 5:29 pm said:

hi marcus,

i’m in florida and have a hearing on in mid-May re: motions directed to complaint & notice o& notice of intent to dismiss under F.S. 57.011.

i have an attorney (for now, may not be able to afford much longer at $300/hr) and a court reporter will be there. i’m not sure my attorney is especially sympathetic to my cause since he thinks “the investors” are the ones who “really got screwed”.

am i unreasonable for thinking charging me $300/hour to drive to and from the courthouse is highway robbery? just saying…..
ALLAN (with a MIGHTY THANKS to MARCUS and a QUESTION), on April 24, 2010 at 4:29 pm said:

We’re getting some TERRIFIC on spot documents that reveal a widespread pattern of FRAUD UPON THE COURTS to cover up PLAINTIFF LACK OF STANDING, thanks to ICE LAW, WEIDNER LAW, MARCUS, LISA, MIKE and others.

HOW can we USE these fabulous new decisions/rulings, trial and deposition transcripts to bolster our written and oral arguments? Can we quote from them? If so, how do we lay the proper foundation? How do we cite or reference the source?

What is NOT hearsay?

What is admissible?

Can the decision of a district judge be used to influence another district judge or are they persuaded only by appeals and higher rulings?

Are newspaper accounts that incorporate quotations from district judges or their rulings something we can incorporate?

How about if the rulings or cases are outside the state, or in federal courts?

RSVP

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
marcus, on April 24, 2010 at 2:51 pm said:

Mike,
What state are you in and at what stage of the foreclosure process are you in?

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
M.R., on April 24, 2010 at 9:08 am said:

I am a victim of the fraud in Court and presently suffering for the way the foreclosure procedure has been conducted in our case which is horror and extremely painful.
I am 65 years of age. Since 2008 I have been fighting this foreclosure with my husband, but unfortunately our house was sold on April 8th, 2010. The Judge in Circuit Ninth Orange County Orlando, deffinitely refused to accept that FDLG was lying as well as JPMChase. The Judge’s only concern was that we were living rent free, despite the fact that there is not a single piece of evidence in the complaint. The Judge didn’t care about missing assignments, etc. He didn’t care that I qualified for a Reverse Mortgage due to my age and equity in the house. The Judge didn’t care that my husband is a veteran with a delicate heart condition, two heart attacks and two heart surgeries, diabetic and mental treatment. The Judge didn’t care that Bank declined all our offers of payment in full, and he didn’t care that we lost the car and filed Chapter 7 discharged on Dec. 2008.
The judge humilliated me in front of other people during our last hearing indicating that he was not going to tolerate anymore that I keep living free and taking advantage of the Bank losses.(Bank Losses? JP Morgan?? )
The Judge was so mad at us that he practically has punished us by taking advantage of all his power. He denied all our motions, even a request to waive bond during our appeal, which he refused and denied as well, requiring us to find a bond for $105,000 plus $15,000 attorneys fees.
Our house was sold on February 22nd, and on April 8th we were evicted. I just have no words to explain the pain, confusion, madness, fear, just a mixture of adverse reactions a human can have.
We were thrown out to the street with no car , little money and all of my art work, materials, equipment, just everything left inside and lost. This is my only source of income.
The buyers gave us $1,400 to find a tentative place to live. We are being deprived to continue selling our work. This is like being sentenced for a crime we never comitted.
Today we are in a little room with a computer, still fighting in Court, pending appeal (case is still open) and a discharge injunction in the Bankruptcy Court with an evidentiary hearing scheduled next May 13th. We have a very good case in the appeal, but better yet in the bankruptcy discharged injunction. Of course, we cannot afford an attorney, so we are ProSe.
We called every single agency in Orlando Florida, Fla. Bar, Orange County Bar, Legal Aid Soc. Seniors First, Senior alliance, Legal Community, The legislators, senators, etc. etc. etc. and no one, had a single idea on how to help us get at leat a part time legal counseling from a pro bono.
Today, a neighbor just called to inform that all our personal items are out in the street in a huge garage sale, with a sign that says, “State Garage Sale” Our neighbor went into the house and told us that it was a mess, destroyed and looking vandalized. To my knowledge, this is stolen property. This broke my heart, it is terrible, just terrible.I am just running out of strength, but still with hope.
I read Livinglies blog every single day and hour. Thank You Neil as well as Matt in his blog, you are both my inspiration and light of HOPE.
If any one has some idea, clue, or whatever legal help in contribution to our case, we will deeply appreciate it.
We have a good case to sue for losses, suffering, fraud, destruction of property and wonder if there is a contingency fee attorney that could take our case.
Thank You,
M. R.
mistiko13@yahoo.com
Anonymous, on April 23, 2010 at 8:07 am said:

Now we are ‘talking’ – Supreme Court Decision article dated 4/21/2010

“Debt Collectors Can Face Lawsuits for Mistakes, Court Says”

a short description of the case

The Supreme Court Wednesday made it easier for consumers to sue debt collectors for sending erroneous collection notices.

7-2 opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that debt collectors can’t shield themselves from such lawsuits by arguing that they made a legal error when sending a collection notice.

An Ohio law firm initiated foreclosure proceedings on behalf of Countrywide.

Homeowner, disputed that the debt existed.
Countrywide later acknowledged that Homeowner had in fact paid the debt.
The law firm withdrew the foreclosure lawsuit.

Homeowner sued the law firm.
Argument was that it violated federal debt-collection law by stating in its foreclosure suit that “homeowner” alleged debt would be assumed to be valid unless “”"she “”" contested in writing.

A lower court agreed with omeowner that the firm violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Lower court also ruled that the law firm was shielded from liability, because, the violation wasn’t intentional.

The Supreme Court, ruling that Congress hadn’t explicitly provided a mistake-of-law defense to debt collectors.

The case is Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, 08-1200.
mike, on April 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm said:

I need some help! I found the SEC form #8-K report from 2005 where (I believe) my loan was securitized.

My loan originated with Gateway Funding and was sold to Greenwich Capital Financial Products on 4-26-05.

This report, dated 7-1-05, was signed by Shakti Radhakishun (VP of Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc.)

According to MERS, the current investor is Deutsche Bank National Trust and it is serviced by OneWest Bank, FSB.

Now that I have this document…can anybody tell me what I’m looking for in it? I have a hearing soon and appreciate any help! ~mike
Daniela Mars, on April 22, 2010 at 2:38 pm said:

how Goldman and everybody else did

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575198120387721724.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

It felt so good to call Goldman, pretending that I was the secretary of Mr. Buffet and tell Mr. Blankfein that his time has come.
Jeff, on April 21, 2010 at 4:01 pm said:

JUDGE SCHACK STRIKES AGAIN

Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Chancay
2010 NY Slip Op 50687(U)
Decided on April 20, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 20, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County

Flushing Savings Bank, FSB, Plaintiff,

against

Narcizo Chancay, et. al., Defendants.

34732/08

Plaintiff

Grace Y. Lee, Esq.

Lynch & Associates

NY NY

Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference for the premises located at 113 Wilson Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3197, Lot 6, County of Kings) is denied with prejudice. The complaint is dismissed. The notice of pendency filed against the above-named real property is cancelled. Plaintiff, FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB (FLUSHING), lacks standing to continue this action because the instant mortgage was satisfied on June 23, 2009. Plaintiff’s counsel never notified the Court that the mortgage had been satisfied and failed to discontinue the instant action with prejudice. I discovered that the mortgage had been satisfied by personally searching the Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) website of the Office of the City Register, New York City Department of Finance. Plaintiff FLUSHING’s President and Chief Executive Officer, John R. Buran, its counsel, Grace Y. Lee, Esq., and her firm, Lynch & Associates, PLLC, will be given an opportunity to be heard as to why this Court should not sanction them for making a “frivolous motion,” pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1.

Background
Defendant NARCIZO CHANCAY (CHANCAY) borrowed $270,000.00 from

FLUSHING, on March 30, 2006, and secured by a mortgage, recorded by plaintiff FLUSHING, [*2]at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, New York City Department of Finance, on April 12, 2006, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2006000203526. Defendant CHANCAY defaulted in his mortgage loan payments with the September 1, 2008 payment. FLUSHING commenced the instant action with the filing of the summons, complaint and notice of pendency with the Kings County Clerk on December 31, 2008. Plaintiff’s counsel, on April 8, 2009 filed the instant motion for an order of reference with the Court’sForeclosure Department. After reviewing the papers, the Foreclosure Department forwarded the instant motion to me on April 15, 2010.

On April 19, 2010, I searched ACRIS and discovered that plaintiff FLUSHING executed a satisfaction of the instant mortgage almost ten months ago, on June 23, 2009. The satisfaction was recorded at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, on July 8, 2009, at CRFN 2009000207047. Further, ACRIS revealed that defendant CHANCAY sold the premises to PERFECT GROUP CONSTRUCTION, INC. (PERFECT), for $585,000.00, with the deed executed on May 19, 2009. The deed was recorded on June 5, 2009, at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at CRFN 2009000169790.

Plaintiff’s counsel never had the courtesy or professionalism to notify the Court that the instant mortgage was satisfied and file a motion to discontinue the instant action. The Court is gravely concerned that: it expended scarce resources on an action that should have been discontinued; and, would have signed an order that could have possibly damaged the credit rating of defendant CHANCAY and put an unfair cloud on the title to the subject premises now owned by PERFECT, causing both defendant CHANCAY and PERFECT much time and effort to correct an error caused by the failure of plaintiff FLUSHING and plaintiff’s counsel to exercise due diligence. If plaintiff FLUSHING is a responsible lender it should have made sure that the Court was notified that the subject mortgage had been satisfied.

Discussion
It is clear that plaintiff FLUSHING lacks standing to proceed in the instant action since some time prior to June 23, 2009, when the satisfaction for defendant CHANCAY’s mortgage was executed. The exact date is probably May 19, 2009, when defendant CHANCAY likely paid off the subject mortgage loan as part of his losing with PERFECT for the sale of the subject mortgaged premises. “To establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and the mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment.” (Campaign v Barba (23 AD3d 327 [2d Dept. 2005]). The instant mortgage was satisfied almost ten months ago and likely paid off eleven months before the instant motion for an order of reference was forwarded to me by the Foreclosure Department.The satisfaction, dated June 23, 2009, states that “FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB

. . . certifies that it is the present owner of a mortgage executed by NARCIZO CHANCAY to FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB on 3/30/2006, to secure payment of the principal sum of $270,000.00 and recorded on 4/12/2006 . . . The above described mortgage is, with the note accompanying it, fully paid, satisfied, and discharged.” (See Household Finance Realty Corp. of New York v Wynn, 19 AD3d 545 [2d Dept. 2005]; Sears Mortgage Corp. v Yahhobi, 19 AD3d 402 [2d Dept. 2005]; Ocwen Federal Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527 [2d Dept. 2005]; U.S. Bank Trust Nat. Ass’n Trustee v Butti, 16 AD3d 408 [2d Dept 2005]; First Union Mortgage [*3]Corp. v Fern, 298 AD2d 490 [2d Dept 2002]; Village Bank v Wild Oaks, Holding, Inc., 196 AD2d 812 [2d Dept 1993]).

The Court of Appeals (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki,

100 NY2d 801, 812 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]) declared that “[s]tanding to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked. The plaintiff who has standing, however, may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress.”

In Caprer v Nussbaum (36 AD3d 176, 181 [2d Dept 2006]) the Court held that “[s]tanding to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request.” If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff may not proceed in the action. (Stark v Goldberg, 297 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 2002]).

Since FLUSHING executed the satisfaction for the instant mortgage, the Court must not only deny the instant motion, but also dismiss the complaint and cancel the notice of pendency filed by FLUSHING, with the Kings County Clerk on December 31, 2008. CPLR § 6501 provides that the filing of a notice of pendency against a property is to give constructive notice to any purchaser of real property or encumbrancer against real property of an action that “would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the possession of real property.” Professor David Siegel, in NY Prac, § 334, at 535 [4th ed] observes about a notice of pendency that:

The plaintiff files it with the county clerk of the real property county,

putting the world on notice of the plaintiff’s potential rights in the

action and thereby warning all comers that if they then buy the

property or lend on the strength of it or otherwise rely on the

defendant’s right, they do so subject to whatever the action may

establish as the plaintiff’s right.

The Court of Appeals, in 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. (64 NY2d 313, 315 [1984]), commented that “[a] notice of pendency, commonly known as a lis pendens,’ can be a potent shield to litigants claiming an interest in real property.” The Court, at 318-320, outlined the history of the doctrine of lis pendens back to 17th century England. It was formally recognized in New York courts in 1815 and first codified in the Code of Procedure [Field Code] enacted in 1848. At 319, the Court stated that “[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of whether a purchaser had any notice of the pending suit,” and, at 320, “the statutory scheme permits a party to effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review.”

In Israelson v Bradley (308 NY 511, 516 [1955]) the Court observed that with a notice of pendency a plaintiff who has an interest in real property has received from the State:

an extraordinary privilege which . . . upon the mere filing of the

notice of a pendency of action, a summons and a complaint and [*4]

strict compliance with the requirements of section 120 [of the Civil

Practice Act; now codified in CPLR § § 6501, 6511 and 6512] is

required. Proper administration of the law by the courts requires

promptness on the part of a litigant so favored and that he accept

the shield which has been given him upon the terms imposed and

that he not be permitted to so use the privilege granted that it

becomes a sword usable against the owner or possessor of realty.

If the terms imposed are not met, the privilege is at an end.

[Emphasis added]

Article 65 of the CPLR outlines notice of pendency procedures. The Court, in Da Silva v Musso (76 NY2d 436, 442 [1990]), held that “the specific statutorily prescribed mechanisms for implementing this provisional remedy . . . were designed with a view toward balancing the interests of the claimant in the preservation of the status quo against the equally legitimate interests of the property owner in the marketability of his title.” The Court of Appeals, quoted Professor Siegel, in holding that “[t]he ability to file a notice of pendency is a privilege that can be lost if abused’ (Siegel, New York Practice § 336, at 512).” (In Re Sakow, 97 NY2d 436, 441 [2002]).

The instant case, with plaintiff FLUSHING lacking standing to bring this action, and the complaint dismissed, meets the criteria for losing “a privilege that can be lost if abused.” CPLR § 6514 (a) provides for the mandatory cancellation of a notice of pendency by:

[t]he court, upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such

notice as it may require, shall direct any county clerk to cancel a

notice of pendency, if service of a summons has not been completed

within the time limited by section 6512; or if the action has been

settled, discontinued or abated; or if the time to appeal from a final

judgment against the plaintiff has expired; or if enforcement of a

final judgment against the plaintiff has not been stayed pursuant to

section 5519. [Emphasis added]

The plain meaning of the word “abated,” as used in CPLR § 6514 (a) is the ending of an action. Abatement is defined (Black’s Law Dictionary 3 [7th ed 1999]) as “the act of eliminating or nullifying.” ” An action which has been abated is dead, and any further enforcement of the cause of action requires the bringing of a new action, provided that a cause of action remains’ (2A Carmody-Wait 2d § 11.1).” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40 [2d Dept 2005]). Further, Nastasi at 36, held that “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR 6501 (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. at 320-321; Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 451-452 [1st Dept 1998]; Siegel, NY Prac § 336 [4th ed]).” As plaintiff FLUSHING now lacks standing to sue, the dismissal of the instant complaint must result in the mandatory cancellation of the [*5]December 31, 2008 notice of pendency against the property “in the exercise of the inherent power of the Court.”

The failure of plaintiff FLUSHING, by its President and Chief Executive Officer, John R. Buran, and its counsel, Grace Y. Lee, Esq. and her firm, Lynch & Associates, PLLC, to discontinue the instant action since the payoff of the CHANCAY mortgage in 2009 appears to be “frivolous.” 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (a) states that “the Court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 of this Subpart.” Further, it states in 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (b), that “sanctions may be imposed upon any attorney appearing in the action or upon a partnership, firm or corporation with which the attorney is associated.”

22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (c) states that:

For purposes of this part, conduct is frivolous if:

(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported

by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or

reversal of existing law;

(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or

(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.

It is clear that since at least June 23, 2009 the instant motion for aan order of reference “is completely without merit in law” and “asserts material factual statements that are false.”

Several years before the drafting and implementation of the Part 130 Rules for

costs and sanctions, the Court of Appeals (A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 6 [1986]) observed that “frivolous litigation is so serious a problem affecting the

proper administration of justice, the courts may proscribe such conduct and impose sanctions in this exercise of their rule-making powers, in the absence of legislation to the contrary (see NY Const, art VI, § 30, Judiciary Law § 211 [1] [b] ).”

Part 130 Rules were subsequently created, effective January 1, 1989, to give the

courts an additional remedy to deal with frivolous conduct. These stand beside Appellate Division disciplinary case law against attorneys for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. The Court, in Gordon v Marrone (202 AD2d 104, 110 [2d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 813 [1995]), instructed that:

Conduct is frivolous and can be sanctioned under the court rule if

“it is completely without merit . . . and cannot be supported by a

reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of

existing law; or . . . it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong [*6]

the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure

another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c] [1], [2] . . . ).

In Levy v Carol Management Corporation (260 AD2d 27, 33 [1st Dept 1999]) the Court stated that in determining if sanctions are appropriate the Court must look at the broad pattern of conduct by the offending attorneys or parties. Further, “22 NYCRR

130-1.1 allows us to exercise our discretion to impose costs and sanctions on an errant party . . .” Levy at 34, held that “[s]anctions are retributive, in that they punish past conduct. They also are goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the Bar at large.”

The Court, in Kernisan, M.D. v Taylor (171 AD2d 869 [2d Dept 1991]), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules “is to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics (cf. Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Church of City of New York v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411; see Steiner v Bonhamer, 146 Misc 2d 10) [Emphasis added].” Since at least June 23, 2009 and probably since May 19, 2009, the instant action is “a waste of judicial resources.” This conduct, as noted in Levy, must be deterred. In Weinstock v Weinstock (253 AD2d 873 [2d Dept 1998]) the Court ordered the maximum sanction of $10,000.00 for an attorney who pursued an appeal “completely without merit,” and holding, at 874, that “[w]e therefore award the maximum authorized amount as a sanction for this conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1) calling to mind that frivolous litigation causes a substantial waste of judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to the Court with real grievances [Emphasis added].” Citing Weinstock, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Bernadette Panzella, P.C. v De Santis (36 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 2007]) affirmed a Supreme Court, Richmond County $2,500.00 sanction, at 736, as “appropriate in view of the plaintiff’s waste of judicial resources [Emphasis added].”

In Navin v Mosquera (30 AD3d 883 [3d Dept 2006]) the Court instructed that when considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, “courts are required to

examine whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent’ (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]).” The Court, in Sakow ex rel. Columbia Bagel, Inc. v Columbia Bagel, Inc. (6 Misc 3d 939, 943 [Sup Ct,

New York County 2004]), held that “[i]n assessing whether to award sanctions, the Court must consider whether the attorney adhered to the standards of a reasonable attorney (Principe v Assay Partners, 154 Misc 2d 702 [Sup Ct, NY County 1992]).” In the instant action, plaintiff’s attorney is responsible for keeping track of whether the mortgage was satisfied. In Sakow at 943, the Court observed that “[a]n attorney cannot safely delegate all duties to others.”

This Court will examine the conduct of plaintiff FLUSHING and plaintiff’s counsel, in a hearing, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, to determine if plaintiff FLUSHING, by its President and Chief Executive Officer, John R. Buran, and plaintiff’s counsel Grace Y. Lee, Esq. and her firm Lynch & Associates, PLLC engaged in frivolous conduct, and to allow plaintiff FLUSHING, by its President and Chief Executive Officer John R. Buran, and plaintiff’s counsel Grace Y. Lee, Esq. and her firm Lynch & Associates, PLLC a reasonable opportunity to be heard. (See Mascia v Maresco, 39 AD3d 504 [2d Dept 2007]; Yan v Klein, 35 AD3d 729 [2d [*7]Dept 2006]; Greene v Doral Conference Center Associates, 18 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 2005]; Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich, 7 AD3d 39 [2d Dept 2004]).

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff, FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB, for an order of reference for the premises located at 113 Wilson Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3197, Lot 6, County of Kings), is denied with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that since plaintiff, FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB, lacks standing and is no longer the mortgagee in this foreclosure action, the instant complaint, Index No. 34732/08 is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Kings County Clerk on December 31, 2008, by plaintiff, FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB, in an action to foreclose a mortgage for real property located at 113 Wilson Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3197, Lot 6, County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further

ORDERED that it appearing that plaintiff FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Grace Y. Lee, Esq. and Lynch & Associates, PLLC engaged in “frivolous conduct,” as defined in the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR § 130-1 (c), and that pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR § 130.1.1 (d), “[a]n award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made . . . upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard,” this Court will conduct a hearing affording: plaintiff FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB, by its President and Chief Executive Officer, John R. Buran; Grace Y. Lee, Esq.; and, Lynch & Associates, PLLC; “a reasonable opportunity to be heard,” before me in Part 27, on Friday, May 7, 2010, at 2:30 P.M., in Room 479, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; and it is further

ORDERED, that Ronald David Bratt, Esq., my Principal Law Clerk, is directed to serve this order by first-class mail, upon: John R. Buran, President and Chief Executive Officer of plaintiff FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, FSB, 144-51 Northern Boulevard, Flushing, New York 11354; and, Grace Y. Lee, Esq. and Lynch & Associates, PLLC, 205 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10016.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

___________________________

HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK
marcus, on April 21, 2010 at 1:06 pm said:

Hello,
I have posted the well crafted Motion For Rehearing Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment in GMAC Mortgage LLC vs. Debbie Visicaro case in Pinellas county.

xhttp://www.foreclosureprose.com/storage/GMACvsDebbieVisicaroRehearing.pdf

marcus@foreclosureprose.com
msoliman, on April 21, 2010 at 6:38 am said:

Analysts grilled Goldman Sachs Tuesday for its role in structuring a security tied to subprime mortgages even as the firm reported a stronger-than-expected profit of $3.5 billion in the latest quarter.

Just days after being charged with defrauding investors by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wall Street’s top investment bank defended its actions, maintaining it never deceived investors and that it did not make money on the deal.

“We would never intentionally mislead anyone,” said Greg Palm, Goldman’s co-general counsel during a conference call with investors Tuesday morning.

msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Jeff, on April 19, 2010 at 5:24 pm said:

NY JUDGE SPINNER “GETS IT”

Emigrant Mtge. Co. Inc. v Corcione
2010 NY Slip Op 20133
Decided on April 16, 2010
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Spinner, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 16, 2010

Supreme Court, Suffolk County

Emigrant Mortgage Co. Inc., Plaintiff

against

Anthony J. Corcione and Jane Corcione, Defendants.

2009-28917

Joshua Deutsch, Esq.

Deutsch & Schneider L.L.P.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

79-37 Myrtle Avenue

Glendale, New York 11385

Sean C. Serpe, Esq.

Serpe & Associates, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendants

450 Seventh Avenue

New York, New York 10123

Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, J.

On July 23, 2009 Plaintiff commenced this action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage by filing its Notice of Pendency and Summons and Complaint with the Clerk of Suffolk County. The mortgage at issue was given by Defendants to Plaintiff on July 5, 2007, in the principal amount of $ 302,500.00 and was recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21580 of Mortgages at Page 379. Said mortgage was given as collateral security for a simultaneously executed Adjustable Rate Note with interest at the initial rate of 11.625% and it constitutes a first lien upon premises known as 66 Circle Drive, East Northport, Town of Huntington, New York.

On or about May 1, 2008, owing to a loss of employment, Defendants defaulted upon their monthly installment payments due to Plaintiff under the Adjustable Rate Note. According to Defendants, they had, from the very time of default, assiduously attempted to arrive at an amicable resolution but were met with multiple and varying impediments erected by Plaintiff. They claim to have been ceaselessly trying since the default date, albeit without any success, to obtain a modification from Plaintiff, having proceeded on their own, thence through a modification facilitator and finally through counsel. Plaintiff baldly asserts that Defendants only sought to resolve this matter subsequent to the commencement of the foreclosure action, a position that is belied by the record. Though Plaintiff advances no explanation whatsoever for the fourteen month hiatus between default and suit, its actions, when considered in light of all of the circumstances herein, lead inexorably to the conclusion that this gap in time would indubitably increase the amount of interest Plaintiff could exact from Defendants, hardly a noble or good faith purpose.

On or about August 3, 2009, initial process was servied upon Defendants and thereafter counsel appeared and interposed a Verified Answer on their behalf. By Notice of Motion dated October 14, 2009 (seq. 001) which was returnable October 28, 2009, Plaintiff applied to this Court for an Order granting summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 and for the appointment of a referee to compute in accordance with RPAPL § 1321. Thereafter and on October 18, 2009, the first in what evolved into a series of Foreclosure Settlement Conferences was convened. The same was adjourned on no less than five occasions and was ultimately referred to the undersigned by Court Attorney Referee Adrienne Williams Esq., notwithstanding the vociferous and inexplicable objections of Plaintiff’s counsel. A conference was then held by the Court on March 16, 2010 and the entire proceeding was thereafter adjourned for all purposes to April 27, 2010.

A careful examination of all of the documentation submitted by Plaintiff, both on its motion and at the conference is, at the same time, both starkly revealing and greatly disturbing. While the Adjustable Rate Note contains an initial interest rate of 11.625%, it is subject to change on August 1, 2012 and on the first day of each succeeding August thereafter, until its stated maturity date of August 1, 2037. The basis upon which the interest rate is computed is set forth at some length within Paragraph 4 of the Adjustable Rate Note. Briefly stated, it provides that the holder will determine the rate based upon the average weekly yield on securities issued by the United States Treasury as adjusted to a constant maturity of one year, to which it will then add 6.375% followed by a rounding of the same upward to the nearest one eighth of one percent. Appended thereto (and likewise annexed to the recorded Mortgage) is a document entitled “Default Interest Rate Rider” which, by its express terms, modifies the Adjustable Rate Note by [*2]providing for an upward increase in the rate of interest charged to 18% upon a default by the mortgagors. The default interest rate is triggered by any one of the events of default as they are defined in the Adjustable Rate Note and Mortgage.

Though not expressly stated, this Court, being fully aware of the customs and practices extant in the mortgage lending industry (including loan origination, warehousing, brokerage, closing, settlement and transfer) must presume that the terms and conditions of the Adjustable Rate Note, Default Interest Rate Ride and Mortgage were the product of unequal bargaining power as between Plaintiff and Defendants. It is a virtual certainty that Defendants were not afforded the opportunity to freely bargain and negotiate in reaching the operative terms that are now subject to this Court’s scrutiny. Since the instruments upon which Plaintiff demands enforcement have obviously been promulgated by the lender to the borrowers and since the operative and binding terms thereof are clearly not negotiable by the borrower, such instruments must be considered to be in the nature of a contract of adhesion, which typically would be construed against the drafter thereof, Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance Company 100 NY2d 377 (2000).

On March 16, 2010, in accordance with the provisions of CPLR § 3408, a mandatory foreclosure settlement conference was convened before the Court. Present at that conference were Defendants, their counsel Sean C. Serpe Esq., Millie Rivera as representative of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel Joshua Deutsch Esq. One of the items produced at that conference was a document entitled “Loan Modification Agreement,” which had been propounded by Plaintiff’s counsel on or about February 23, 2010 and which required an acceptance thereof not later than March 5, 2010 else the offer be revoked and the foreclosure action be continued. This Agreement was intended to effectuate a cure of the arrears over time together with a myriad of other provisions. The amount or arrears to be cured was determined by Plaintiff to total $ 119,330.89 with the sum of $ 84,606.45 to be recapitalized at the rate of 6%. Plaintiff proposed that if the Agreement were fully consummated, after 12 months it would “forgive” default interest of approximately $ 30,000.00.

According to Plaintiff, the principal balance owed stands at $ 301,721.58 and the interest accrued between May 1, 2008 and March 1, 2010 has reached the not insubstantial sum of $ 95,154.65 with a continuing per diem of $ 132.54 thereafter. According to both Ms. Rivera and Attorney Deutsch, interest was computed at 16% per annum in accordance with the Default Interest Rate Rider described, supra (which, as previously noted, actually provides for default interest to be computed at the rate of 18%, an inconsistency that remains unexplained). In addition to interest, Plaintiff also claimed the sum of $ 19,672.91 for “Other Charges” which Plaintiff declined to explain to Defendants or their counsel. Upon questioning by the Court, it was revealed that these so-called “Other Charges” consisted of some

$ 1,100.00 in pre-action late charges, unsubstantiated tax and insurance advances of $ 10,000.00, check fees of $ 40.00, legal expenses of $ 3,380.00, unpaid legal expenses of $ 4,515.00 (total claimed legal expenses of $ 7,895.00), property inspection fees of $ 85.00, unpaid inspection fees of $ 40.00 and appraisal fees of $ 350.00.

The Court questions the entitlement of Plaintiff to claim legal fees, costs and accrued [*3]interest, (especially when computed at a confiscatory rate) inasmuch as not less than fourteen months of accruals were due to Plaintiff’s delay in responding to Defendants’ entreaties toward resolution. Plaintiff’s position appears to be facially unreasonable.

Although not substantiated, Plaintiff asserts that it has advanced the sum of $ 10,000.00 for taxes and insurance. According to the Tax Collector of the Town of Huntington, the annual tax upon the property at issue is $ 3,209.94, of which only the sum of $ 1,604.97 has been paid for the current levy. According to public records, the taxes for the prior year were $ 2,709.61. Even so, the Affidavit of Joel Marcano, Plaintiff’s Assistant Treasurer, avers that as of September 16, 2009, it had paid $ 6,662.51 for property taxes. These numbers simply do not add up and the amount demanded seems far too round.

In addition, although reasonable legal fees are customarily allowed in a mortgage foreclosure action where provided for in the instruments of indebtedness, the same are subject to an award by the Court and above all, they must be reasonable and fairly related to the work performed. In this matter, the Court is convinced that the fees demanded by Plaintiff in this matter ($ 7,895.00) are both excessive and unreasonable, especially in light of the paucity of services that appear to have been performed.

A cursory review of the Agreement at the conference revealed some deplorable particulars. In the paragraph enumerated as 1.02, the language was set out in bold type and reads as follows:

“Borrowers unconditionally, knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and after having obtained

the advice of counsel or having been given ample opportunity to obtain the advise [sic] of

counsel and declined to do so, waives any claim, counterclaim, right of recoupment, defenses,

affirmative defenses or set-off of any kind or nature whatsoever with respect to the Existing

Default, the Loan Documents, and/or the Indebtedness.”

Further along, in Paragraph 2.01, the Agreement further provides, in bold and underscored type, that

“Borrowers submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and confirm that all contractual and

statutory conditions precedent to such foreclosure proceedings have been satisfied…

BORROWERS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THIS

AGREEMENT ARE MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE LOAN ACCELERATION OR

THE PENDING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A

WAIVER OF ANY OF LENDER’S RIGHTS TO FORECLOSE.”

Continuing on to Paragraph 2.02 which prescribes that payments must be received by the first day of each month, without grace period, it states, in pertinent part, that [*4]

“…Emigrant shall, among other things, be immediately entitled, without any notice to the

Borrowers, to exercise any and all remedies available to it and shall be entitled to collect all

sums due under the Loan Documents as if this Agreement had not been made…the Borrowers

shall have no right to cure said default, and Emigrant will be free to pursue all of its rights

and remedies under the Loan Documents and this Agreement, at law and at equity.”

Moving along, Paragraph 7.10 is intended to function as a General Release given by “…Borrowers, for themselves and their children, parents, relations…” and running in favor of Plaintiff “and any entities related to it and its past, present and future directors, officers (whether acting in such capacity or individually), shareholders, owners, partners, joint venturers, principals, trustees, creditors, attorneys, representatives, employees, managers…” This clause, employing broad and sweeping language, releases and discharges the cited Releasees from what seems to be every single possible potentiality, including “…(a) any and all claims for violation of the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et. seq., or its implementing regulations; (b) any and all claims for unfair and/or deceptive trade practices; ( c) any and all claims for consumer fraud or for fraudulent and/or predatory lending practices; (d) any and all claims for attorney’s fees and costs of any kind or nature, by statute or otherwise; (e) any and all claims that could have been asserted in any legal proceeding or action; and (f) any and all claims that are relating to, concerning, or underlying the Loan, and the brokering, closing, servicing or administration of the Loan.” However, nowhere in the Agreement is there a parallel Release running from Plaintiff to Defendants. The obvious and facially clear intent of this clause is to circumvent each and every state and federal law in the State of New York intended to regulate the mortgage banking industry.

Perhaps the most distressing section of the Agreement is Paragraph 7.12 which reads verbatim as follows:

“Borrowers hereby acknowledge, represent and warrant that if they cannot perform in

accordance with the terms of this Agreement, they will never be able to perform in

accordance with the Loan Documents, nor will they be able to reorganize under the

provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code or any similar law. Accordingly, in

consideration of this Agreement and in recognition of Emigrant’s willingness to enter

into this Agreement, Borrowers hereby agree that if a petition in Bankruptcy is filed by

or against them, as debtor and debtor-in-possession (if applicable), Borrowers hereby

consent to immediate and unconditional relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362

(the “Stay”) in favor of Emigrant, waives their right to oppose a motion for relief from the

Stay, waives the benefits of the Stay, and hereby admits and agrees that grounds to vacate

the Stay to permit Emigrant to enforce its rights and remedies under this Agreement, the

Loan Documents and/or any other documents executed in connection therewith exist and

shall continue to exist, which grounds include, without limitation, the fact that Emigrant’s

interests in the Property cannot be adequately protected.” [*5]

This clause, if given legal effect, effectively attempts to deprive Defendants of any ability, now or at any future date, to act in a legitimate manner to save their home by invoking the protection of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq.). The automatic stay is effective upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy and is imposed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. The automatic stay functions as perhaps the most important tool for the protection of the debtor, the creditors and preservation of the estate. It is abundantly clear that vacatur of the automatic stay is exclusively within the province of the Bankruptcy Court, U.S. ex. rel. Fullington v. Parkway Hospital Inc. 351 B.R. 280 (Bankr. E.D.NY, 2006) and that such a purported waiver of the automatic stay is legally inefficacious, M.E.S. Inc. v. M.J. Favorito Electric Inc. 2010 US Dist LEXIS 23809 (E.D.NY, 3/15/2010). By including this clause, it is clear that were it enforceable, Plaintiff would be able to pre-empt the federal insolvency statutes.

This Court has never been presented with such a waiver, especially when accompanied by absurd representations (drafted by the lender) that amount to what could best be described as an express warranty that Defendants presently are and will forever be insolvent. It is axiomatic that a pre-bankruptcy waiver of such a valuable statutory right, even if freely bargained for (and in this Court’s opinion, this is certainly not the case), should not, under any circumstances, be enforced against consumer debtors such as Defendants. In the view of this Court, such a highly questionable waiver as this one is unconscionable, unreasonable, overreaching and is absolutely void as against public policy. This is even more glaringly true when the Agreement is reviewed in toto and not piece by piece. This Court is constrained to determine that the waiver, the release and indeed the Agreement as a whole is unacceptable for all purposes.

In 2008, New York’s Assembly and Senate enacted Chapter 472 of the Laws of 2008 which constituted a sweeping reform of the laws regarding sub-prime, high cost and non-traditional home loans. Part and parcel of that legislation included a newly enacted CPLR § 3408 which required a mandatory settlement conference in an action to foreclose such a loan. Since its enactment, this Court, sitting as the Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Conference Part, has mandated that the parties to such an action act and negotiate in good faith. Indeed, in December of 2009, both the Assembly and the Senate amended CPLR § 3408 by, among other things, adding a requirement that the parties act in good faith. Indeed, my learned and distinguished colleague, Justice Timothy J. Walker, in the matter of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Hughes 2010 NY Slip Op (Supreme Court, Erie County; 1/13/2010) declined to approve a settlement proposal where the Plaintiff failed to act in good faith as required by CPLR § 3408. Regrettably, it is patently clear to this Court that Plaintiff has failed to act in good faith in this matter.

Upon reviewing the totality of the circumstances herein, this Court is driven to the inescapable conclusion that Plaintiff has, by way of calculation and pre-meditation (as evidenced by the terms of its carefully crafted Agreement), created a scenario whereby it is a virtual certainty that Defendants will ultimately be irreparably damaged and further, by way of the Agreement, has gone to extraordinary lengths in an attempt to insulate itself from liability while [*6]at the same time ensuring that it will not sustain any pecuniary loss and that all cost will be borne by Defendants. In short, the conduct of Plaintiff in this matter has been over-reaching, shocking, willful and unconscionable, is wholly devoid of even so much as a scintilla of good faith and cannot be countenanced by this Court.

Since an action to foreclose a mortgage is a suit in equity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investing Co. 274 NY 215 (1937), all of the tenets of equity are fully applicable to the proceeding, including the rules governing punitive or exemplary damages, I.H.P. Corp. v. 210 Central Park South Corp. 12 NY2d 329 (1963). Indeed this Court is persuaded that Judge Benjamin Cardozo was most assuredly correct in stating that “The whole body of principles, whether of law or of equity, bearing on the case, becomes the reservoir drawn upon by the court in enlightening its judgment” Susquehannah Steamship Co. Inc. v. A.O. Andersen & Co. Inc. 239 NY 289 at 294 (1925). In a suit in equity, the Court is vested with jurisdiction to do that which ought to be done. While the Court notes that the formal distinctions between an action at law and a suit in equity have long since been abolished in New York (see CPLR 103, Field Code of 1848 §§ 2, 3, 4, 69), the Supreme Court is nevertheless vested with equity jurisdiction and the distinct rules governing equity are still very much applicable, Carroll v. Bullock 207 NY 567 (1913).

In those rare instances where the conduct of a party is unconscionable, shocking or egregious, a Court of equity is vested with the power to award exemplary damages. Exemplary damages may lie in a situation where it is necessary to both effectuate punishment as well as to deter the offending party from engaging in such reprehensible conduct in the future. Such an award may also be made to address, as so ably enunciated by our Court of Appeals in Home Insurance Co. v. American Home Products Corp. 75 NY2d 196, 550 NE2d 930, 551 NYS2d 481 (1989) “…gross misbehavior for the good of the public…on the ground of public policy”. Indeed, exemplary damages are intended to have a deterrent effect upon conduct which is unconscionable, egregious, deliberate and inequitable, I.H.P. Corp. v. 210 Central Park South Corp. 12 NY2d 329, 189 NE2d 812, 239 NYS2d 547 (1963).

Under the unique circumstances of this matter, the Court determines that Plaintiff be forever barred and prohibited from collecting any of the claimed interest accrued on the loan between the date of default and March 1, 2010, that Plaintiff be barred and prohibited from recovering any claimed legal fees and expenses as well as any and all claimed advances to date and further that Plaintiff’s debt be determined at this time to be no more than the principal balance of $ 301,721.58. The Court also determines that the imposition of exemplary damages upon Plaintiff is equitable, necessary and appropriate, both in light of Plaintiff’s shockingly inequitable, bad faith conduct as well as to serve as an appropriate deterrent to any future outrageous, improper and wrongful activities.

The Court hereby fixes the amount of exemplary damages in the sum of $ 100,000.00, recoverable by Defendants from Plaintiff.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is, therefore [*7]

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment and appointment of a Referee is denied; and it is further

ORDERED , ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff, its successors, assigns and others are forever barred, foreclosed and prohibited from demanding, collecting or attempting to collect, directly or indirectly, any and all of the sums in this proceeding delineated as interest, default interest, attorney’s fees, legal fees, costs, disbursements, advances or any sums other than the principal balance, that may have accrued from May 1, 2008 up to the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants ANTHONY J. CORCIONE and JANE CORCIONE residing at 66 Circle Drive, East Northport, New York 11731 recover judgment against Plaintiff EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY INC. with an office located at 5 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017 in the principal sum of $ 100,000.00 representing exemplary damages, and that Defendants have execution therefor. The Clerk of Suffolk County is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

This shall constitute the Decision, Judgment and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 16, 2010

Riverhead, New York

ENTER:

______________________________________

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, J.S.C.
DyingTruth, on April 19, 2010 at 4:44 am said:

Interview with a banker about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff’s (borrower’s) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker’s education and background.

The attorney asked the banker, “What is court exhibit A?”
The banker responded by saying, “This is a promissory note.”
The attorney then asked, “Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?”
The banker responded by saying, “Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower.”
The attorney asked, “What do you believe the agreement is?”
The banker quickly responded, saying, ” We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check.”
The attorney asked, “Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?”
The banker responded by saying, “Sure it does.”
The attorney asked, `”According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?”
The banker responded by saying, “The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money.”
The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, “Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?”
The banker said, “Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money.”
The attorney asked, “Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business.”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?”
The banker said, “$50,000.”
The attorney asked, “According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?”
The banker said, “The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”
The banker said, “No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned.”
The attorney asked, “If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?”
The banker said, “I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions.”
The attorney asked, ” Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?”
The banker said, “I do not know the bookkeeping entries.”
The attorney said, “I am asking you if this is the policy.”
The banker responded, “I do not recall.”
The attorney again asked, “Do you believe the agreement
between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?”
The banker said, ” I am not a lawyer.”
The attorney said, “Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked “Exhibit B” to the banker. He said, “Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”
The banker said, “No.”
The lawyer asked, “If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?”
The banker said, “No.”
The attorney asked, “If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000.”
The banker replied, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?”
The banker said, “A $50,000 loan.”
The attorney asked, “Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans.”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?” The attorney handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked “Exhibit C”.
The banker said, “The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower.”
The attorney asked, “Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?”
The banker said, “This is the standard way to do it.”
The attorney said, “Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?”
The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
The attorney asked, “If the bank’s deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank’s assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is there any exception?”
The banker said, “Not that I know of.”
The attorney asked, “If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank’s books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?”
The banker thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?”
The banker said “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?”
The banker said, “Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way.”
The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?”
The banker said, “Nothing.”
The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?”
The banker said, “$50,000.”
The attorney said, “Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?”
The banker said, “I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan.”
The attorney asked, “Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower’s knowledge or written permission or authorization?”
The banker said, “No.”
The attorney asked, “To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?
The banker said, “No.”
Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? ”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?”
The banker said, “No.” He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?”
The banker answered, “No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable.”
The attorney asked, “If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?”
The banker agreed by saying, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?”
“Yes”, the banker replied.
The attorney said, “You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank’s property?”
“No. No tax is paid.”, said the crying banker.
The attorney asked, “When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors’ money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?”
In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, “All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this.”
The attorney quickly responded, “Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower’s knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?”
The banker said, “But the borrower got a check and the house.”
The attorney said, “Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?”
“It is true”, said the banker.
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank’s policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank’s property, which they loan out as bank loans?”
The banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Was it the bank’s intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.” He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.
The attorney asked, “Do you believe that it was the borrower’s intent to fund his own bank loan check?”
The banker answered, “I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower’s mind.”
The attorney asked, “If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?”
The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, “If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?”
The banker said, “The bank returns the funds.”
The attorney asked, “Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?”
The banker said, “As a loan.”
The attorney asked, “How did the bank get the borrower’s money for free?”
The banker said, “That is how it works.”
Andrew, on April 18, 2010 at 6:23 am said:

ATTENTION…FLORIDIANS AT LARGE…ATTENTION

I BEG of you to assist us in this matter of DEFEATING the HB1523 & the Senate Bill 2270.These bills will change your state of Florida into a NON-JUDICIAL one.

ILLLIGAL FORECLOSURE ALERT

Do YOU want YOUR day in court when it comes right down to it?
Let’s hypothesize a moment.
Let’s assume you have asked YOUR Mortgage Servicer for them to PROVE UP THE NOTE.
Have THEY yet? NO? WHY?
You’re guess is as good as mine.

Please Join Us at the Capitol Building in Tallahassee on

Wednesday April 21’st for the:

RALLY IN TALLY

8:00am RALLY begins @ Waller Park

1:00pm RALLY moves to the Front of the Historical Capitol

3:00pm RALLY moves to the Courtyard

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/homeowner-road-trip-rally_b_541410.html

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org

http://www.4closurefraud.org

http://www.livinglies.wordpress.com
Linda, on April 18, 2010 at 5:20 am said:

Florida–there’s a Rally in Tallahassee on April 21 to tell our legislature to STOP THE FORECLOSURES–several attorneys are sponsoring buses from different cities around the state–GET YOUR VOICE HEARD–these are the freedom rides of our era– (even if you’re not from Florida, come on down and explain to our legislature about the non-judicial foreclosure process)–check out mattweidnerlaw.com –click on blog
Jeff, on April 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm said:

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hunte
2010 NY Slip Op 50637(U)
Decided on April 14, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 14, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY, Plaintiff,

against

Glenda Hunte, et. al., Defendants.

12705/07

Appearances:

Plaintiff

Peter G. Zavatsky

Zavatsky Mendelsohn Gross Savino & Levy LLP

Syosset NY

Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff’s motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 1917 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1446, Lot 55, County of Kings) is denied with prejudice. The complaint is dismissed. The notice of pendency filed against the above-named real property is cancelled. Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY (WELLS FARGO), lacks standing to continue this action because the instant mortgage was satisfied on May 20, 2009. Plaintiff’s counsel never notified the Court that the mortgage had been satisfied and failed to discontinue the instant action with prejudice. I discovered that the mortgage had been satisfied by personally searching the Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) website of the Office of the City Register, New York City Department of Finance. Plaintiff’s counsel, Peter G. Zavatsky, Esq., and his firm, Zavatsky, Mendelsohn & Levy, LLP, will be given an opportunity to be heard as to why this Court should not sanction them for making a “frivolous motion,” pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1.

Background
Defendant GLENDA HUNTE (HUNTE) borrowed $480,000.00 from CREDIT

SUISSE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CREDIT SUISSE), on May 30, 2006, which was [*2]secured by a mortgage, recorded by MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS), as nominee for CREDIT SUISSE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, New York City Department of Finance, on June 21, 2006, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2006000351718. Defendant HUNTE defaulted in her mortgage loan payments with the October 1, 2006 payment. MERS, as nominee for CREDIT SUISSE, commenced the instant action with the filing of the summons, complaint and notice of pendency with the Kings County Clerk on April 17, 2007. Then on May 24, 2007, MERS, as nominee for CREDIT SUISSE, assigned the subject mortgage and note to WELLS FARGO. This was recorded at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, New York City Department of Finance, on December 12, 2007, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2007000608207.

I granted WELLS FARGO’s motion for an order of reference on June 3, 2008, amended the caption to reflect that WELLS FARGO had become the plaintiff by virtue of the assignment from MERS, as nominee for CREDIT SUISSE, and appointed a referee to ascertain and compute the amount due plaintiff. The referee prepared a report, dated July 25, 2008. Plaintiff’s counsel, on August 6, 2008 filed the instant motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale with the Court’sForeclosure Department. After reviewing the papers, the Foreclosure Department forwarded the instant motion to me on April 5, 2010.

On April 6, 2010, I searched ACRIS and discovered that WELLS FARGO executed a satisfaction of the instant mortgage more than ten months ago, on May 20, 2009. The satisfaction was recorded at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, on June 1, 2009, at CRFN 2009000163274. Further, ACRIS revealed that defendant HUNTE sold the premises to Milton R. Linguard for $610,000.00, with the deed executed on March 13, 2009. The deed was recorded on June 16, 2009, at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at CRFN 2009000181761. ACRIS also revealed that Mr. Linguard, on March 13, 2009, borrowed $518,500.00 from GOLDEN FIRST MORTGAGE CORP. This was secured by a mortgage recorded at the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, on June 16, 2009, by MERS, as nominee for GOLDEN FIRST MORTGAGE CORP., at CRFN 2009000181762.

Plaintiff’s counsel never had the courtesy to notify the Court that the instant mortgage was satisfied and file a motion to discontinue the instant action. The Court is gravely concerned that: it expended scarce resources on an action that should have been discontinued; and, would have signed an order that could have possibly damaged the credit rating of defendant HUNTE and put an unfair cloud on the title to the subject premises now owned by Mr. Linguard, causing both defendant HUNTE and Mr. Linguard much time and effort to correct an error caused by the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to exercise due diligence. The Court notes that Mr. Zavatsky, in his affirmation for an award of attorneys’ fees, requests that this Court award him $3,000.00 because, he states in ¶ 8 of his affirmation, that he has “been admitted to the Bar of the State of New York for more than thirty (30) years and have devoted my practice to real estate litigation and mortgage foreclosure practice for that entire time . . . and I have lectured on the subject of mortgage foreclosures.”

Discussion
It is clear that plaintiff WELLS FARGO lacks standing to proceed in the instant action since some time prior to May 20, 2009, when the satisfaction for defendant HUNTE’s mortgage was [*3]executed. The exact date is probably March 13, 2009, when defendant HUNTE likely paid off the subject mortgage loan as part of her closing with Mr. Linguard for the sale of the subject mortgaged premises. “To establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and the mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment.” (Campaign v Barba (23 AD3d 327 [2d Dept. 2005]). The instant mortgage was satisfied more then ten months ago and likely paid off more than one year before the instant motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale was forwarded to me by the Foreclosure Department.The satisfaction, dated May 20, 2009, states that “WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, . . . holder of a certain mortgage evidencing an indebtedness in the amount of $480,000.00, plus interest, whose parties, dates and recording information are below [the instant mortgage's amount, the mortgagee, date, CRFN, block number, lot number, assignment, etc. are described in detail] does hereby acknowledge that it has received full payment and satisfaction of the same, and in consideration thereof, does hereby satisfy and discharge said mortgage.” (See Household Finance Realty Corp. of New York v Wynn, 19 AD3d 545 [2d Dept. 2005]; Sears Mortgage Corp. v Yahhobi, 19 AD3d 402 [2d Dept. 2005]; Ocwen Federal Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527 [2d Dept. 2005]; U.S. Bank Trust Nat. Ass’n Trustee v Butti, 16 AD3d 408 [2d Dept 2005]; First Union Mortgage Corp. v Fern, 298 AD2d 490 [2d Dept 2002]; Village Bank v Wild Oaks, Holding, Inc., 196 AD2d 812 [2d Dept 1993]).

The Court of Appeals (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki,

100 NY2d 801, 812 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]) declared that “[s]tanding to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked. The plaintiff who has standing, however, may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress.”

In Caprer v Nussbaum (36 AD3d 176, 181 [2d Dept 2006]) the Court held that “[s]tanding to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request.” If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff may not proceed in the action. (Stark v Goldberg, 297 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 2002]).

Since WELLS FARGO executed the satisfaction for the instant mortgage, the Court must not only deny the instant motion, but also dismiss the complaint and cancel the notice of pendency filed by MERS, as nominee for CREDIT SUISSE, with the Kings County Clerk on April 17, 2007. CPLR § 6501 provides that the filing of a notice of pendency against a property is to give constructive notice to any purchaser of real property or encumbrancer against real property of an action that “would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the possession of real property.” Professor David Siegel, in NY Prac, § 334, at 535 [4th ed] observes about a notice of pendency that:

The plaintiff files it with the county clerk of the real property county,

putting the world on notice of the plaintiff’s potential rights in the

action and thereby warning all comers that if they then buy the

property or lend on the strength of it or otherwise rely on the

defendant’s right, they do so subject to whatever the action may [*4]

establish as the plaintiff’s right.

The Court of Appeals, in 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. (64 NY2d 313, 315 [1984]), commented that “[a] notice of pendency, commonly known as a lis pendens,’ can be a potent shield to litigants claiming an interest in real property.” The Court, at 318-320, outlined the history of the doctrine of lis pendens back to 17th century England. It was formally recognized in New York courts in 1815 and first codified in the Code of Procedure [Field Code] enacted in 1848. At 319, the Court stated that “[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of whether a purchaser had any notice of the pending suit,” and, at 320, “the statutory scheme permits a party to effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review.”

In Israelson v Bradley (308 NY 511, 516 [1955]) the Court observed that with a notice of pendency a plaintiff who has an interest in real property has received from the State:

an extraordinary privilege which . . . upon the mere filing of the

notice of a pendency of action, a summons and a complaint and

strict compliance with the requirements of section 120 [of the Civil

Practice Act; now codified in CPLR § § 6501, 6511 and 6512] is

required. Proper administration of the law by the courts requires

promptness on the part of a litigant so favored and that he accept

the shield which has been given him upon the terms imposed and

that he not be permitted to so use the privilege granted that it

becomes a sword usable against the owner or possessor of realty.

If the terms imposed are not met, the privilege is at an end.

[Emphasis added]

Article 65 of the CPLR outlines notice of pendency procedures. The Court, in Da Silva v Musso (76 NY2d 436, 442 [1990]), held that “the specific statutorily prescribed mechanisms for implementing this provisional remedy . . . were designed with a view toward balancing the interests of the claimant in the preservation of the status quo against the equally legitimate interests of the property owner in the marketability of his title.” The Court of Appeals, quoted Professor Siegel, in holding that “[t]he ability to file a notice of pendency is a privilege that can be lost if abused’ (Siegel, New York Practice § 336, at 512).” (In Re Sakow, 97 NY2d 436, 441 [2002]).

The instant case, with plaintiff WELLS FARGO lacking standing to bring this action, and the complaint dismissed, meets the criteria for losing “a privilege that can be lost if abused.” CPLR § 6514 (a) provides for the mandatory cancellation of a notice of pendency by:

[t]he court, upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such

notice as it may require, shall direct any county clerk to cancel a

notice of pendency, if service of a summons has not been completed [*5]

within the time limited by section 6512; or if the action has been

settled, discontinued or abated; or if the time to appeal from a final

judgment against the plaintiff has expired; or if enforcement of a

final judgment against the plaintiff has not been stayed pursuant to

section 5519. [Emphasis added]

The plain meaning of the word “abated,” as used in CPLR § 6514 (a) is the ending of an action. Abatement is defined (Black’s Law Dictionary 3 [7th ed 1999]) as “the act of eliminating or nullifying.” ” An action which has been abated is dead, and any further enforcement of the cause of action requires the bringing of a new action, provided that a cause of action remains’ (2A Carmody-Wait 2d § 11.1).” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40 [2d Dept 2005]). Further, Nastasi at 36, held that “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR 6501 (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. at 320-321; Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 451-452 [1st Dept 1998]; Siegel, NY Prac § 336 [4th ed]).” As plaintiff WELLS FARGO now lacks standing to sue, the dismissal of the instant complaint must result in the mandatory cancellation of the April 17, 2007 notice of pendency against the property “in the exercise of the inherent power of the Court.”

The failure of Peter G. Zavatsky, Esq., and his firm, Zavatsky, Mendelsohn & Levy, LLP, to discontinue the instant action since the payoff of the HUNTE mortgage in 2009 appears to be “frivolous.” 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (a) states that “the Court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 of this Subpart.” Further, it states in 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (2), that “sanctions may be imposed upon any attorney appearing in the action or upon a partnership, firm or corporation with which the attorney is associated.”

22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (c) states that:

For purposes of this part, conduct is frivolous if:

(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported

by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or

reversal of existing law;

(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or

(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.

It is clear that since January 6, 2010 the instant motion for aan order of reference “is completely without merit in law” and “asserts material factual statements that are false.”

Several years before the drafting and implementation of the Part 130 Rules for

costs and sanctions, the Court of Appeals (A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 6 [*6][1986]) observed that “frivolous litigation is so serious a problem affecting the

proper administration of justice, the courts may proscribe such conduct and impose sanctions in this exercise of their rule-making powers, in the absence of legislation to the contrary (see NY Const, art VI, § 30, Judiciary Law § 211 [1] [b] ).”

Part 130 Rules were subsequently created, effective January 1, 1989, to give the

courts an additional remedy to deal with frivolous conduct. These stand beside Appellate Division disciplinary case law against attorneys for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. The Court, in Gordon v Marrone (202 AD2d 104, 110 [2d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 813 [1995]), instructed that:

Conduct is frivolous and can be sanctioned under the court rule if

“it is completely without merit . . . and cannot be supported by a

reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of

existing law; or . . . it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong

the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure

another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c] [1], [2] . . . ).

In Levy v Carol Management Corporation (260 AD2d 27, 33 [1st Dept 1999]) the Court stated that in determining if sanctions are appropriate the Court must look at the broad pattern of conduct by the offending attorneys or parties. Further, “22 NYCRR

130-1.1 allows us to exercise our discretion to impose costs and sanctions on an errant party . . .” Levy at 34, held that “[s]anctions are retributive, in that they punish past conduct. They also are goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the Bar at large.”

The Court, in Kernisan, M.D. v Taylor (171 AD2d 869 [2d Dept 1991]), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules “is to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics (cf. Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Church of City of New York v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411; see Steiner v Bonhamer, 146 Misc 2d 10) [Emphasis added].” Since at least May 20, 2009 and probably since March 13, 2009, the instant action is “a waste of judicial resources.” This conduct, as noted in Levy, must be deterred. In Weinstock v Weinstock (253 AD2d 873 [2d Dept 1998]) the Court ordered the maximum sanction of $10,000.00 for an attorney who pursued an appeal “completely without merit,” and holding, at 874, that “[w]e therefore award the maximum authorized amount as a sanction for this conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1) calling to mind that frivolous litigation causes a substantial waste of judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to the Court with real grievances [Emphasis added].” Citing Weinstock, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Bernadette Panzella, P.C. v De Santis (36 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 2007]) affirmed a Supreme Court, Richmond County $2,500.00 sanction, at 736, as “appropriate in view of the plaintiff’s waste of judicial resources [Emphasis added].”

In Navin v Mosquera (30 AD3d 883 [3d Dept 2006]) the Court instructed that when considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, “courts are required to [*7]

examine whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent’ (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]).” The Court, in Sakow ex rel. Columbia Bagel, Inc. v Columbia Bagel, Inc. (6 Misc 3d 939, 943 [Sup Ct,

New York County 2004]), held that “[i]n assessing whether to award sanctions, the Court must consider whether the attorney adhered to the standards of a reasonable attorney (Principe v Assay Partners, 154 Misc 2d 702 [Sup Ct, NY County 1992]).” In the instant action, plaintiff’s attorney is responsible for keeping track of whether the mortgage was satisfied. In Sakow at 943, the Court observed that “[a]n attorney cannot safely delegate all duties to others.”

This Court will examine the conduct of plaintiff’s counsel, in a hearing, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, to determine if plaintiff’s counsel engaged in frivolous conduct, and to allow plaintiff’s counsel a reasonable opportunity to be heard. (See Mascia v Maresco, 39 AD3d 504 [2d Dept 2007]; Yan v Klein, 35 AD3d 729 [2d Dept 2006]; Greene v Doral Conference Center Associates, 18 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 2005]; Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich, 7 AD3d 39 [2d Dept 2004]).

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 1917 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1446, Lot 55, County of Kings), is denied with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that since plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY, lacks standing and is no longer the mortgagee in this foreclosure action, the instant complaint, Index No. 12705/78 is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Kings County Clerk on April 17, 2007 by the original plaintiff, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as nominee for CREDIT SUISSE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, in an action to foreclose a mortgage for real property located at 1917 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1446, Lot 55, County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further

ORDERED that it appearing that Peter G. Zavatsky, Esq., and Zavatsky, Mendelsohn & Levy, LLP, engaged in “frivolous conduct,” as defined in the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR § 130-1 (c), and that pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR § 130.1.1 (d), “[a]n award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made . . . upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard,” this Court will conduct a hearing affording Mr. Zavatsky and Zavatsky, Mendelsohn & Levy, LLP, “a reasonable opportunity to be heard,” before me in Part 27, on Friday, April 30, 2010, at 2:30 P.M., in Room 479, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; and it is further

ORDERED, that Ronald D. Bratt, Esq., my Principal Law Clerk, is directed to serve this order by first-class mail, upon Peter G. Zavatsky, Esq., and Zavatsky, Mendelsohn & Levy, LLP, 33 Queens Street, Syosset, NewYork 11791-1670.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. [*8]

ENTER

___________________________

HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACKJ. S. C.
Abby in CA, on April 15, 2010 at 5:28 pm said:

Discovery Tips – A summary and reminder!!

In the discovery for each link in the securitization chain there must be: a note, a purchase and sale agreement; a transfer receipt; a delivery receipt; a bond if the notes are endorsed in blank; a receipt of funds for the purchase of the note; and a disbursement of funds for the acquisition of the note.

In the very simple RMBS model, there has to be transfers from the originator to the sponsor, from the sponsor to the depositor, from the depositor to the Trustee of the Trust, and from the Trustee to the Master Document Custodian for the Trust. The MDC would have all of the documents referred to above.
Mr. M. Soliman, on April 14, 2010 at 12:08 pm said:

Marcus….

Yes, the appellate court seems to be the place to be heard….for sure. We had a Judge actually rule against defendant in UD matter.

m.soliman
expert.witnss@live.com

Wells Fargo V. Daniels;
Matter of Unlawful Detainer
CA SUP CT County Sac
Pending Appellate hearing

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Mr. M. Soliman, on April 14, 2010 at 12:00 pm said:

foreclosureinfosearch.com
by m.soliman

Assignment of Assets

Through the PAS Agreement, the Depositor intends to cause the issuance and sale of the Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, (the “Certificates”) representing in the aggregate the entire beneficial ownership of the Trust, the primary assets of which are the Mortgage Loans

Since the lender sold your loan, under FAS 140 accounting rules lost the right to control the asset.

The orchestrated reengineering efforts of the financial statements are seriously deceptive as they are intentional and overemphasize control and ownership of assets.

The interpretation is effective for auditing procedures related to transfers of financial assets that are required to be accounted for under FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, as amended by FASB Technical Bulletin No. 01-1, Effective Date for Certain Financial Institutions of Certain Provisions of Statement 140 Related to the Isolation of Transferred Financial Assets.

The terms of the repurchase agreement state the lender, like you must live up to it obligations. A lender sells the loans as a pool with an unconditional guarantee to make good on the entire amount paid in a single monthly payment.

Therefore the lender merely needs to repurchase the loan and only then may proceed removing you from the home you want to keep. Instead the lender violates state and federal laws and GAAP accounting rules. These same practices you are bound by as a professional.

The lender forecloses on your home through a slight of hand and will acquire the home at time of sale.

Who then foreclosed on you and your wife… a boiler room of kids? Perhaps I know this for a fact!

1) The lender intends to purchase your home at sale as the highest bid
2) Will win the bid I assure you as the beneficiary seller and buyer who are all one in the same.
3) Will transfer the home on a credit bid alleging you authorized the transaction and gave them credit for your balance due.
4) Transfers are made at 0.00 transfer tax
5) The sale is done using a non transparent means in violation of Sarbanes Oxley (Enron law)
6) The sale is conducted “pro tanto” meaning to guarantee the loan of another.

Did you know your loan mandated you co sign for a market leader lender for a botched securities deal? If the securities are charged off and the loan, your loan, is written down to zero the home is up for grabs sort of speak.

Only the fee owner can protect that ownership interest. Instead they will sell your home in a staged trustee sale, rigged by a debt collector acting as an impartial trustee.

They appear to be again, selling to themselves an asset at your expense giving you the authority to credit back to them a compensating balance. That balance is required to reestablish the value of the asset which rests a zero basis.

All you asked for was a chance at an honest workout and modification. But they cannot as they do not own your loan or right to offer anything. Why can they not be honest? They may not own the loan and therefore cannot prosecute the note. But they will set up the sale to own your home…soon. If I am wrong why not one authority has, lawyer for the opposition and or the FDIC come to the lenders aid.

Why has the special investigator appointed by a district court magistrate pointed out over 2000 pages what I have said all along…that the sale violates FAS 140 for controlling interest in assets sold. Lehman Bros now holds an industry standard per DEpt of Treasury.

It’s difficult to comprehend and I admire your lack of willingness to stand aside if you elect not to fight back. But you have the right to also pursue full disclosure, ethical and fair business dealings and adherence to basic accounting rules.

The fraud is used to take advantage of your fee simple interest in real property.

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
ALLAN (with a special THANKS to Deontos), on April 13, 2010 at 12:21 pm said:

Hey, WAMU was the bank that ‘funded’ the fraudulent loan ‘our’ loan originator presented them! WAMU is also the bank which provided fraudulent assignments, after the fact, after the loan defaulted.

My challenge: how to set aside the just granted summary judgment and get Miami’s Judge Sigler to not prejudge these cases, and let discovery (thwarted now almost 2 years) substantiate the extent of WAMU’s involvement in fraud ab initio.

RSVP
Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Deontos, on April 13, 2010 at 10:48 am said:

Investigation: WAMU Loan Fraud Was Known

One of the most disturbing things about the fraud at Washington Mutual was that it was known to exist, rampant in some offices, and not contained. Nearly $1 billion in mortgages were produced at these offices. 42% of these loans contained suspect activity or fraud.

*Examples of Fraud*

Reports of fraudulent behavior by WAMU employees include misrepresentation of the borrower’s identification and credit qualifications including:

+ fictitious income,
+ fictitious borrower identity,
+ credit package completely fabricated, and
+ process requirements being completely waived.
ALLAN (with a special THANKS to Marcus), on April 12, 2010 at 1:24 pm said:

Thanks Marcus.

Excellent suggestion.

Over a year and a half ago, I filed a Request for Production, to which FDLG did not object. They only MOVED for additional time. Perhaps I should have opposed their motion?

Before the hearing I had also filed a Motion to Dismiss for FDLG’s failure to fulfuill its burden of proof where a signature was forged, failure to file a bond, and failure to abide by special laws related to trusts doing business in FL.

In prior written arguments in opposition to FDLG’s MSJ and in oral arguments Wednesday April 7 I reminded Judge Sigler what are the standards for granting a MSJ, that there were at least 10 areas where there were significant issues of fact and law that prevent her from granting one. 3 had to do with fraud in the inducement, and 7 with fraud upon the court.

Judge Victoria Sigler quite sarcastically turned this into a probate matter and did not wish to be bothered with details of fraudulent assignments when I pointed out patently obvious ones. She had “the original” note and mortgage, and needed nothing else to prejudge this dispute. Never mind that the allonge came in years after the default, was manufactured by unauthorized agents such as Cathy Fetner/C.Fetner, and that it was totally redundant to the original note. Next!
marcus, on April 12, 2010 at 7:18 am said:

Bob,
It is more likely that the servicer has or will get a force-placed insurance for full coverage of the collateral. Called the servicer and ask to talk to the insurance department.

Also if they know that the property is vacant, they will send a so-called “Property Preservation Team” to change your locks.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Bob, on April 11, 2010 at 9:17 pm said:

Hello,

I am wondering if anyone can shed some light on the following:

Foreclosure suit 9-9-10 after a discharged Chap 7 bankruptcy in the State of Florida, in a gated community, with an active HOA. Property taxes are being paid by the Plaintiff. The co-owner is on the mortgage but not the note and lives in another state. I have moved out of the premises and no one is occupying right now, as I am taking care of sick family members in another state. I am carrying insurance still on the property but with limited coverage.

I am wondering if I need to continue to renew property insurance and if anyone who has gone through similar circumstances would comment.

Thanks so much to anyone who takes time to contribute any insight.

Bob
Florida Defense Team, on April 11, 2010 at 6:26 pm said:

Wayne County, Pennsylvania:
Motion to Discontinue Praecipe Granted without prejudice
Wayne County Prothonotary BAC v Leb
Apr-8, 2010

McCabe, Weisberg & Conway “The Goliath” of Mid-Atlantic Law Firms who boasts to be the “lenders choice” with over 200 employees and thirty years of litigation experience, was slain today by two Brooklyn New York pro se litigants who had never stepped foot into a courtroom. Armed with little more than a Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff’s Complaint from Florida Defense Team, the pro per litigants, in front of a packed courtroom in Wayne County Pennsylvania, crushed the well armed opposing counsel by simply pointing out that Plaintiff, among other defects, had failed to show they had standing to foreclose on their property.

In need of foreclosure assistance drop us a line at floridadefenseteam@comcast.net.
marcus, on April 11, 2010 at 10:09 am said:

Allan,
You can file a Motion To Set Aside Summary Judgment.
Did you have any motion to dismiss and discovery pending?
A summary judgment would be improper if there was ongoing discovery.
To others, make sure you start you discovery as soon as you receive the complaint. You need to inject seeds of doubt in their position from the beginning.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
ALLAN (encouraging Neil to give Soliman his very own separate tab on LivingLies), on April 10, 2010 at 10:50 pm said:

Would it be possible to confine Soliman’s gems of erudition to a separate tab on this great resource since they, like kudzu, already fill most of the HOMEOWNERS tab, and like that pernicious vine threaten to block much-needed illumination?

Seeing as the ATTORNEYS tab has disappeared, why not replace it with WISDOM of SOLIMAN?

Each Soliman submission is superb theatre, such that one knows not for whom the various internal monologues are meant, never mind the many colorful cultural references.

Every expert witness must lay a proper foundation for their testimony, and explain terms of art and nomenclature in a manner that an average juror or jurist will readily understand, lest their audience be confounded with what could be mistaken for arcane gibberish.

I say we honor Soliman for his vast experience, insight and selfless volunteer spirit, as well his quest to help us better understand the business he knows from the inside, with a corner office and tab all his own.

RSVP

ALLAN
BeMoved@AOL.com
ALLAN (resolved to fight on), on April 10, 2010 at 9:56 pm said:

MARCUS
Thank you.

Foolishly I’ll admit I did not follow through on having a court reporter present, though I know better. I had made inquiries and did not have a backup ready when the first got tied up. The record I assume includes all that is written and appearing in the case folder. Maybe I should introduce a written copy of my oral arguments to the folder.

FDLG cancelled the previous two MSJ hearings, so I got caught off guard, and have nobody to blame but myself for lowering my vigilance. I appeared by phone on account of being stood up twice after making an effort to get down there.

What’s the time frame for a notice of appeal? What about a motion for rehearing or reconsideration? What other options can one suggest? Hearing was April 7.

Feel free to communicate offline, in case their eyes are everywhere.

Thanks,

ALLAN
BeMoved@AOL.com
marcus, on April 10, 2010 at 1:19 pm said:

Allan,
I HOPE you had a court reporter all this time.
Please say yes…….:-(

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on April 10, 2010 at 1:17 pm said:

Allan,
File your notice of appeal as soon as possible.
Don’t give up.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Soliman, on April 10, 2010 at 12:59 pm said:

Fraud committed by a banker, a broker, and a candlestick maker. So what? Courts say “Suckers”.

Anyone who portrays a lender as a thief and then tries to get a house for free needs to appraise their glass house; or cease throwing stones.

The loan origination and transfers of the asset into trust protection for tax purposes by an SEC registrant will survive attack. Show the Judge your PSA, Indenture reps and warranties and childhood diary for consideration.

Don King said it best about the pontification and unification of the manifestation in support of modification is subject to the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Add that you’re pleading!

The time spent by slime attacking this site and its message or discounting my years of work and research while participating in this field of study had only better served themselves by reading what I have offered.

It’s getting harder to keep coming back to help.
So here we go again . . .

1.The servicing role has pursued a plan for recovering assets for its client who “IF” the Beneficiary maybe so entitled.
2.The homes are recovered under each States authority by establishing a fair and open bid price under the powers provided to a “Debt Collector”
3.The beneficiary is represented by the successors and assigns by merger or Fed assistance and authority bestowed upon a nominal interest.
4.The nominee is alleged to be authorized to appoint a debtor collector who is the alleged successor and is assigned its role by further appointment of an agent for the original trustee.
5.That assignment represented by an agent is often by assignment of another agent endorsed by a notary for the nominal interest – get it! (Stop, please is something is wrong here?)
6.The transfer of the property at sale is for “At Then” consideration. (Please I cannot take much more)
7.The sale goes down where the bid price is set by the “Seller”, who is the “Buyer” is one and the same with the “Beneficiary” who is the seller and the buyer at sale. (Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
8.The sale is for lawful US currency and or “Credit Bid” as in blank or post dated check (Someone stop him…please ….stop him, stop hi now…please)
9.The credit is real backed by the full faith and promise of deceitful act causing you to tender your home for which security is lost and only a moral obligation remains.
10. These transfers are done “Pro Tanta” as foreclosure sales and are enforced under an old doctrine of debtors court and making the family and friends of the debtor pay up as if cosigners.

You think I am kidding and wasting your time telling you this. You think I endured the hell I have from select readers bent of hurting my reputation or because I want to waste more time I do not have.

This said while many good people are left confused from these random attacks on my message, my integrity and desire to give back everything I own and more while investing in correcting this cataclysmic crisis.

Do your best if you want to argue a RESPA audit and believe your phone is about to ring with a loving offer to modify your loan. Be on guard and question what you read by whoever provides you the alternative for which the courts have said this about the fraud amongst the parties . . .

“Those who are ignorant to fraud and suffered loss shall leave the court as they entered; ignorant and suffering loss”.

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Andrew, on April 10, 2010 at 10:38 am said:

Allan,
I am soooo very sorry my friend. It is so very scary to see what is happening to ALL in FL, but, especially to you.
I am also on this journey of TRUTH and already in a NON situation.
We Will Get It Right
I Will Do Anything To Win At This Game Of THEIRS
To No Avail I Shall Give It 100%
Again, You Are In My Thoughts
ALLAN (sadly reporting he has LOST a MSJ to FDLG in Judge Sigler's Miami Court, on April 9, 2010 at 11:20 pm said:

Well, it has happened to a self-described foreclosure defense activist this April 7. This Pro Se low-lying fruit was too irresistible to FDLG.

Despite that my late mother’s signatures were forged and falsely witnessed in a conspiracy to defraud – set up by a known defrauding real estate agent, despite that I got NOTHING from FDLG in response to my discovery requests, Judge Sigler could see nothing beyond ‘where did the money go?” never mind any nuanced references to USBank NA being the improper party to enforce the void ab initio mortgage, before she lowered the gavel to rubber-stamp the latest notch in her rocket docket.

ALL suggestions and help WELCOME. I may have lost THIS battle, but NO WAY will I lose the WAR to the likes of FDLG! No way will I let $200K in equity get stolen like that!

Thanks,
ALLAN
Miami & Cambridge
Linda, on April 9, 2010 at 7:20 am said:

IMPORTANT: Floridians–there is a rally scheduled later this month in Tallahassee to protest the non-judicial foreclosure bill–the bill takes away our rights for due process of law–more information is on this blog– http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/
daniela mars, on April 8, 2010 at 3:15 pm said:

Foreclosure in The Florida Legislature- No One is Safe While The Legislature Is In Session!

Judge Jennifer Bailey testified before the Florida House of Representatives regarding the Administrative Order issued by the Florida Supreme Court which mandated mediation for foreclosures in Florida.

Attached here is a link to a podcast of her testimony. The testimony regarding these issues starts about midway through the podcast. What is most troubling about this podcast is the hostility toward the new Supreme Court Order faces before the legislature. Of concern, the legislators were uniformly hostile to the authority of the Florida Supreme Court to issue the Order which mandated mediation. After Judge Bailey testified, Staff appears to testify regarding their “concerns” about the Order. There were several comments regarding potential legislative efforts to challenge the procedural mechanism the Supreme Court used to develop the program.

Next the Florida Bankers testify and develop their arguments against the bill along with representatives from the Florida Community Associations and testimony from a foreclosure mill.

Unfortunately no testimony from Foreclosure Defense or the Foreclosure Fraud Fighters.

foreclosurebillofrights

foreclosurerevenueestimates

Attached is also Senate Bill 1778 the Homeowner Bill of Rights sponsored by Senator Aronberg who is currently running for Florida Attorney General.

Key will be to make sure all elected officials know that non-judicial foreclosure legislation strips consumers of their access to courts is fundamentally anti-consumer and pro-fraud/pro-banker.

Foreclosure
Jennifer D. Bailey, Circuit Court Judge (State Employee) – Information Only
Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosures
73 W. Flagler Street, #1307
Miami Florida 33130
Phone: 305-349-7152

Foreclosure Mediation
Anthony DiMarco (Lobbyist) – Information Only
Florida Bankers Association, EVP
1001 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee Florida 32303
Phone: 850-224-2265

Supreme Court Administative Order Re: Foreclosures
David Muller, Co-Executive Director (Lobbyist) – Information Only
Community Association Leadership Lobby
6230 University Drive, Suite 204
Sarasota Florida
Phone: 941-366-8826

Who will fight this ;

Supreme Court Administrative Order Re: Foreclosure Mandatory Mediations
Marc Ben-Ezra – Opponent
Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A.
2901 Stirling Road, Suite 300
Ft. Lauderdale Florida 33312
Phone: 305-770-4100

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/04/foreclosure-in-the-florida-legislature-no-one-is-safe-while-the-legislature-is-in-session/
Linda, on April 7, 2010 at 7:03 am said:

IMPORTANT–Foridians–please help fight the non-judicial foreclosure bill HB 1523 –this bill (cloacked as a Homeowner Relief bill is flying through the legislature–go to myfloridahouse.gov — Florida is the state that could make a difference for the entire country, so to lose this puts the entire country in jeopardy–we who are fighting the foreclosures are making waves–this bill would mean that to fight the foreclosure would cost the homeowner $1995 in court fees plus attorney fees(upwards of $2000–) and then a judge has to sign a temporary restraining order to stop the sale (which most judges don’t do)–please please call, call, call all representatives.
M. Soliman, on April 6, 2010 at 7:34 pm said:

Truth,

Your picking up on something that has value as a defective instrument and for an argument to rescind.

I think this is far more valuable as evidence to support fraud by showing the proof they moved the asset to and from one entity to another. It’s musical chairs with respect to enforcing an “interest” in anticipation of a recovery versus having standing when prosecuting a lenders rights in a recovery.

Problems For Lender:
1)Conceal delinquency
2) Avoid increasing reserves
3) Mask high leverage ratios
4) Dramatically increase earnings

Violations of FAS 140 and “deceptive business practices” Trailing assignments for loans transferred within 90 days of your loans settlement make absolutely no logic.

Reckless abandon by grown boys under an SEC private placement are so serious a allegation to deal with. Its also a reality the courts will show a willingness to hear and see claims for allowing these claims to stick.

Last week we have the special examiner appointed by the Government under the district courts authority hearing the Lehman Bros matter. Now the treasury department (ouch) have jumped in to expand the investigation. I said that the Lehman Bros “cooking of books” was the blue print the rest of the sector was following.

When a judge asks that you keep Wall Street out of Main Street. . . let the court know that everything done to avoid ensuring the borrowers rights are so to satisfy the greater exposure . . .SEC vs. RESPA

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
dianac, on April 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm said:

Listen up florida for those of you in florida
March 25, 2010
11th Curuit Court – Judge Simons
Denied Motion for Summary Judgement
based on material fact as to standing
Wells Fargo – as trustee….Cirigliano Case!!
Get the help you need fight fight fight!!!
DyingTruth, on April 6, 2010 at 2:14 am said:

Soliman NOBODY’S Sub of Trustee has been recorded. once I noticed this despite and despite the fact that there have been 2 seperate NODs and 2 seperate NOTSs and 2 seperate TDUSs but no SOPs not even 1, I called my recorder’s office and asked him if there was a mistake or something,
and they(the guy working at the OC Recorder’s Office) said “well that can’t be right maybe you just missed it or something” I said “no I’m pretty sure it has not been recorded even though there has been a NOD and NOTS has been recorded, I’m looking at the screen right now”(for OC you can check online) then he said “no I’m pretty sure that they’re required to record a Substitution of Trustee first, let me just look it up while I’m on the phone with you”. Sure enough, nope no recording of the Sub of Trustee. also with practically all “assignments” in CA they file a TDUS assign the loan to themselves then file a Notice of Rescission of the Sale back to themselves(you should have already known that by now).

Soliman also if you’ll notice a lot of the documents recorded more particularily NODs and NOTSs right above the recorder’s stamp with the barcode it will say “This Document was electronically recorded by
LSI TITLE COMPANY”
DyingTruth, on April 6, 2010 at 1:38 am said:

The protocols(well some of them) of Zion that members of Congress and other people in our Government follow. for more info go to this link http://powerofno.org/books/nwo/9495-the-protocols-of-zion-in-modern-english-

“It is enough for them to know that we are merciless for any disobedience to cease.

The principle of balancing accounts (particularly the repayment of debts) is strongly ingrained and one which we will take advantage of. We will use this principle as a means to bring all governments under the control of our super-government.

We Shall End Liberty
25. Far back in ancient times we were the first to stand among crowds of people and cry out the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. The people fell for our bait. They picked up those words and started repeating them parrot-like throughout the world. As a result they have taken away the well-being of the world and the true freedom of the individual, which was formerly well protected from mob pressure.

The so-called wise men of the Goyim, the intellectuals, could not make anything out of these words. They just cannot see that in nature there is no equality or freedom; that nature herself has established inequality of minds, characters and capacities. They never stopped to consider that the mob is blind thing, and as such, can only elect leaders that must be as blind as the mob itself. And even if the mob does manage to find someone intelligent, that person wouldn’t understand politics, as pointed out earlier. Goyim don’t take any of this into consideration.”
M. Soliman, on April 6, 2010 at 12:11 am said:

ANOTHER EPISODE OF FRAUD SQUAD!

Re: Provisions of Section 2924b. /
Su: The Notice of Default NOD
——————————–
Assume the NOD below
——————————–
Requested by:
“ABC Trustee”

MAIL TO
“ABC Trustee”
———————————–
(look in the upper LEFT hand corner!)
———————————–
If ABC is shown under ” Requested By” on the
NOD – it is alleged to be substituted in by the lender.

If Substituted as Trustee and the instrument is executed, (signed) but not recorded, prior to the recording of the NOD [notice of default]; Then
1. beneficiary or beneficiaries or their authorized agents must prove they mailed the notice of the substitution prior to that date , or
a. have done so concurrently with the recording [date] thereof,
b. It is to be mailed to all persons to whom a copy of the notice of default would be required to be mailed
c. comply according to the provisions of Section 2924b.
d. An affidavit shall be attached to the substitution that notice has been given to those persons and in the manner required by this subdivision.
e.. An affidavit shall be filed on record for proof , and be attached to the substitution that notice has been given in the manner required by this subdivision.
—————————————————————
That is the California civil code. Or, how about this
as an alternative . . .

1. White out the date [preprinted on the substitution]
2. handwrite a date to match the NOD recording dt.
3. Then prepare and back date a phony affidavit

Oh, yeah! Remember to scribble your name with BIG INITIALS only; like a moron. Got it! Done!

Oh Oh or try this…..if you want to be ethical . . . “buy a rubber stamp with an attorneys name or make up a Title Company name.” Kinkos you know!

Then stamp it after the fact above in the “Requested By” upper right left side corner. You know what I mean by rubber stamp.It’s what every attorney does after law school right? They buy a Pentium XX Monolith computer that’s state of the art, an Apple “I Phone”, GPS too get you from here to Paris, an Apple Bad Boy Lap Top and ahhh ……a rubber stamp /.one with their name on it ! (Yeah Right!)

S Shafer
———————————————————————-
The county recorders have to get real and have some minimum threshold of integrity for recorded documents. I once asked a recording office supervisor about the issue….he said i would have to take to their attorney as he could not say anything more to me.

M.Soliman
M. Soliman, on April 5, 2010 at 9:30 pm said:

QUESTION – GMAC’s failure to demonstrated that it was a holder of the note under under §47-3301 of the Arizona statute , if challenged is based upon a claim brought for an IMPROPER ALLONGE

I somewhat struggle where a competent jurisdiction hearing arguments for a missing endorsement in denying the obvious parties their rightful assignment as HDC. If a lost note affidavit is not satisfactory for the courts curiosity [lost note], the same challenge emerges woefully irrelevant over a missing endorsement.

Its a not a difficult discovery, and may in fact be something required by another more curious court.

My point is evidencing ownership for an aged receivable subject to challenges in a default will benefit from meerly evidencing a certified copy of the endorsement . Perhaps an affidavit prepared by the appropriate person is no more or less sufficient, or further supported if accompanied by notary signature log.

No court at this juncture in time is willing to see the value of the lost alllonge argument as anything other than a procedural error caused by negligence. The argument is inconsequential towards collateral and likely seen as caused by third party E&O charged with the custodial function.

The procuring source of the capital from party who wired to settle the transaction had to originate via a bank wire . Therein ownership of the asset early on is verifiable by wire or ABA records obtained from the OCC. The fed office may however have an arduous task of verifying your claims in discovery.

And remember, the assets are registered under an SEC filing and UCC – although they may be hidden on a companies balance sheet. …”Company Balance Sheet!”

COMMENT:- Charney said (from a recent article) the critical error was that the originating lenders systematically pledged the loans, and didn’t actually transfer them to the trusts that are supposed to hold them and issue the securities.

ANSWER – If this statement is true then the lender maintained the right to foreclose from the get go under a hypothetication or leveraged debt business structure. The statement also fuels the argument for parties operating out of trust – at a cost of losing all preferential tax treatment and generous accounting entitlements.

Loss of GAAP strained accounting rules constitute a serious challenge to a delisted REMIC or Mortgage Backed Asset Trust and for the trustee; if Charney is correct.

These rules allow for derecognition, transfers into the trust otherwise viewed as less than arms. A breech of compliance with FAS 140 and a significant material misrepresentation of facts published in 8k and 10 k public filings.

Evidence the registrants were not in compliance with a depositors duties and role is devastating. Neglectful actions that fail to deliver the asset as represented in a private placement is hard to fathom.

It would fuel a new wave of class suits and surely compound the already stressful domestic economic landscape .

m.soliman
expert.witess@live.com
Deontos, on April 5, 2010 at 8:45 am said:

GMAC and old friend Greenpoint and old friend MERS;
Get the Courthouse door slammed on them. AZ BK Court
says lack of standing. But Ohh, THE DETAILS are even more interesting!

A BAD MOON RISING.

==========================================

The Home Equity Theft Reporter:

GMAC’s failure to demonstrated that it was a holder of the note under under §47-3301 of the Arizona statute …. IMPROPER ALLONGE

The MERS assignment of the deed of trust (ie. mortgage) did not provide GMAC with standing
JUDGE: “a number of cases have held that such language confers no economic benefit on MERS”

And *this* makes me wonder about the BAD MOON I saw the other night……..
GMAC was unable to establish that it was the servicer of the promissory note (the evidence in this case did not demonstrate that the promissory note and deed of trust were properly transferred to the “special purpose” securitization trust (“Trust”) holding the pool of loans, and, “without that evidence, there is no demonstration that GMAC is the servicer of the Note.” In light of this, the court stated that “it is immaterial that GMAC is the servicer for the Trust.”).

==========================================

“ANONYMOUS” and “Jan Van Eck” the court SEEMS to be kicking GMAC TO THE CURB EVEN AS THE LOAN’S SERVICER? Interesting reading of the Judges point of view below. The BLADE does cut BOTH ways. The Homeowner takes a few HITS also.

==========================================

IN RE WEISBAND

In re: BARRY WEISBAND, Chapter 13, Debtor.

Case No. 4:09-bk-05175-EWH.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona.

March 29, 2010.

Barry Weisband, Tucson, AZ, Ronald Ryan, Ronald Ryan, P.C., Tucson, AZ, Attorney for Debtor.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

EILEEN W. HOLLOWELL, Bankruptcy Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

The debtor, Barry Weisband (“Debtor”), has challenged the standing of creditor, GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC”), to seek stay relief on his residence. After reviewing the documents provided by GMAC and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court concludes that GMAC, the alleged servicer of the Debtor’s home loan, lacks standing to seek stay relief. The reasons for this conclusion are explained in the balance of this decision.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Creation of Debtor’s Note And Asserted Subsequent Transfers

On or about October 6, 2006, the Debtor executed and delivered to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“GreenPoint”) an adjustable rate promissory note in the principal sum of $540,000 (“Note”) secured by a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) on real property located at 5424 East Placita Apan, Tucson, Arizona 85718 (“Property”).

On a separate piece of paper, GreenPoint endorsed the Note to GMAC (“Endorsement”). The Endorsement is undated. The DOT was signed by the Debtor on October 9, 2006, and recorded on October 13, 2006. The DOT lists GreenPoint as the lender, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the beneficiary of the DOT “solely as nominee for [GreenPoint], its successors and assigns.”

Approximately five months before the creation of the Note and DOT, on April 10, 2006, GreenPoint entered into a Flow Interim Servicing Agreement (“FISA”) (Exhibit D)[ 1 ] with Lehman Capital, a division of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Lehman”), pursuant to which Lehman agreed to purchase conventional, residential, fixed and adjustable rate first and second lien mortgage loans from GreenPoint. Under the FISA, GreenPoint agreed to service the mortgage loans it sold to Lehman. According to GMAC, GreenPoint transferred the Note and DOT to Lehman under the FISA.

On November 1, 2006, Lehman entered into a Mortgage Loan Sale and Assignment Agreement (“MLSAA”) with Structured Asset Securities Corporation (“SASC”) (Exhibit E). Under that agreement, Lehman transferred a number of the mortgage loans it acquired under the FISA to SASC. GMAC claims that the Note was one of the mortgage loans transferred to SASC. SASC created a trust to hold the transferred mortgages — GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust (“Trust”). The MLSAA also transferred the right to receive principal and interest payments under the transferred mortgage loans from Lehman to the Trust.

Also, on November 1, 2006, SASC entered into a Trust Agreement (Exhibit F) with Aurora Loan Services (“Aurora”) as the master servicer, and U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) as the trustee. A Reconstituted Servicing Agreement (Exhibit G) was executed the same day, which provided that GreenPoint would continue to service the mortgages transferred to the Trust under the MLSAA, but that the Trust could change servicers at any time. Also, according to GMAC, on November 1, 2006, GMAC, Lehman, and Aurora entered into a Securitization Servicing Agreement (“SSA”) (Exhibit H), pursuant to which GMAC would service the loans transferred to the Trust. GMAC claims that under the SSA it is the current servicer of the Note and DOT.

Thus, according to GMAC, as of November 1, 2006, the Note and DOT had been transferred to the Trust, with SASC as the Trustor, U.S. Bank as the Trustee, Aurora as the master servicer, and GMAC as the sub-servicer. GreenPoint went out of business in 2007. According to GMAC, it remains the sub-servicer of the Note, and that is its only financial interest in the Note and DOT. (Transcript Nov. 10, 2009, pp. 44, 47, 75.)

B. Bankruptcy Events

As of March 1, 2009, the Debtor was in default of his obligations under the Note. Debtor filed his petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on March 19, 2009. On May 16, 2009, GMAC filed a proof of claim (“POC”), which attached the Note and DOT. The Endorsement from GreenPoint to GMAC was not attached to GMAC’s proof of claim. On May 12, 2009, MERS, as nominee for GreenPoint, assigned its interest in the DOT to GMAC (“MERS Assignment”). The MERS Assignment was recorded on July 16, 2009.

GMAC filed a Motion for Relief from Stay (“Motion”) on May 29, 2009, on the grounds that the Debtor had no equity in the Property and the Property was not necessary for an effective reorganization. The Motion also requested adequate protection payments to protect GMAC’s alleged interest in the Property. GMAC attached the Note with the Endorsement and DOT as exhibits to the Motion.

The Debtor filed a response challenging GMAC’s standing to seek relief from stay. After various discovery disputes, GMAC sent a letter dated September 17, 2009, to the Debtor which purported to explain the various transfers of the Note and the DOT. (Docket #90). The letter explained that GreenPoint transferred the “subject loan” to Lehman under the FISA, that Lehman sold the “subject loan” to SASC under the MLSAA, that SASC, Aurora Loan Services, and U.S. National Bank entered into a trust agreement, which created the Trust and made Aurora the master servicer for the “subject loan,” and, that GMAC was the servicer of the “subject loan” under the SSA. According to GMAC, its status as servicer, along with the Endorsement of the Note to GMAC and the assignment of the DOT from MERS to GMAC, demonstrated that it had standing to bring the Motion.

On November 10, 2009, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Motion. GMAC offered the original Note at the hearing and admitted into evidence a copy of the Note, DOT, copies of the FISA, MLSAA, Trust Agreement, the Reconstituted Servicing Agreement and the SSA. However, GMAC did not offer any documents demonstrating how the Note and DOT were conveyed by GreenPoint to the FISA. No document was offered demonstrating how the Note and DOT were conveyed from the FISA to the MLSAA or from the MLSAA into the Trust. Schedule A-1 of the MLSAA, where the transferred mortgages presumably would have been listed, only has the words “Intentionally Omitted” on it, and Schedule A-2 has the word “None.” (Exhibit F, pp. 19-20). Similarly, there is no evidence that the Note and DOT are subject to the SSA. Exhibit A to the SSA, titled “Mortgage Loan Schedule,” is blank. At the conclusion of the hearing, this Court ordered the Debtor to begin making adequate protection payments commencing on December 1, 2009 to the Chapter 13 Trustee. The Court further ordered GMAC and the Debtor to negotiate the amount of the adequate protection payments. When the parties were unable to reach agreement, the Court set the amount of the monthly payments at $1,000.

III. ISSUE

Does GMAC have standing to bring the Motion?

IV. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(b)(2)(G).

V. DISCUSSION

A. Introduction

Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of collection and enforcement actions. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The purpose of the automatic stay is to provide debtors with “protection against hungry creditors” and to assure creditors that the debtor’s other creditors are not “racing to various courthouses to pursue independent remedies to drain the debtor’s assets.” In re Tippett, 542 F.3d 684, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 755-56 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also In re Johnston, 321 B.R. 262, 2737-4 (D. Ariz. 2005). Despite the broad protection the stay affords, it is not without limits. Section 362(d) allows the court, upon request of a “party in interest,” to grant relief from the stay, “such as terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). The court may grant relief “for cause, including the lack of adequate protection.” Id. The court may also grant relief from the stay with respect to specific property of the estate if the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Any party affected by the stay should be entitled to seek relief. 3 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 362.07[2] (Henry Somers & Alan Resnick, eds. 15th ed., rev. 2009); Matter of Brown Transp. Truckload, Inc., 118 B.R. 889, 893 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1990); In re Vieland, 41 B.R. 134, 138 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984)). Relief from stay hearings are limited in scope — the validity of underlying claims is not litigated. In re Johnson, 756 F.2d 738, 740 (9th Cir. 1985). As one court has noted, “[s]tay relief hearings do not involve a full adjudication on the merits of claims, defenses or counterclaims, but simply a determination as to whether a creditor has a colorable claim.” In re Emrich, 2009 WL 3816174, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2009).

Nevertheless, in order to establish a colorable claim, a movant for relief from stay bears the burden of proof that it has standing to bring the motion. In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392, 400 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009). The issue of standing involves both “constitutional limitations on federal court jurisdiction and prudential limitations on its exercise.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Constitutional standing concerns whether the plaintiff’s personal stake in the lawsuit is sufficient to have a “case or controversy” to which the federal judicial power may extend under Article III. Id.; see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992); Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Ass’n v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2000).

Additionally, the “prudential doctrine of standing has come to encompass several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction.’” Pershing Park Villas, 219 F.3d at 899. Such limits are the prohibition on third-party standing and the requirement that suits be maintained by the real party in interest. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 498-99; Gilmartin v. City of Tucson, 2006 WL 5917165, at *4 (D. Ariz. 2006). Thus, prudential standing requires the plaintiff to assert its own claims rather than the claims of another. The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, made applicable in stay relief motions by Rule 9014, “generally falls within the prudential standing doctrine.” In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. at 398.

B. GMAC’s Standing

GMAC advances three different arguments in support of its claim to be a “party in interest” with standing to seek relief from stay. First, GMAC asserts it has standing because the Note was endorsed to GMAC and GMAC has physical possession of the Note. Second, GMAC asserts that by virtue of the MERS Assignment, it is a beneficiary of the DOT and entitled to enforce and foreclose the DOT under Arizona law. Third, GMAC asserts it has standing because it is the servicer of the Note. The court addresses each of GMAC’s claims in turn.

1. GMAC Has Not Demonstrated That It Is A Holder Of The Note

If GMAC is the holder of the Note, GMAC would be a party injured by the Debtor’s failure to pay it, thereby satisfying the constitutional standing requirement. GMAC would also be the real party in interest under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 because under ARIZ. REV. STAT. (“A.R.S.’) § 47-3301, the holder of a note has the right to enforce it.[ 2 ] However, as discussed below, GMAC did not prove it is the holder of the Note.

Under Arizona law, a holder is defined as “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.” A.R.S. § 47-1201(B)(21)(a).[ 3 ] GMAC has failed to demonstrate that it is the holder of the Note because, while it was in possession of the Note at the evidentiary hearing, it failed to demonstrate that the Note is properly payable to GMAC. A special endorsement to GMAC was admitted into evidence with the Note. However, for the Endorsement to constitute part of the Note, it must be on “a paper affixed to the instrument.” A.R.S. § 47-3204; see also In re Nash, 49 B.R. 254, 261 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1985). Here, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Endorsement was affixed to the Note. The Endorsement is on a separate sheet of paper; there was no evidence that it was stapled or otherwise attached to the rest of the Note. Furthermore, when GMAC filed its proof of claim, the Endorsement was not included, which is a further indication that the allonge containing the Endorsement was not affixed to the Note.[ 4 ]

In Adams v. Madison Realty & Dev., Inc., 853 F.2d 163 (3d Cir. 1988), the plaintiffs executed promissory notes which, after a series of transfers, came into the defendant’s possession. At issue was whether the defendant was the rightful owner of the notes. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to holder in due course status because the endorsements failed to meet the UCC’s fixation requirement. Id. at 168-69. The court relied on UCC section 3-202(2) [A.R.S. § 47-3204]: “An indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.” Id. at 165. Since the endorsement page, indicating that the defendant was the holder of the note, was not attached to the note, the court found that the note had not been properly negotiated. Id. at 166-67. Thus, ownership of the note never transferred to the defendant. Applying that principle to the facts here, GMAC did not become a holder of the Note due to the improperly affixed special endorsement.

While the bankruptcy court in In re Nash, 49 B.R. 254 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1985) found that holder in due course status existed even though an allonge was not properly affixed to an instrument, the court based its determination on the clear intention that the note assignment be physically attached because: (1) the assignment was signed and notarized the same day as the trust deed; (2) the assignment specifically referenced the escrow number; (3) the assignment identified the original note holder; and (4) the assignment recited that the note was to be attached to the assignment. Id. at 261.

In this case, however, there is no proof that the allonge containing the special endorsement from GreenPoint to GMAC was executed at or near the time the Note was executed. Furthermore, the Endorsement does not have any identifying numbers on it, such as an account number or an escrow number, nor does it reference the Note in any way. There is simply no indication that the allonge was appropriately affixed to the Note, in contradiction with the mandates of A.R.S. § 47-3204. Thus, there is no basis in this case to depart from the general rule that an endorsement on an allonge must be affixed to the instrument to be valid.

GMAC cannot overcome the problems with the unaffixed Endorsement by its physical possession of the Note because the Note was not endorsed in blank and, even if it was, the problem of the unaffixed endorsement would remain.[ 5 ] As a result, because GMAC failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the Endorsement was proper, it has failed to demonstrate that it is the holder of the Note.

2. The MERS Assignment Of The DOT Did Not Provide GMAC With Standing

GMAC argues that it has standing to bring the Motion as the assignee of MERS.[ 6 ] In this case, MERS is named in the DOT as a beneficiary, solely as the “nominee” of GreenPoint, holding only “legal title” to the interests granted to GreenPoint under the DOT. A number of cases have held that such language confers no economic benefit on MERS. See, e.g., In re Sheridan, 2009 WL 631355, *4 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009); In re Mitchell, 2009 WL 1044368, *3-4 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009); In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 367 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009). As noted by the Sheridan court, MERS “collect[s] no money from [d]ebtors under the [n]ote, nor will it realize the value of the [p]roperty through foreclosure of the [d]eed of [t]rust in the event the [n]ote is not paid.” 2009 WL 631355 at *4.

Because MERS has no financial interest in the Note, it will suffer no injury if the Note is not paid and will realize no benefit if the DOT is foreclosed. Accordingly, MERS cannot satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing. GMAC, as MERS’ assignee of the DOT, “stands in the shoes” of the assignor, taking only those rights and remedies the assignor would have had. Hunnicutt Constr., Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson, Trust No. 3496, 187 Ariz. 301, 304 (Ct. App. 1996) citing Van Waters & Rogers v. Interchange Res., Inc., 14 Ariz. App. 414, 417 (1971); In re Boyajian, 367 B.R. 138, 145 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). Because GMAC is MERS’ assignee, it cannot satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing either.[ 7 ]

3. GMAC Does Not Have Standing As The Servicer Of The Note

(a) Servicer’s Right To Collect Fees For Securitized Mortgages

Securitization of residential mortgages is “the process of aggregating a large number of notes secured by deeds of trust in what is called a mortgage pool, and then selling security interests in that pool of mortgages.” Kurt Eggert, Held Up In Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine, 35 CREIGHTON L. REV. 503, 536 (2002). The process begins with a borrower negotiating with a mortgage broker for the terms of the loan. Then, the mortgage broker either originates the loan in its own name or in the name of another entity, which presumably provides the money for the loan. Almost immediately, the broker transfers the loan to the funding entity. “This lender quickly sells the loan to a different financial entity, which pools the loan together with a host of other loans in a mortgage pool.” Id. at 538.

The assignee then transfers the mortgages in the pool to another entity, which in turn transfers the loans to a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”,) whose sole role is to hold the pool of mortgages. Id. at 539. “The transfer to the special purpose trust must constitute a true sale, so that the party transferring the assets reduces its potential liability on the loans and exchanges the fairly illiquid loans for much more liquid cash.” Id. at 542. Next, the SPV issues securities which the assignee sells to investors. Id. at 539.

Once the securities have been sold, the SPV is not actively involved. It “does not directly collect payments from the homeowners whose notes and deeds of trust are held by the SPV.” Id. at 544. Rather, servicers collect the principal and interest payments on behalf of the SPV. Id. Fees are associated with the servicing of loans in the pool. Therefore, GMAC would have constitutional standing if it is the servicer for the Note and DOT because it would suffer concrete injury by not being able to collect its servicing fees.[ 8 ] In re O’Kelley, 420 B.R. 18, 23 (D. Haw. 2009). In this case, however, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Note and DOT were transferred to the Trust, and, without that evidence, there is no demonstration that GMAC is the servicer of the Note.

(b) There Is Insufficient Evidence That The Note Was Sold To Lehman And Became Part Of The Trust

When the Debtor executed the Note and DOT, GreenPoint was the original holder of the Note and the economic beneficiary of the DOT. GreenPoint, allegedly, transferred the Note to Lehman pursuant to the FISA. However, the term “mortgage loans” is not defined in the FISA and GMAC’s documents regarding the securitization of the Note and DOT provide no evidence of actual transfers of the Note and DOT to either the FISA or the Trust. Because such transfers must be “true sales,” they must be properly documented to be effective. Thus, to use an overused term, GMAC has failed “to connect the dots” to demonstrate that the Note and DOT were securitized. Accordingly, it is immaterial that GMAC is the servicer for the Trust.

C. Debtor’s Other Arguments

1. Securities Investors Are Not The Only Individuals Who Can Satisfy Standing Requirements When Dealing With A 362 Motion on a “Securitized” Mortgage

The Debtor argues that, in an asset securitization scheme, only the securities investors have standing to seek stay relief because they are the only parties with a financial interest in the securitized notes. However, because the Debtor executed the Note and received consideration (which he used to purchase the house), the contract is enforceable regardless of who provided the funding. In other words, the fact that the funds for a borrower’s loan are supplied by someone other than the loan originator, does not invalidate the loan or restrict enforcement of the loan contract to the parties who funded the loan. A number of cases and treatises recognize that consideration for a contract, including a promissory note, can be provided by a third party. See, e.g., DCM Ltd. P’ship v. Wang, 555 F. Supp. 2d 808, 817 (E.D. Mich. 2008); Buffalo County v. Richards, 212 Neb. 826, 828-29 (Neb. 1982); 3 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 7:20 (Richard A. Lord, 4th ed. 2009); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 71(4) (2009).

Notes are regularly assigned and the assignment does not change the nature of the contract. The assignee merely steps into the shoes of the assignor. In re Boyajian, 367 B.R. 138, 145 (9th Cir. BAP 2007); In re Trejos, 374 B.R. 210, 215 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). No additional consideration is required, as opposed to a novation which creates a new obligation. Id. at 216-17 citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 280, cmt. e. Therefore, the Debtor’s argument that the Note is unenforceable because the funder of the Note was not the payee fails. The Note is still valid and can be enforced by the party who has the right to enforce it under applicable Arizona law.

2. Proof Of A Note’s Entire Chain Of Ownership Is Not Necessary For Stay Relief

A movant for stay relief need only present evidence sufficient to present a colorable claim — not every piece of evidence that would be required to prove the right to foreclose under a state law judicial foreclosure proceeding is necessary. In re Emrich, 2009 WL 3816174, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2009). Accordingly, not every movant for relief from stay has to provide a complete chain of a note’s assignment to obtain relief.

Arizona’s deed of trust statute does not require a beneficiary of a deed of trust to produce the underlying note (or its chain of assignment) in order to conduct a Trustee’s Sale. Blau v. Am.’s Serv. Co., 2009 WL 3174823, at *6 (D. Ariz. 2009); Mansour v. Cal-W. Reconveyance Corp., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1181 (D. Ariz. 2009); Diessner v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187 (D. Ariz. 2009). It would make no sense to require a creditor to demonstrate more to obtain stay relief than it needs to demonstrate under state law to conduct a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure. Moreover, if a note is endorsed in blank, it is enforceable as a bearer instrument. See In re Hill, 2009 WL 1956174, at *2 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2009). Therefore, this Court declines to impose a blanket requirement that all movants must offer proof of a note’s entire chain of assignments to have standing to seek relief although there may be circumstances where, in order to establish standing, the movant will have to do so.

3. The Movant Has Not Violated Rule 9011

The Debtor argues that GMAC “violated Rule 7011″ by presenting insufficient and misleading evidence. Given that there is no Rule 7011, the Court assumes that the Debtor was actually referring to Bankruptcy Rule 9011. Rule 9011 allows a court to impose sanctions for filing a frivolous suit. FED. R. BANKR. P. 9011(c); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c). As noted at the evidentiary hearing, the Court did not find that GMAC filed its motion for relief stay in bad faith, nor does this Court believe GMAC filed its motion thinking it did not have proper evidentiary support. There are numerous, often conflicting, decisions on the issues of “real party in interest” and constitutional standing, and what evidence must be presented by a servicer seeking stay relief. The record in this case does not support imposition of 9011 sanctions.

VI. CONCLUSION

GMAC has not demonstrated that it has constitutional or prudential standing or is the real party in interest entitled to prosecute a motion for relief from stay.

Accordingly, its motion is DENIED without prejudice.

1. Exhibits refer to the exhibits admitted into evidence at a November 10, 2009 evidentiary hearing.
2. Because there is no federal commercial law which defines who is a note holder, the court must look to Arizona law to determine if GMAC is a holder. In re Montagne, 421 B.R. 65, 73 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2009) (“Bankruptcy law does not generally provide for the enforcement of promissory notes. As a result, the legal obligations of the parties are determined by applicable non-bankruptcy law, which is usually state law.”).
3. Arizona substantially adopted the 1972 revised version of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) in 1975. See Fin. Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Familian Corp., 183 Ariz. 497, 499 n.1 (Ct. App. 1995); Wollenberg v. Phoenix Leasing Inc., 182 Ariz. 4, 7 n. 2 (Ct. App. 1994). In 1993, Arizona adopted the 1990 revision of UCC Article 3. Fin. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 183 Ariz. at 502 n.2.
4. The special endorsement to GMAC is also completely inconsistent with the securitization of the note into the Trust which GMAC asserts occurred shortly after it was executed by the Debtor. According to GMAC, the Note and DOT were conveyed by GreenPoint to Lehman and ultimately to a Trust. But if the Note was endorsed to GMAC, GreenPoint would not have been able to convey the Note — only GMAC as the holder of the note could have conveyed it.
5. If the Note was endorsed in blank (and the Endorsement was properly affixed to the Note), it would be a bearer instrument and, therefore, enforceable by the party in physical possession. See In re Hill, 2009 WL 1956174, *2 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2009).
6. MERS’ primary function is to act as a document custodian. Major players in the mortgage lending industry created MERS to simplify the process of transferring mortgages by avoiding the need to re-record liens — and pay court recorder filing fees — each time it is assigned. Christopher L. Peterson, Predatory Structured Finance, 28 CARDOZO L. REV. 2185, 2266-67 (2007).
7. The Arizona District Court has recently held that MERS, as a named beneficiary under a deed of trust, could appoint a trustee under Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statute to conduct a foreclosure sale. Contreras v. U.S. Bank as Trustee for CSMC Mortg. Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-5, 2009 WL 4827016 (D. Ariz. 2009); Blau v. Am.’s Serv. Co., 2009 WL 3174823 (D. Ariz. 2009). Those cases, however, focused on whether a non-judicial foreclosure sale can be conducted under Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statute without presentation of the original note. This court agrees that non-judicial foreclosures may be conducted under Arizona’s deed of trust statute without presentation of the original note; however, that does not resolve the issue of standing in a motion for relief from stay. Furthermore, while Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statute does not require presentation of the note, a deed of trust secures the performance of a contract under A.R.S. § 33-801(8). Therefore, a non-judicial foreclosure is conducted to enforce the rights of the contract holder and, the party conducting such a sale is presumably either the holder of the contract or the holder’s agent.
8. Even if a servicer has constitutional standing, it may still not be the “real party in interest” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and may not, therefore, be able to satisfy the requirements for prudential standing. See, e.g., In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 767 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).

This copy provided by Leagle, Inc.
M. Soliman, on April 3, 2010 at 10:33 am said:

MORTGAGE TRUST LEGAL CONTROVERSY
M.Soliman

Defaults are another topic of contention by ex-insiders like Soliman, who complained about the deteriorating condition for which bank loans were sold with recourse to the trust.

Its no secret that many borrowers were given loans they did not qualify for at time of settlement. Now we have a new era of lender recovery fraud separate from the RESPA issues.

What do you tell attorneys venturing onto the high stakes game of risk to reward in exchange for disgruntled borrower angst? Lenders are using a credit from the stock certificates to steal the borrower home at the trustees sale.

I see this all the time now. Transferee is the beneficiary and seller is a nominal interest who appoints a trustee through an agent for the nominee. The sale is for credit from “at then” consideration with a zero transfer tax. Then, heres the best part, the sale is to the beneficiary , “IF” entitled under “Pro Tanto”

Pro Tanto is a Latin term meaning eminent domain. Another definition is for a moral obligation to pay back a debt of another debt.

Its all a potential added liability for any borrower default which requires that a trusts manger or “trustee”, promptly notify the relevant bank or “seller”, or banks servicer for breach of any representation or warranty made by it in respect of a mortgage loan it sold. They are not!

In some cases over 50% of a mortgage pool sold to a trust are delinquent and subject to a “put” back to the bank. Soliman commented “to what extent repos are issued therein is unknown as lenders will continue to avert repos in these instances and rather float payments as if the borrower is current”.

Soliman stated that “it is not always the case and that will impact a borrowers rights in a default.”

The master servicer will make cash advances with respect to delinquent payments of principal and interest on the mortgage loans to the extent the master servicer reasonably believes that the cash advances can be repaid from future payments on the mortgage loans.

The cash advances are solely intended to maintain a regular flow of scheduled interest and principal payments on the certificates and are not intended to guarantee or insure against losses.

The special purpose entity “SPE” where the assets are deposited controlled by the registrant who will purchase and pool the mortgage loans originated from the contributing source

i.e. Seller’s Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and one or more others affiliated with Countrywide Financial Corporation. Each of which is referred to in this prospectus supplement as a “Seller” and together they are referred to as the sellers.

The arrangements are pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement among the sellers, master servicer, the depositor and trustee, such as the Bank of New York.

The trigger for a repo here is delinquency, according Soliman, and that will normally cause the mortgage loans to be assigned to the trustee for the benefit of the holders of the certificates. That mandate is called for in the indenture and violates SEC rules and invites enforcement. It makes no sense when you consider the loans are alleged sold from the onset.

Now its an IRS issue and lender dilemma.

According to Soliman, “If the loans were not assigned at the time of delivery and closing for pooling of the assets, then the loans remained the property of the seller”.

Under FAS 140 these assets must be classified as transferred under a bonefide sale for reporting earnings and for the benefit of the shareholders. Allegedly, its the seller who books its earnings as a “gain on sale.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that a spokesman for Ernst & Young said the firm regularly reviewed the accounting for the Investment Banks’ Repo 105 deals. It was reported their failure to act upon claims from a whistleblower that Investment Banks’ accounting for a trade known as “Repo 105″ was misleading, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

“Our view was, and continues to be, that Investment Banks’ accounting policy for these repo transactions complied with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

So, now we can look for round two of the Wall Street versus Main Street controversy. It’s Solimans position, when asked …”let the games begin.”

The lender’s who tender their collateral into stock certificates have, for all intents and purposes, sacrificed their customary remedies in traditional foreclosures.

The confusion we see is from a lender, no wait, a seller, no, a depositor, or maybe a servicing agent, no a master servicer or how about a trustee? See what I mean?”

Now the lenders have stepped back to become a liquidator for a nominal interest held by a gang, or I mean, its not a gang it’s a club. The MERS club!”

These people or “alien lenders” are vile in their material misrepresentations before the court and I believe are forever lost to the original terms and conditions for its collateral.

From: expert.witness@live.com
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:54 AM

Look back in time. . .

arm chair warriors (O.North) often fail (discovery), when poisoned (lies) by these fairy tales (Iran Contra affair). The lawyers (White House) clean up all details (cover up) ….since daddy (Regan) had to lie (in our nations best interest).

This is the end of the innocence.
Words by D Henley
msoliman, on April 3, 2010 at 9:47 am said:

MORTGAGE LEGAL CONTROVERSY

Defaults are another topic of contention by ex-insiders like Soliman, who complained about the deteriorating condition in 2002. These bank loans were sold with recourse to the trust. Its no secret that many borrowers were given loans they did not qualify for at time of settlement.
A potential liability for any borrower default requires that a trusts manger or “trustee”, promptly notify the relevant bank or “seller”, or banks servicer for breach of any representation or warranty made by it in respect of a mortgage loan it sold. In some cases over 50% of a mortgage pool sold to a trust are delinquent and subject to a “put” back to the bank. Soliman commented “to what extent repos are issued therein is unknown as lenders will continue to avert repos in these instances and rather float payments as if the borrower is current”.

Soliman stated that “it is not always the case and that can impact a borrowers rights in a default.” The master servicer will make cash advances with respect to delinquent payments of principal and interest on the mortgage loans to the extent the master servicer reasonably believes that the cash advances can be repaid from future payments on the mortgage loans. The cash advances are solely intended to maintain a regular flow of scheduled interest and principal payments on the certificates and are not intended to guarantee or insure against losses. The special purpose entity “SPE” where the assets are deposited are the depositor and will purchase and pool the mortgage loans originated from the contributing source i.e. Seller’s Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and one or more others affiliated with Countrywide Financial Corporation. Each of which is referred to in this prospectus supplement as a “Seller” and together they are referred to as the sellers. The arrangements are pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement among the sellers, master servicer, the depositor and trustee, such as the Bank of New York.

The trigger for a repo here is delinquency, according Soliman, and that will normally cause the mortgage loans to be assigned to the trustee for the benefit of the holders of the certificates. That is called for in the indenture and makes no sense when you consider the loans are alleged sold from the onset.

According to Soliman, “If the loans were not assigned at the time of delivery and closing for pooling of the assets, then the loans remained the property of the seller”. Under FAS 140 these assets must be classified as transferred under a bonefide sale for reporting earnings and for the benefit of the shareholders. Allegedly, its the seller who books its earnings as a “gain on sale.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that a spokesman for Ernst & Young said the firm regularly reviewed the accounting for the Investment Banks’ Repo 105 deals. It was reported their failure to act upon claims from a whistleblower that Investment Banks’ accounting for a trade known as “Repo 105″ was misleading, as reported in the Wall Street Journal. “Our view was, and continues to be, that Investment Banks’ accounting policy for these repo transactions complied with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

So, now we can look for round two of the Wall Street versus Main Street controversy. It’s Solimans position, when asked …”let the games begin. The lender’s who tender their collateral into stock certificates have, for all intents and purposes, sacrificed their customary remedies in traditional foreclosures. The confusion we see is from a lender, no wait, a seller, no, a depositor, or maybe a servicing agent, no a master servicer or how about a trustee? See what I mean?”

Now the lenders have stepped back to become a liquidator for a nominal interest held by a gang, or I mean its not a gang it’s a club. The MERS club!”

These people are forever lost to the original terms and conditions for its collateral.

From: expert.witness@live.com
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:54 AM
TNSteve, on April 2, 2010 at 12:47 pm said:

Recently had a forensic audit done. Found 1 major and 2 minor violations. Past the 3 year rescission period. What can I do? Does anyone know a good attorney in Memphis, TN?
M. Soliman, on April 2, 2010 at 11:15 am said:

Mortgages investment trusts used accounting to commit fraud. Displaced homeowners maybe coming back home….
By M.Soliman

A U.S bankruptcy court examiner completed a 14 months assignment looking into the failure of Lehman Bros. The report came at a cost to the government and taxpayers of $35 million.

Anton R. Valukas, the U.S. bankruptcy court-appointed examiner compiled a 2,000 plus page report he issued late last week, alleging that the failed investment bank constructed a highly questionable repurchase agreement known as Repo 105.

The repo practices relied on a very aggressive interpretation of accounting rule, FAS 140. FASB issues formal statements such as one that replaces FASB125, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities.

Valukas was charged with unscrambling the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. History . His report has found among other things that the company used “materially misleading” accounting practices to enhance its balance sheet in order to look stronger than it really was.

AccountingWEB first posted the story giving a summary account of the findings and cites where Repo 105 agreements differed from ordinary repurchase agreements. This is because investment firms valued the assets pledged in the repurchase agreement at 105 percent of the cash received.

So then, with regards to assignments, this in and of itself suggests a bonefide transfer and earnings booked as a gain at time of sale. Therefore, based on the report , these trust assets which are mortgages are lost to the control of the seller forever.

Maher Soliman, a Los Angeles based mortgage backed securities analyst is an expert witness to counsel and homeowners fighting a wrongful foreclosure. According to Soliman, I have not read the entire report but this is none the less a huge development for homeowners and something the government did not expect to see.

When asked why, Soliman said “the government wants to prosecute culprits in the Lehman matter yet now have evidence of lender foul play across the board by the investment trust registrants.”

This administration and court can no longer assume status quo in foreclosure with a breach of significant accounting rules. Its willful negligence intending to shield the investors from liabilities and leads to servicer conflict and interference with borrowers who sought relief in a foreclosure.

A repurchase agreement (or repo) is an agreement between two parties whereby one party sells the other a security at a specified price with a commitment to buy the security back.

A repurchase agreement is customarily a short-term financing vehicle for the parties managing the trust and has no impact on the balance sheet. For example when a company sells a bond or other, usually liquid, asset to a lender at market value for cash, and then repurchases the asset a few days later.

The idea of shuffling assets to con regulators and maximize earnings, while a borrower is thrown out, is wrong, wrong wrong.

msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
DyingTruth, on March 31, 2010 at 5:40 pm said:

You I once read a Homeowner saying that any judge hearing a case that involves a mortgage(that has a mortgage himself) should have to recuse himself. At that time I didn’t understand, but now everything I know along with this quote from Thomas Jefferson it all makes perfect sense…

“The judges… should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, ofexemplary morals, great patience, calmness and attention; their minds should not bedistracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man orbody of men. To these ends they should hold estates for life in their offices, or, inother words, their commissions should be during good behavior, and their salariesascertained and established by law.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1776. ME4:259, Papers 1:410

… the only way to keep judges impartial is to give them houses free from any obligation which is what is meant when they say the Judiciary is “Independent” and here as well as under the Constitution it states “commissions should be during good behavior”which makes pensions for all judges un-Constitutional and a conflict-of-interest.
Daniela Mars, on March 31, 2010 at 10:49 am said:

Bill Parish – The video is amazing. Do all judges belong to the same pension fund ?
Is this a HUGE conflict of interest or what ?
DyingTruth, on March 30, 2010 at 7:16 pm said:

Judge’s Pension Plans are depending on profit from foreclosed homes. wow that sounds like something I would have said. OH THAT’S RIGHT I DID SAY THAT.
M. Soliman, on March 30, 2010 at 5:16 pm said:

TYPE or UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
In re:JORGE CANELLAS, Case No. 6:09-bk-12240-ABB /Chapter debtor.

I agree with the decision. The arguments brought by the moving party are off base. Look, you got a guy on here who’s jabbering about IRS this and IRS that. So why the need for a formal assignment.

The indenture receives the revenue monthly paid to the trust via the Seller / Depositor. That company is a SPE or what I call a capitalized business segment for an FDIC member bank (how wrong is that).

They are actually serviced by a less than arms agent who is part of a joint business combination.

So, who cares about the assignment as I have opined and the court has spoken. Consider the following:
1) who reports earnings as a gain on sale?
2) Who reports earnings as dividends received (hint hint) to the IRS?
3) Who publishes a 10 K annually

There’s your claim to the holder in due course which is a significantly much stronger argument than a missing or defect assignment.

In fact, talk about a blown case. No mention here of the requirement for recording the substitution or authorizing a she sheriff repossession).

The terms of a contract preempt the civil code and that is a huge affirmative defense brought by adversary or the argument for diversity brought by inter-pleader.

There’s a golden set of affirmative defenses or grounds to argue for a continued stay from relief.

But the assignment as a contentious argument and meritorious defense…..Please!

Although, but the assignment argument is old…so old I recognize the language used in the pleading from the Boyko matter and published courts comments.

You people need to give the Judges a break. They are not by any means stupid and I can say that from a lot of time spent in court rooms across California

Believe it or not….it’s Your home

expert.witness@live.com

….anyone See my car….. Your text here…
Daniela Mars, on March 30, 2010 at 11:40 am said:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/saving-middle-class-whistle-blower-banks-helping-americans/story?id=10178938

Watch this ! Just to get more angry
Deontos, on March 29, 2010 at 4:22 pm said:

AND NOW THIS……….

And yes the CAPS mean I am SCREAMING.
Justice being served SOMEWHERE.
“Due Process” being diligently applied SOMEWHERE.
Pretenders being DENIED somewhere ……. in Florida.
Sure hope this is affirmed if it is appealed. All about what Neil,
Anonymous, Jan and “Wise Others” have been REPEATING
for some time now.

Foreclosure Fraud Fighters- New Bankruptcy Opinion from Middle District of Florida

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/03/foreclosure-fraud-fighters-new-bankruptcy-opinion-from-middle-district-of-florida/

March 29th, 2010

IN BRIEF:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

In re:

JORGE CANELLAS, Case No. 6:09-bk-12240-ABB
Chapter 7
Debtor.

……………………………………..

TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION
The Trustee opposes Movant’s Motion on the grounds Movant lacks standing to obtain stay relief and it failed to perfect its security interest prior to the Petition Date. Her opposition is grounded on the contention the Assignment is invalid. She has presented various legal theories in support of her position:

1.Aurora Bank FSB f/k/a Lehman Brothers Bank DID NOT OWN THE MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT and had no authority to assign them to Movant.

2. By the terms of the two securitized trusts for Lehman Brothers designated 2006-3 registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, no assignment occurred.

3. The ASSIGNMENT WAS EXECUTED AND RECORDED POST-PETITION AND MAY CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)(4).

4. MOVANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT ON THE PETITION DATE IT HAD PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE PROPERLY ENDORSED IN ITS FAVOR.

5. LEHMAN BROTHERS’ ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE PROMISSORY NOTE OR MORTGAGE WAS EXTINGUISHED IN 2006 WHEN IT WAS PAID BY THE TRUST FOR THE POOL OF MORTGAGES WHICH FORM THE TRUST’S CORPUS.

6. Title BETWEEN THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND MORTGAGE WERE BIFURCATED, thereby rendering the Mortgage unenforceable.

Movant’s Motion, however, is due to be denied because Movant has failed to establish it has standing to seek stay relief. A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY MUST BE PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 11 U.S.C. § 362(d); FED. R. 7 CIV. P. 17(a)(1); FED. R. BANKR. P. 7017. “The real party in interest in relief from stay is whoever is entitled to enforce the obligation sought to be enforced.” In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 366 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009). Only the holder of the Note and Mortgage, or
its authorized agent, has standing to bring the Motion. Id. at 367.

Movant asserts in its Motion it is the “owner and holder” of the Note and Mortgage, but has presented no evidence substantiating that assertion. The copies of the Note presented do not contain an endorsement evidencing an assignment of the Note.

THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY MOVANT’S LOAN SERVICER MAKES NO MENTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE OR WHO HAS POSSESSION OF IT. Movant proffered no business records or testimony tracing ownership of the Note and establishing Movant is the present holder of the Note.

THE VERACITY OF THE ALLONGE AND ASSIGNMENT IS QUESTIONABLE. The dates contained in the Allonge are chronologically impossible. The Allonge is dated August 1, 2006, but references a trust that came into existence on October 31, 2006. The signature of Jennifer Henninger is undated and not notarized. The Allonge was not referenced in or filed with Movant’s Motion in October 2009, but was presented three months later as an attachment to its post-hearing brief.

THE ASSIGNMENT WAS EXECUTED AND RECORDED POST-PETITION APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO MOVANT’S FILING OF THE MOTION FOR RELIEF. It was prepared by Jennifer Henninger, who executed the Allonge, and was recorded by the law firm that is representing Movant in this proceeding. Jack Jacob’s execution of the Assignment was notarized by Jennifer Henninger and witnessed by Louis Zaffino, the affiant of Movant’s Affidavit. It appears the Allonge and the Assignment were created post-petition for the purpose of the relief from stay proceeding. Movant did not establish Jennifer Henninger and Jack Jacob had authority to execute the Allonge and Assignment.
……………………….

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED……………….

that the Movant’s Motion for Relief from Stay (Doc. No. 22) is hereby DENIED due to Movant’s failure to establish it has standing to bring the Motion; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Trustee, within twenty-one days of the entry of this Order, is hereby directed, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 704(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5009, to file with the Court a Report of No Distribution or to designate this case as an asset case.

Dated this 9th day of February, 2010.

/s/ Arthur B. Briskman

ARTHUR B. BRISKMAN
United States Bankruptcy Judge

———————————-

And I have a question for “Wise Others”?

“……pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 704(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5009, to file with the Court a Report of No Distribution or to designate this case as an asset case…….”

Could this be translated into everyday language? I am not sure this is a TOTAL WIN for the Debtor or not.
Deontos, on March 29, 2010 at 4:13 pm said:

A LITTLE FYI ……..

BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE V. DEBT CANCELED: TAXING MATTER

by Mark Buckley, Rhode Island Bankruptcy Lawyer
on March 27, 2010

Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, if a debt is discharged in a bankruptcy case, it does NOT count as taxable income. Bankruptcy-discharged debt is, therefore, much more powerful than merely canceled debt. While canceled debt may create an income tax liability, discharged debt does not. See What is a 1099c and what do I do about it?

CANCELED DEBT SOUNDS GOOD

We all know that wage income is taxable. Take a look at your latest pay stub and remind yourself just how much the government actually takes.

But what are the tax ramifications of canceled debt? Is canceled debt treated the same way as regular income? Will you end up owing the IRS because of a debt settled or canceled by a creditor?

By “canceled debt” I mean that portion of a debt that a creditor is unable to collect from you and is later ”written off.” Its that pile of bills you have no ability to repay and is basically not collectible.

First, lets consider some examples. What if you borrow $ 100,000 from a bank and then default after only repaying $ 20,000? How should the $ 80,000 unpaid portion be treated by the Internal Revenue Service? Here is another example. If you owe $ 8,000 on a Visa credit card and stop making payments, how should the creditor’s loss be treated on your tax return?

Generally, a creditor’s loss is your income gain. When a creditor loses hope of collecting a debt, they may cancel the debt and report the amount canceled to the IRS using form 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt). Then, when tax season arrives, you receive your 1099-C and report the canceled debt as additional income subject to the tax ax.

This is why many debt management, or debt consolidation programs are dangerous. While they may be marginally successful in getting your phone to stop ringing from debt collectors, they cannot prevent the IRS from knocking on your door wanting to tax you on the canceled debt.

DISCHARGED DEBT IS BETTER

This is not to say that a creditor won’t still attempt to send a debtor with a bankruptcy discharge a Form 1099-C. The solution for one who has filed bankruptcy, however, is to file IRS Form 982. This can exclude the amount of discharged indebtedness from your gross income.

In a future post, we will consider the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. While the act will not prevent a mortgage company from suing you, it may remove the tax liability of canceled debt for a homeowner on his principal residence.

CHARGE OFFS

Don’t confuse “canceled” debt with “charged off” or “written off” debt. A “charge off” means the creditor has removed the account from its active books and likely sent the account for collection or sold the account to a debt buyer. You may see “charge off” on your credit report, but that does not mean you don’t owe the debt. You still owe the money unless the debt was canceled with a 1099-C or the debt was discharged in bankruptcy.
m.soliman, on March 29, 2010 at 5:48 am said:

WHEN YOU CLASSIFIED ASSETS AND CHARGE THEM TO EARNINGS TO AVOID TAXES YOU ESTABLISH NEW CONSIDERATION .

The topic of corporate tax breaks has raised questions because of a provision in the 2009 stimulus bill, which allows companies to “carry back” their losses for 2008 and 2009 to the previous five years, instead of just the previous two years.

Charging off toxic assets as a loss against earnings in order to receive tax breaks means your loan is written down to zero.

How can you keep assets on the books and seek to foreclose if the assets are valued at a loss. A loan origination sold for cash and then using the cash to purchase stock is one thing. Selling the stock at multiples is another. But then writing off the stock and or underlying assets down for tax credits assumes the assets are liquidated at a loss. Liquidate means gone so whose loans are these anyway where the lender is foreclosing?

So how do you come back and set a bid price in a sham foreclosure sale whereby you (bank) are the highest bid. And the consideration paid is equal to your basis in the original loan and offered to a trustee as a credit back.Next we have a transferee who is the beneficiary and the seller who is hidden behind a nominee.

Banks and registrants that suffered big losses in 2008 and 2009, but made a lot of money in the years before that, stand to gain billions in refunds.

Bank of America and Wells Fargo, companies that received TARP loans are taking huge hits to earnings and the accounting methods must be part of your argument and discovery.

msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
bob, on March 29, 2010 at 5:19 am said:

Any lawyers in Ohio?
M. Soliman, on March 27, 2010 at 6:41 pm said:

THIS IS A CRIMINAL-OFFENSE AND I DON’T GET IT!
They can be facing criminal charges (Deontos – I do not get it).

-2010 Testimony-

WaMu V Chancey / Case Dismissed with Defendants present
Corbitt V Aurora / Judge ruled with prejudice in favor if the homeowner
Wells V Goines / Borrower won at trial
GMAC v Fanning / Settlement for $25,000
SPS v Lopez / Settlement offer $50,000
First Franklin Financial Group v Spicier / Dismissed with Plaintiff present

More cases won and I am asked not to divulge information pending appeals and so forth…i.e. Recent wins include San Diego Superior Court

M. Soliman provided witness testimony in each case listed by him.I cannot tell you everything I want as some of these matters are pending trial. For example I recently finished two-days of a difficult deposition.

Allegations that suggest I am a fraud or from interests who are not winning in court and unknown sources. These people-never have a real-name or telephone. They will not even come forward to identify themselves. Who they work for or their motivation , nameless or not , is the concern.

Personal attacks like the Rip Off report are sham claims against me and will never end.Various sorts do not want to see me testify. I am normally paid by the attorneys who engage my services anyway.

Homeowners, it’s the attorneys that win cases in court and not the witness. A witness helps to build a case with testimony obtained over 20 years.

Traded over one billion as a principal
Over two years in house with prestigious law firm
Sold assets to Saxon, GMAC, CitiGroup, B of A and Many Investment trusts
Written Private Placement memorandums for counsel
Over seven years with a FDIC lender in Compliance and Acceptance
Have written the Policies and procedures used to underwrite and deliver

The negative attacks and comments made publicly are false and solely to discredit a witness who testifies in a court of law. THIS IS A CRIMINAL-OFFENSE AND I DON’T GET IT! They can be facing criminal charges (Deontos – I do not get it).

These people you will recognize with their doom and gloom messages about judges (libelous) and personal attacks. I do not get it!

PS. I have a car and I am not homeless… LOL

God Bless you

expert.witness@live.com
Abby in CA, on March 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm said:

Below article from Huffington Post By Randall Chase on 3-27-2010
Abby in CA, on March 27, 2010 at 3:59 pm said:

DOVER, Del. — Washington Mutual Inc. filed a Chapter 11 reorganization plan, two weeks after resolving a $4 billion dispute with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The FDIC seized Washington Mutual’s flagship bank in 2008 and sold its assets to JPMorgan for $1.9 billion. The sale resulted in the two banking companies and the government agency trading lawsuits over roughly $4 billion in disputed deposit accounts following the largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The bank holding company filed its 521-page plan late Friday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The plan, which still has to be approved by a judge, would set up a $7 billion trust fund for paying creditors, including the $4 billion in deposit accounts that JPMorgan had claimed for itself.

As part of a compromise reached this month, JPMorgan has agreed to turn over the $4 billion to Washington Mutual in return for 70 percent of the tax refunds expected from WaMu’s prior operating losses, which are valued at about $3 billion.

WaMu would get about 40 percent of the tax refunds resulting from a second round of operating losses, which are valued at about $2.6 billion. The remaining 60 percent would go to the FDIC

READ THE PLAN – Se Next Post from me
Abby in CA, on March 27, 2010 at 3:49 pm said:

WAMU Chapter 11 bankruptcy March 26 2010 filed in Delaware.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL – read below

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29034013/Main-WAMU-BKR-Chapter-11-Plan-Filed-03262010-With-Exhibits-a-to-I
marcus, on March 26, 2010 at 8:00 pm said:

For those interested in quiet title action, you can find the steps I use. Note that this apply to Florida. It may be different in your state.
xhttp://foreclosureprose.squarespace.com/how-to-quiet-title/

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on March 26, 2010 at 4:12 am said:

U.S. Plans Big Expansion in Effort to Aid Homeowners
Source: NYTimes 03/26/2010

The Obama administration on Friday will announce broad new initiatives to help troubled homeowners, potentially refinancing several million of them into fresh government-backed mortgages with lower payments.

Another element of the new program is meant to temporarily reduce the payments of borrowers who are unemployed and seeking a job. Additionally, the government will encourage lenders to write down the value of loans held by borrowers in modification programs.

The escalation in aid comes as the administration is under rising pressure from Congress to resolve the foreclosure crisis, which is straining the economy and putting millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes. But the new initiatives could well spur protests among those who have kept up their payments and are not in trouble.

The administration’s earlier efforts to stem foreclosures have largely been directed at borrowers who were experiencing financial hardship. But the biggest new initiative, which is also likely to be the most controversial, will involve the government, through the Federal Housing Administration, refinancing loans for borrowers who simply owe more than their houses are worth.

About 11 million households, or a fifth of those with mortgages, are in this position, known as being underwater. Some of these borrowers refinanced their houses during the boom and took cash out, leaving them vulnerable when prices declined. Others simply had the misfortune to buy at the peak.

Many of these loans have been bundled together and sold to investors. Under the new program, the investors would have to swallow losses, but would probably be assured of getting more in the long run than if the borrowers went into foreclosure. The F.H.A. would insure the new loans against the risk of default. The borrower would once again have a reason to make payments instead of walking away from a property.

Many details of the administration’s plan remained unclear Thursday night, including the precise scope of the new program and the number of homeowners who might be likely to qualify.

One administration official cautioned that the investors might not be willing to volunteer any loans from borrowers that seemed solvent. That could set up a battle between borrowers and investors.

This much was clear, however: the plan, if successful, could put taxpayers at increased risk. If many additional borrowers move into F.H.A. loans, a renewed downturn in the housing market could send that government agency into the red.

The F.H.A. has already expanded its mortgage-guarantee program substantially in the last three years as the housing crisis deepened. It now insures more than six million borrowers, many of whom made minimal down payments and are now underwater.

Sources said the agency would use $14 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, some of which it could dangle in front of financial institutions as incentives to participate.

Another major element of the program, according to several people who described it, will be to encourage lenders to write down the value of loans for borrowers in modification programs. Until now, the government’s modification efforts have focused on lowering interest rates.

Lenders began offering principal forgiveness last year on loans they held in their own portfolios. In the fourth quarter, however, this process abruptly reversed itself, for reasons that are unclear. The number of modifications that included principal reduction fell by half.

Bank of America, the country’s biggest bank, announced this week that it would forgive principal balances over a period of years on an initial 45,000 troubled loans.

Another element of the White House’s housing program will require lenders to offer unemployed borrowers a reduction in their payments for a minimum of three months.

An administration official declined to speak on the record about the new programs but said they would “better assist responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own.”

The new initiatives would expand the government’s current mortgage modification plan, announced a year ago with great fanfare. It has resulted in fewer than 200,000 people getting permanent new loans. As many as seven million borrowers are seriously delinquent on their loans and at risk of foreclosure.

While fewer people are beginning default, the number of borrowers who are seriously distressed is rising. In the fourth quarter, the number of households at least 90 days past due on their mortgages swelled by 270,000, according to a report issued Thursday by the comptroller of the currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

“The government is seeking to persuade people to stay in their homes by aligning the mortgage debt with the asset value, which is the only viable path to real housing stability,” said one person who was briefed on the government’s plans.

The number of foreclosures in the fourth quarter rose 9 percent, to 128,859. An additional 38,000 owners disposed of their homes in short sales, where the lender agreed to accept less than it was owed.

A person briefed on the new plan said the number of underwater borrowers who qualified for the plan could be in the millions. The government is not planning to solicit loans for the program, stressing that it is voluntary.

The administration recognizes that some people’s finances have deteriorated so far that they are beyond help, the person said. People in that situation simply cannot afford the houses they are living in, the person said, even if the mortgages were reduced.

“All these programs are geared toward people for whom it makes sense, for whom it’s workable when all is said and done,” the person said. “Some people are too far gone.”

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
M. Soliman, on March 25, 2010 at 1:39 am said:

Deontos

Write me at “expert.witness@live.com” or go to http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com and there I will provide you winning court details. Or you can speak to counsel we are bringing in to the matter to quiet title.

I am also pleased to introduce a new attorney that really seems to get it. So far it’s been a true pleasure working with Doug. I will share more about his background and success later.

This is really huge from our vantage. My perspective is there is only one truly effective defense and that is to link the allegations made leading up to sale to the deceptive and misleading transfers by trustee. The first set of arguments are substantiated now by the fraud seen as otherwise unnecessary in a normal lender recovery.

m.soliman
dm, on March 24, 2010 at 8:03 pm said:

after filing a lawsuit against my lender, i was able to get the NOD rescinded. I also got an illegal sale rescinded. Does anyone know what would be my next move? Should i file quiet title suit? should i wait for them to re-file NOD? There are other issues but i thought since i have had two major instances where they reversed their wrong that i might have a case to show the court that I have right to quiet title.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
btb, on March 24, 2010 at 7:47 pm said:

Deontos.

Beware of this Solimon guy. He makes a lot of claims but never seems to back it up. He never appears in court because I hear he doesn’t own a car. His testimony he claims to have done has never been submitted in a case as evidence. I hear he has taken money from people and not given them anything in return. There are a lot of people out there taking advantage of those in distress. Do your homework!!!!!!
Deontos, on March 24, 2010 at 9:20 am said:

Maher,

Thank you for that GOOD NEWS. As I am sure you saw my post below about SO MANY drowning in Oblivion’s Sea?

Could you throw us a “life raft” or a “rope”? Anything to give
some help? I’d sure like to know the actual name of the San Diego case so I can look it up.

Thanks again for that good news. Your insights and opinions are always thought provoking.
Maher E. Soliman, on March 24, 2010 at 5:10 am said:

Recent Update

Case Won by Defendant
Expert testimony : MSoliman
Decision: Case dismissed with both side present
Courthouse: California Superior /County of San Diego
Counsel : Pro Per

Comments: Lender as Plaintiff vs Defendant’s
Claims brought: Lenders right to trustee sale and transfer of fee title held by defendants as community and Lender servicing agent claims to right of possession.

Action: Filed against defendant early February 2010
Matter: Court to decide the right of lender recovery and standing for the successors and assigns under the original terms and conditions found in the the security instrument / deed of trust.

Jurisdiction: Unlimited

This really is not that hard folks…really!
expert.witness@live.com
Deontos, on March 23, 2010 at 7:26 am said:

Meanwhile in California we are
drowning in Oblivion’s Sea. Buford
seems to be pointing the WAY in
BK Courts. But the otherwise?

In Florida their Supreme Court
has weighed and some homeowners
are finding their way so shore.

=================================

Bankruptcy Court Denies Lender’s Right To Foreclose- Questionable Assignment
March 23rd, 2010 · No Comments · Foreclosure

The problem with all the “evidence” being created by pretender lender and foreclosure mills is it often lacks the evidentiary basis to establish the claims the documents purport to support. In a hot of the presses, just released opinion from the Federal Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida, Judge ARTHUR B. BRISKMAN denied the relief sought by a lender because he questioned the veracity of the “evidence” provided by the alleged lender.

If the same analysis used by judge Briskman were applied in circuit courts across the state, the pretender lenders would be in a real mess….it’s clear when you examine the “evidence” submitted by plaintiffs and read the deposition transcripts of robo signers that the practices employed by the lenders simply cannot withstand proper judicial scrutiny. The full opinion can be found here, excepts of good case law as follows:

It appears the Allonge and the Assignment were created post-petition for the purpose of the relief from stay proceeding. Movant did not establish Jennifer Henninger and Jack Jacob had authority to execute the Allonge and Assignment.

Movant’s submissions are insufficient to establish it is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage or is authorized to act for whoever holds these documents. In re Relka, No. 09-20806, 2009 WL 5149262, at *5 (Bankr. D. Wyo. Dec. 22, 2009) (granting stay relief where movant established possession of note through testimony of witness who personally retrieved note from movant’s vault); In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. at 370 (denying movant’s stay relief motion due to movant’s failure to establish it was holder of note); In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259, 270 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) (denying movant’s stay relief motion and sustaining debtor’s claim objection due to movant’s failure to establish it was holder of note). Movant has not established it has standing to bring the Motion and the Motion is due to be denied.
Deontos, on March 22, 2010 at 7:30 pm said:

BEWARE THE SUCKER PUNCH “TEMPORARY FORBEARANCE” AGREEMENT
from Foreclosure Defense Nationwide

March 17, 2010

Today, we received three calls from borrowers in three different states, both judicial and non-judicial, who have fallen prey to the alleged “Temporary Forbearance” Agreements currently being offered by “lenders” and servicers. The only thing these agreements do is wind up taking more money from the borrower so that the “lender” or servicer can pay their attorneys to foreclose on the borrower’s home. In each instance, the borrower entered into and complied with the agreement on the representation that it was a prelude to a “more permanent modification agreement”, when in reality the “lender” or servicer had no intention whatsoever of making any such permanent agreement.

DESPITE BORROWER COMPLIANCE IN EACH INSTANCE, THE “LENDER” OR SERVICER, AFTER CONSTANTLY DEMANDING MORE AND MORE DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION FROM THE BORROWER, FORECLOSED ANYWAY: in one instance by selling the borrower’s home with no notice to the borrower (in California); in the second instance by scheduling the property for Trustee’s Sale (in Washington); and the third by pursuing the judicial foreclosure (in Florida).

In view of the consistent information and fact patterns which we are receiving almost daily as to THESE ALLEGED “AGREEMENTS”, THEY ARE ILLUSORY AT BEST, AND APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED SOLELY TO OBTAIN MONEY FROM THE BORROWER TO FINANCE THE ULTIMATE FORECLOSURE most likely because, as we have written on this website, foreclosure has now become big business and a lot of money is being made (both on paper and in reality) by a select few. Misleading? You bet. Fraudulent? Most likely. Actionable? Absolutely.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com
Jeff, on March 22, 2010 at 2:23 pm said:

NY JUDGE JOSEPH J. MALTESE DENIES BAUM FORECLOSURE MILL!!!!

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index. 103711/08
COUNTY OF RICHMOND DCM PART 3 Motion No.: 002
001
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiffs
against
RALPH LEGUILLOW,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GRYMES HILL ESTATES
OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
BOARD,
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Defendants
The following items were considered in the review of the following motions (1) to Amend the Answer, (2) Compel
Production of Documents, and (3) for Summary Judgment.
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1
Notice of Cross-Motion and Answering Affidavits 2
Answering Affidavits to Cross-Motion 3
Exhibits Attached to Papers
Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this Motion is as follows:
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank’s motion for summary judgment to foreclose on the mortgage of
the Defendant Ralph Leguillow (“Leguillow”) pursuant to CPLR 3211 is denied with leave to renew.
Defendant Leguillow’s cross-motion allowing him to submit an amended answer pursuant
to CPLR 3025(b) is granted.
Defendant Leguillow’s cross-motion for an Order compelling Plaintiff to respond to
Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents pursuant to CPLR 3124 is granted, in part, to the
extent discussed herein.
[* 1]
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff initiated this foreclosure action against Defendant on August 27, 2008. Defendant
filed an answer pro se on September 30, 2008. No action was taken until May 11, 2009, when
Defendant sent Plaintiff a Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff did not respond to
Defendant’s request. Instead, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment to allow
Plaintiff to foreclose on the mortgage on May 18, 2009.
FACTS
Defendant Ralph Leguillow (“Leguillow”) is a retired firefighter and earns a pension of
approximately $4,200 per month. In addition to his pension, Leguillow worked in construction until
2008. The total income combined from Leguillow’s pension and construction work totaled
approximately $6,450 per month. Leguillow contacted an agent named “Don” with Grymes Hills
Estate about purchasing a house. Don referred Leguillow to a mortgage broker named “Craig” at
CTX Mortgage Company, LLC (“CTX”). Leguillow provided Craig with documentation of his
monthly income and disclosed that he could not afford a monthly payment above $3,000. Craig
assured Leguillow that the monthly payments on his loan would not exceed $2,800. Don then
referred Leguillow to a closing attorney named Joann Monaco, whom he met a week prior to the
closing. At no time prior to the closing was Leguillow informed of the terms of the loan. Leguillow
purchased the property located at 15 Tessa Court, Staten Island, New York (the “Property”) on
September 11, 2007 with a mortgage originally from CTX. The mortgage was for $464,412 with a
30-year fixed interest rate of 6.875%. The initial monthly payments began at $3,565 and rose to as
high as $4,100. Subsequent to the closing, title to the mortgage and the note was assigned to Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. When construction work slowed down, Leguillow lost the additional
income and was left with only his firefighter’s pension. In May 2008, seven months after beginning
payments, Leguillow defaulted on the mortgage.
2
[* 2]
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
A motion for summary judgment must be denied if there are “facts sufficient to require a trial
of any issue of fact” (CPLR §3212[b]). Granting summary judgment is only appropriate where a
thorough examination of the merits clearly demonstrates the absence of any triable issues of fact.
“Moreover, the parties competing contentions must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion”1 Summary judgment should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the
existence of a triable issue or where the existence of an issue is arguable.2 On a motion for summary
judgment, the function of the court is issue finding, and not issue determination.3 In making such
an inquiry, the proof must be scrutinized carefully in the light most favorable to the party opposing
the motion.4
A prima facie entitlement to summary judgment is shown by providing evidence of the
assignment, the mortgage, the note, and the defendants’ default.5 In order to demonstrate a valid
assignment, either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note
prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the
1 Marine Midland Bank, N.A., v. Dino, et al., 168 AD2d 610 (2d Dept 1990)
2 American Home Assurance Co., v. Amerford International Corp, 200 AD2d 472 (1st
Dept 1994)
3 Weiner v. Ga-Ro Die Cutting, 104 AD2d 331 [2d Dept 1984]. Aff’d 65 NY2d 732
[1985]
4 Glennon v. Mayo, 148 AD2d 580 [2d Dept 1989]
5 North Bright Capital, LLC v 705 Flatbush Realty, LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 7809, 1 (2d
Dept 2009)
3
[* 3]
mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident.
Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to satisfy its initial burden of demonstrating its
entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff has presented the note along with the mortgage, as well
as a recordation of the assignment of the mortgage and the note to Plaintiff.6 Further, Plaintiff asserts
that the mortgage and the note were physically delivered prior to the commencement of the action.
Defendant also acknowledges being in default on the mortgage payments.7 Once the moving party
has made a showing of sufficient evidence, the burden shifts to the party opposing summary
judgment to put forth evidence in admissible form to establish a triable issue of fact.8 The burden
now shifts to Defendant to come forward with evidence showing the existence of a triable issue of
material fact.
Defendant satisfies his burden of establishing the existence of a triable issue of material fact.
CPLR 3408 states in part,
“In any residential foreclosure action involving a high-cost home loan consummated
between January 1, 2003 and September 1, 2008 or a subprime…home loan, as those
terms are defined under Section 1304 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings
Law [RPAPL]…the court shall hold a mandatory conference…for the purpose of
…determining whether the parties can reach a mutually agreeable resolution.”
A subprime home loan under Section 1304 of the RPAPL is defined as a loan with an interest
rate more than three percentage points over the yield on Treasury securities having comparable
periods of maturity to the loan at issue.9
6 Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motions
7 ¶ 30, Notice of Cross-Motion, Affidavit of Ralph Leguillow
8 Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]
9 See RPAPL §1304(5)(d)
4
[* 4]
Defendant has asserted that his loan qualifies as “subprime” and that, by virtue of the
subprime classification, he is entitled to a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408.
At the time the loan was made on September 11, 2007, the yield on a comparable U.S. Treasury
security with a 30-year maturity was 4.72%.10 As such, in order to qualify as a “subprime” home
loan, the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) on Defendant’s loan must have been higher than 7.72%.
This Court currently does not have the documents necessary to make the determination
whether the loan at issue qualifies as a “subprime” loan. In order for this court to make such a
determination, the HUD-1 Settlement Form must be provided because the form contains the accurate
APR. Such documents necessary for this determination are solely in the possession of Plaintiff. Since
there is a question of fact whether Defendant is entitled to a mandatory settlement conference, and
any settlement conference must take place prior to a judgment being rendered, Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment must be denied with leave to renew.11
Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer
Under CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend pleadings is freely granted absent prejudice or surprise
resulting from delay.12 An amended answer is permitted unless it is patently devoid of merit,
palpably insufficient, or prejudices the other party.13 Mere lateness or the passage of time alone,
without a showing of significant prejudice, does not justify the denial of an application for
amendment.14
10 Exhibit D, Defendant’s Notice of Cross-Motion
11 Fremont Inv. & Loan v. Haley, 2009 NY Slip Op 51186U (Queens Cty. 2009)
12 Edenwald Contracting Co. v. New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959 [1983]
13 Pelligrini v. Richmond County Ambulance Service, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 436 [2d Dept 2008]
14 Edenwald, supra; Abrahamian v. Tak Chan, 33 A.D.3d 947 [2d Dept 2006]; Northbay
Const. Co. v. Bauco Const. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 310 [2d Dept 2000]
5
[* 5]
Plaintiff waited nearly eight months to submit its motion for summary judgment, having
taken no action between September 30, 2008 and May 18, 2009. Further, Plaintiff filed their motion
only after being contacted by Defendant in the form of a demand for discovery on May 11, 2009. In
addition, this court cannot say that the counterclaims asserted in Defendant’s Proposed Amended
Answer are patently devoid of merit or palpably insufficient. The Proposed Amended Answer
contains a statement of factual circumstances surrounding the origination of the note and mortgage
that, if true, may establish that Plaintiff was negligent and thereby entitle Defendant to the relief
requested.
Since Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by allowing Defendant to submit an Amended Answer,
he is permitted to submit an Amended Answer.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Disclosure of requested documents is not usually required prior to a Court’s ruling on a
motion for summary judgment. However, summary judgment prior to disclosure is not justified
where documents in the possession of the movant would be critical to the non-movant’s ability to
assert potentially meritorious defenses.15
In this case, Plaintiff is in control of documents and facts that are necessary for Defendant
to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. For example, Plaintiff is in exclusive possession
of the entire package of documents that were presented at closing and, more specifically, the HUD-1
Settlement Form. As discussed above, these documents are critical not only to the determination of
Defendant’s eligibility for a mandatory settlement conference, but also to establishing the presence
of any negligent behavior in the consummation of the loan. Therefore, Plaintiff is required to produce
documents which would allow Defendant to submit an informed opposition to Plaintiff’s motion
including the documents listed in paragraphs 8 and 16 of Defendant’s Request for Production of
15 Terranova v. Emil, 20 N.Y.2d 493, 497 [1967]
6
[* 6]
Documents.16
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank’s motion for summary judgment to foreclose
on the mortgage is denied with leave to renew; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant Ralph Leguillow’s motion to submit an amended answer is
granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion to compel production of documents is granted to the
extent that Plaintiff shall provide:
The complete loan and closing files relating to the subject mortgage, including
underwriting documentation, file notations, telephone logs, and correspondence.
All documents notes correspondence or e-mails that were prepared by, commissioned
by, mention, comment upon, describe, or refer to the originator of the subject
mortgage, CTX Mortgage Company, LLC or its agents, that relate to the subject
mortgage, including any loan applications, underwriting documents, appraisals,
broker price opinions, or loan purchase agreements.
and it is further;
ORDERED, that the amended answer annexed to Defendant’s papers as Exhibit A is deemed
served; and it is further
16 Exhibit C, Defendant’s Cross-Motion to Permit Amendment and Compel Production
7
[* 7]
ORDERED, that the parties return to DCM Part 3 on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 9:30a.m.
for a preliminary conference.
ENTER,
DATED: March 9, 2010
Joseph J. Maltese
Justice of the Supreme
Jeff, on March 22, 2010 at 2:16 pm said:

NY JUDGE SCHACK DENIES THE BAUM FORECLOSURE MILL AGAIN!!!!!!

Supreme Court, Kings County

Lasalle Bank N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET- BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, Plaintiff,

against

Hubert Smith, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS NOMINEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., et. al., Defendants.

35207/07

Appearances:

Plaintiff

Heather Johnson, Esq.

Steven J. Baum, PC

Amherst NY

Arthur M. Schack, J.

The instant motion by plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1 (LASALLE), in this mortgage foreclosure action, upon the default of all defendants, for: a judgment of foreclosure and sale; granting subordinate mortgagee defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS NOMINEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP. (MERS) relief pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) §§ 1351 (3) and 1354 (3); and related relief; for the premises located at 2741 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3664, Lot 52, [*2]County of Kings) is denied without prejudice, with leave to renew the instant motion, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, with submission of:

(1) an “affidavit of facts,” in compliance with the statutory requirements

of CPLR § 3215 (f), for the instant first mortgage and note, executed by

an officer of plaintiff LASALLE or someone who has a valid power of

attorney from plaintiff LASALLE, and if necessary a properly offered

copy of a pooling and servicing agreement between LASALLE and its

mortgage servicer;

(2) an “affidavit of facts,” in compliance with the statutory requirements

of CPLR § 3215 (f), for the subordinate mortgage and note, executed by

an officer of subordinate mortgage defendant MERS or someone who has

a valid power of attorney from subordinate mortgage MERS; and

(3) affirmations by both Steven J. Baum, Esq., the principal of Steven J.

Baum, P.C., plaintiff LASALLE’s counsel, and Elpiniki M. Bechakas,

attorney of record for subordinate mortgagee defendant MERS, who is

also an attorney employed by Steven J. Baum, explaining whether

plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate mortgagee defendant MERS

consented to simultaneous representation by Steven J. Baum, P.C.,

with “full disclosure of the implications of the simultaneous representation

and the advantages and risks involved.”

Background
Defendant HUBERT SMITH (SMITH) purchased the subject premises for

$550,000.00 and closed on February 16, 2007. He received 100 percent financing from FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP. Defendant SMITH executed two notes and mortgages at the February 16, 2007 closing; the subject first mortgage with 80 percent financing, borrowing $440,000.00 from FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP.; and, the subordinate second mortgage and note with 20 percent financing, borrowing $110,000.00 from FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP. MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., recorded the instant $440,000.00 mortgage and note on April 25, 2007, in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, City Register File Number (CRFN) 2007000213842. The subordinate $110,000.00 mortgage and note were recorded immediately after the subject mortgage and note, on April 25, 2007, in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, CRFN 2007000213843.

Defendant SMITH defaulted in his mortgage loan payments after making only one payment, on April 1, 2007. MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP. assigned the instant nonperforming mortgage and note to plaintiff LASALLE, on August 7, 2007. This assignment was recorded in the office of the City Register of the City of New York, on September 26, 2007, CRFN 2007000493535. Plaintiff LASALLE, on September 19, 2007, commenced the instant foreclosure action by filing the summons, complaint and notice of pendency with the Kings County Clerk.

This action was randomly assigned to an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, who granted plaintiff LASALLE an order of reference on April 3, 2008. The Referee appointed pursuant to the April 3, 2008 order prepared a report, dated April 29, 2008, in which [*3]he found that defendant SMITH owed plaintiff LASALLE $496,128.83 for principal, interest, taxes, hazard insurance, and late fees, through July 9, 2008. Subsequently, plaintiff LASALLE moved, on December 19, 2008, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The Acting Justice to which this case had been assigned was assigned to another Court in late 2009. Thus, the instant matter was randomly assigned to me, after a review of the instant motion by the Kings County Supreme Court Foreclosure Department. The Foreclosure Department submitted the instant motion to me on March 16, 2010.

I reviewed the instant motion and discovered that plaintiff LASALLE’s moving

papers, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, failed to present an “affidavit made by the party,” pursuant to CPLR § 3215 (f). The instant motion papers contain an “affidavit of merit and amount due,” dated July 8, 2008, by Bryan Kusich, “Vice President of HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC., Attorney in Fact for” plaintiff LASALLE. Attached to plaintiff’s moving papers is a “Limited Power of Attorney,” dated April 10, 2007, from an entity with a name different from that of the plaintiff, “LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR MERRILL LYNCH FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1 [Emphasis added].” The instant case does not deal with “MERRILL LYNCH FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST” [Emphasis added].
Further, even if the limited power of attorney allowed for HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC. to act for the correct mortgage loan trust, the limited power of attorney submitted is a photocopy, not an original document. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to certify that the power of attorney had been compared with the original document and found to be a true and complete copy, pursuant to CPLR § 2105.

Moreover, the limited power of attorney, even if issued by the correct mortgage loan trust, authorizes HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC. to act, pursuant to a December 1, 2006 “Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the purpose of performing all acts and executing all documents in the name of the Trustee.” Plaintiff’s counsel failed to submit with its moving papers the original or a certified copy of the December 1, 2006 Pooling and Servicing Agreement. All that the Court received are several pages, with many redactions, from an uncertified copy of the March 1, 2007 Pooling and Servicing Agreement with respect to the “MERRILL LYNCH FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1 [Emphasis added]. The defective limited power of attorney submitted to the Court refers to the December 1, 2006 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, not the March 1, 2007 Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The Court requires either the entire original Pooling and Servicing agreement, or a certified copy of the entire document, to determine if HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC., as attorney in fact, is empowered to give an affidavit of facts.

Also, the moving papers contain an affirmation by Elpiniki M. Bechakas, Esq., “the attorney of record for” defendant subordinate mortgagee MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., requesting that the Court direct the Referee to pay MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., pursuant to RPAPL §§ 1351 (3) and 1354 (3), “the sums necessary to satisfy its mortgage to the extent the surplus proceeds of the sale will allow.” Ms. Bechakas submitted an uncertified copy of a December 26, 2007-”affidavit of merit and amount due subordinate mortgagee,” by Bryan Kusich, “Vice President of HOME LOAN [*4]SERVICES, INC., as servicer for MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a defendant herein.” Thus, Mr. Kusich is the incestuous servicer for both plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP. Ms. Bechakas’ failed to present to the Court a power of attorney by an officer of MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., granting HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC. a power of attorney to execute affidavits of merit on its behalf.

Finally, for reasons unknown to this court, Ms. Bechakas, the attorney of record for subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., failed to disclose to the Court that she is employed by plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C. My March 17, 2010 examination of the Office of Court Administration’s Attorney Registry reveals that Ms. Bechakas, admitted in the Fourth Department in 1991, lists her business address as “Steven J. Baum, P.C., 220 Northpointe Pkwy, Ste G., Amherst, NY 14228-1894.” As noted above, Steven J. Baum, P.C. is the attorney for plaintiff LASALLE. The Court is concerned that the simultaneous representation by Steven J. Baum, P.C., of both plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., is a conflict of interest in violation of 22 NYCRR § 1200.24, the Disciplinary Rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility, entitled “Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation,” in effect when plaintff LASALLE moved in December 2008 for a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Discussion

Plaintiff LASALLE failed to meet the clear requirements of CPLR § 3215 (f) for a

default judgment.

On any application for judgment by default, the applicant
shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint, or

a summons and notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule

305 or subdivision (a) of rule 316 of this chapter, and proof of

the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due

by affidavit made by the party . . . Where a verified complaint has

been served, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting

the claim and the amount due; in such case, an affidavit as to the

default shall be made by the party or the party’s attorney. [Emphasis

added].

Plaintiff LASALLE failed to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party.” The affidavit of merit submitted by Bryan Kusich, Vice President of HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC. failed to have a valid power of attorney for that express purpose. The power of attorney is from LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR MERRILL LYNCH FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1 [Emphasis added],” not from plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1.

If plaintiff LASALLE renews its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale with related relief, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, it must present a proper power of attorney to the Court, and if the renewed motion refers to a pooling and servicing agreement, the [*5]Court needs a properly offered copy of the pooling and servicing agreement, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of plaintiff. (Finnegan v Sheahan, 269 AD2d 491 [2d Dept 2000]; Hazim v Winter, 234 AD2d 422 [2d Dept 1996]; EMC Mortg. Corp. v Batista, 15 Misc 3d 1143 (A), [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v Lewis, 14 Misc 3d 1201 (A) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2006]).

Further, if plaintiff’s counsel submits copies of documents, such as a power of attorney or a pooling and servicing agreement, counsel must comply with CPLR § 2105, which states that “[w]here a certified copy of a paper is required by law, an attorney may certify that it has been compared by him with the original and found to be a true and complete copy.” Thus, plaintiff’s counsel can certify the genuineness of a copy of a document. (See Security Pacific Nat. Trust Co. v Cuevas, 176 Misc 2d 846 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1998]).

With respect to directing the Referee to pay subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., “the sums necessary to satisfy its mortgage to the extent the surplus proceeds of the sale will allow,” Ms. Bechakas is correct. My inspection of the New York City Department of Finance’s Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) shows only two open mortgage liens on the subject premises – plaintiff LASALLE’s senior lien and the junior lien of MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP. Thus, the only subordinate mortgagee, MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., is entitled to any surplus money to satisfy its lien. (RPAPL §§ 1351 (3) and 1354 (3); Washington Mut. Home Loans, Inc. v Jones, 27 AD3d 728 [2d Dept 2006]). RPAPL § 1351 deals with judgments of foreclosure and sale and states in (3):

If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that there exists

no more than one other mortgage on the premisis [sic] which is then

due and which is subordinate only to the plaintiff’s mortgage but is

entitled to priority over all other liens and encumbrances except those

described in subdivision 2 of section 1354, upon motion of the holder

of such mortgage made without valid objection of any other party, the

final judgment may direct payment of the subordinate mortgage debt

from the proceeds in accordance with subdivision 3 of section 1354. RPAPL § 1354 deals with the distribution of the proceeds of foreclosure sales and states in (3):

The officer conducting the sale after fully complying with the

provisions of subdivisions one and two of this section and if the

judgment of sale has so directed shall pay to the holder of any

subordinate mortgage or his attorney from the then remaining proceeds

the amount then due on such subordinate mortgage, or so much as

the then remaining proceeds will pay and take the receipt of the holder,

or his attorney for the amount so paid, and file the same with his report

of sale. [*6]

Therefore, if plaintiff LASALLE renews its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale with related relief, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, and submits a properly executed affidavit of merit from an officer of subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., or someone with a valid power of attorney from MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., the Court will direct the Referee in a judgment of foreclosure and sale with related relief to pay any surplus money to MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., to the extent that it will either satisfy fully satisfy the subordinate mortgage or be credited to the balance owed upon the instant subordinate mortgage.

Last, a conflict of interest exists in the instant action. Plaintiff’s counsel represents both plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP. 22 NYCRR § 1200.24, of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, entitled “Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation,” in effect in December 2008, when the instant motion was made, states in relevant part:

(a) A lawyer shall decline proffered employment if the exercise of

independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is

likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proffered

employment, or if it would be likely to involve the lawyer in representing

differing interests, except to the extent permitted under subdivision (c)

of this section. (b) A lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the

exercise of independent professional judgment in behalf of a client

will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the lawyer’s representation

of another client, or if it would be likely to involve the lawyer in

representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under

subdivision (c) of this section. (c) in the situations covered by subdivisions (a) and (b) of this

section, a lawyer may represent multiple clients if a disinterested lawyer

would believe that the lawyer can competently represent the interest

of each and if each consents to the representation after full disclosure

of the implications of the simultaneous representation and the

advantages and risks involved. [Emphasis added]

For the instant action to proceed, both plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate

mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., need to explain to the Court, with affirmations by both Steven J. Baum, Esq., the principal of Steven J. Baum, P.C., and Elpiniki M. Bechakas, Esq., whether both plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., consented [*7]to simultaneous representation in the instant action, with “full disclosure of the implications of the simultaneous representation and the advantages and risks involved [22 NYCRR § 1200.24 (c)].”

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, the Department where both Mr. Baum and Ms. Bechakas are registered, censured an attorney for, inter alia, violating 22 NYCRR § 1200.24, by representing both a buyer and sellers in the sale of a motel. (In re Rogoff, 31 AD3d 111 [2006]). The Rogoff Court, at 112, found that the attorney, “failed to make appropriate disclosures to either the sellers or the buyer concerning dual representation.” Further, the Court, at 113, censured the attorney, after it considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including:

that respondent undertook the dual representation at the insistence of

the buyer, had no financial interest in the transaction and charged the

sellers and the buyer one half of his usual fee. Additionally, we note

that respondent cooperated with the Grievance Committee and has

expressed remorse for his misconduct.

If the Court receives upon the renewal of the instant motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and related relief, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, affirmations from both Mr. Baum and Ms. Bechakas, explaining: why Steven J. Baum, P.C. simultaneously represented both plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP.; whether Mr. Baum and Ms. Bechakas violated 22 NYCRR § 1200.24, the Disciplinary Rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility, entitled “Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation,” in effect when the instant motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale was made; and, whether plaintiff LASALLE and subordinate mortgage defendant MERS, as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., consented to their simultaneous representation by Steven J. Baum, P.C., with “full disclosure of the implications of the simultaneous representation and the advantages and risks involved.”; the Court will grant plaintiff LASALLE’s renewed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, with related relief.

Conclusion
ORDERED, that the application of plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, for an order of reference for the premises located at 2741 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3664, Lot 52, County of Kings), is denied without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, to renew its application for an order of reference for the premises located at 2741 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, [*8]New York (Block 3664, Lot 52, County of Kings), within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, provided that plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, submits to the Court:

(1) an “affidavit of facts,” in compliance with the statutory requirements

of CPLR § 3215 (f), executed by an officer of plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-

BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, or someone who has a

valid power of attorney from plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE

LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, and if necessary a properly offered

copy of a pooling and servicing agreement between LASALLE and its

mortgage servicer;

(2) an “affidavit of facts,” in compliance with the statutory requirements

of CPLR § 3215 (f), for the subordinate mortgage and note, executed by

an officer of subordinate mortgage defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., or someone who has a valid power of attorney from subordinate mortgage defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP., and

(3) affirmations by both Steven J. Baum, Esq., and Elpiniki M. Bechakas,

Esq. explaining: whether Steven J. Baum, Esq., Elpiniki M. Bechakas, and

Steven J. Baum, P.C. violated 22 NYCRR § 1200.24, the Disciplinary Rule

of the Code of Professional Responsibility, entitled “Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation,” in effect when the instant motion for a

judgment of foreclosure and sale was made, by acting as counsel for both

plaintiff, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE

FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1,

MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES

2007-1, and subordinate mortgage defendant MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORP.; and, whether plaintiff, LASALLE [*9]

BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST

FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN

ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, and subordinate

mortgagee defendant, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS INC., as nominee for FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL

CORP., consented to their simultaneous representation by Steven J.

Baum, P.C., with “full disclosure of the implications of the simultaneous

representation and the advantages and risks involved.”

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

___________________________

HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACKJ. S.
Steven K. Kop, Esq., on March 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm said:

Former Philadelphia Phillie (and Met) Lenny Dykstra, also known simply as “Nails,” has sued JPMorgan Chase for $100 million over mortgages he obtained during the housing boom.

Dykstra claims he was “fraudulently induced into borrowing more money than he could afford,” leading to his eventual bankruptcy.

The lawsuit involves $20.5 million in mortgage loans, $12 million of which came from former lending giant WaMu, now owned by Chase, and another $8.5 million in the form of a second mortgage.

The loans were used to purchase former hockey great Wayne Gretzky’s six-bedroom, eight-bath mansion in Thousand Oaks, California for $17.4 million in 2007 and pay off loans tied to another home in Simi Valley, CA.

Per the lawsuit, he was “steered” to a different lender for the second mortgage, though it’s standard practice to get a piggyback second from lenders that specialize in such loan programs.

The second mortgage was due in full after just one year, and was expected to be refinanced, though WaMu apparently reneged on the deal, likely because of the impending real estate crash.

The monster super-duper jumbo loans left Dykstra with a massive $135,000-a-month mortgage payment, which eclipsed the $125,000 he made in monthly income.

Talk about a debt-to-income ratio fail.

Sounds like he used stated income to get the deal done, considering he was an “entrepreneur” with all types of stuff going on.

Dykstra says he was eventually forced into a number of unfavorable transactions to make good on the $8.5 million mortgage, causing him to take on even more debt.

He was also involved in more than 20 lawsuits related to his entrepreneurial activities, which led to his bankruptcy filing last July.

The Thousand Oaks estate is being listed by Ewing & Associates for a hefty $14.9 million.

Steven K. Kop
Attorney at Law
bluejaylaw@gmail.com
Deontos, on March 18, 2010 at 8:42 pm said:

Jim,

It would be helpful if the owner prior to you “has a dog” in the FIGHT.

Does his mortgage have a “due on sale” clause? They will likely use that against you. Would the prior owner in a worst case consider going BK? Not sure what state your are in…..but Californians have their best(or only) chance in that proceeding a LOT OF THE TIME.

Perhaps some kind of POA can be crafted to give you absolute power to litigate. You should talk to an attorney about these options if at all possible.
Maher Soliman, on March 18, 2010 at 7:27 pm said:

SECURITIZATION AND FORECLOSURE DO NOT MIX WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACTS:
By M.Soliman
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com

I believe your loan is owned by the indenture and “managed” by the trust executor or trustee. That means owner of the entire assert whereby anything less is a lease, hypothication or high leverage debt upon debt transaction. The entire cash flow that forms the revenue is from the business entity holding mortgages in a trust.

Auditing RESPA, TILA and Section 32 violations are worthless and compounded valueless in a limited jurisdiction or bench trial in a judicial foreclosure proceedings. This situation lends itself to racketeering, alleged in the recovery process. Lawyers need to come back to the present to seek cause of action and forget about the loans origination issues. Broadly defined, this collective trustee and lender effort is the operation of an illegal business (racket).

A lender, bank, mortgage company using commercial lines of credit are all permitted to collateralize their assets. The problems there are twofold.

1) The lender will pay a normal dividend.
2) The capitalization structure includes paying off a warehouse lender.

The first mention offers nothing exciting to a boring banks current stock offering. The second is a problem where the outstanding warehouse bank amount outstanding must be reimbursed making the return on investment even more boring.

So the idea of offering a Citi or B of A dividend was never an option. Instead, the loans are pooled into one large asset and are sold and transferred from the lender to a new entity. That business entity is a “SPE” or special purpose entity usually reserved for offshore investment and holdings. Thus, here is the reason for appointing a nominee such as MERS (don’t fight it) and the language found in the “deed” about appointing MERS who the nominal beneficiary for the security. That security is stock, black gold, Texas “T”. It’s anything but the deed of trust or mortgage you signed.

The trust is self contained and impermeable not much different than a closed end fund. The revenue is set based on the weighted average coupon and borrower payments. Your payment is isolated from others yet in no way identifiable the trust. It’s the lender who sold the loans who normally retains the collections efforts.

It’s the master warehouse agreement that demands a payment in full remuneration under a pass through method of reporting. Here we can see the clandestine and secretive or opaque collections opportunity which lender servicing agents fail to realize are the earnings of a registered offering governed by the Securities Exchange Commission.

Aside from its silence you have the right to bring inquiry under FDIC regulatory authority and under the passage of FIERRIA. A Defendant will bring this action seeking relief upon which no limitation for jurisdiction can be imposed and whereby the defendant shall state its claim. An official who holds office or agency cannot have transferred a defendants rights or appear to give the impression as to having transferred such rights in accordance with the enforcement that falls under FDIC jurisdiction.

Again, no government or an officer or employee thereof can be shown to have acted in an official capacity or person in a position of trust or while acting under color of legal authority can circumvent a person or here a homeowners rights.

Therefore, why are these cases getting thrown out in court while others are not? As prescribed by the law and under certain legislative enactments, these matters shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the County and or State of California and or even the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The thinking here causes one to reconsider the jurisdictional and highly diverse issues that cannot be left out of the defendant’s arguments.

The role and function of the SEC and for overseeing the servicing agent pursuant to regulations found over 500 pages of 1122 AB will reinforce the same argument of diversity.

Therefore, the conflict with a servicing agent who is less than arms and a recourse provision for default is destined to fail in the long run. It does not work where the lenders agent is entitled to collect the payments for assets sold and whereby the most salient piece of the trusts success is from the repurchase provisions for loans that fail or default. The early prepayment mechanism is a “repayment” requirement that includes insurance and from the inside and the out of the trusts and it inner workings.

The lender who is a seller who then becomes a depositor maintains recourse for any outstanding due for balances on account for the assets held in trust.

I opine the only feasible and acceptable method of liquidating bad assets is for the trust to eat the loan. I guess if the seller repurchases the loan it may have standing for a foreclosure but that repurchase involves an algorithmic calculation pertaining to multiples of capital, derecongnition at funding, and unwinding stock for securities.

The concept for a deleted loan suggests the right to enforce a repurchase can only happen upon immediately tagging the loan as impaired or “deleted”. Therein the lender cannot carry a bad loan out over 12 months waiting to foreclose. This bizarre method of sitting on borrower loans those are delinquent is a fraud for sure. Buy it back or don’t but it back but mark the asset “impaired” and classify the asset accordingly. If you cannot buy it back use additional proceeds and pay it off Mr. Trustee. Then YOU can sue the lender, seller, depositor whatever for breach.

Again, there is no right to foreclose! You certainly cannot foreclose at a more opportune time.

These indentures are bankrupt insulate but the trust published practices put into place are allowing good attorneys to permeate the indenture. The idea of your loan being replaced by another loan of equal value is predatory, discriminatory and downright unlawful.

Stalling on a repurchase commitment and waiting for a loan considered to have similar valuation components for the defaulted loan is another example of WTF meaning “Where’s the Fed”.

Consider where the assets value is established using multiple variables including the note and effective coupon, or WAC, WAM and CPR. The “Culling” practice is wrong and causes the best attorneys in America to envision the score to be made for the damages one could claim against lender discriminatory practices. Not as in denying acceptance but as in overfunding the loan and dropping all credit qualifying standards solely for attracting borrowers and while replacing bad loans with loans the borrower could never afford.

We have a major statutory problem here Wall Street and the remedy is enforcement. Enforcement efforts are being overlooked by the Secretary of the treasury and other agencies that are known to seek out securities trouble makers. Their objectives appear to be hyper focused on home purchases and refinance activity to cure the problem. That is to say, resume culling bad loans with new loans and continue to pursue an adverse claim for possession under an obscure and ridiculous right by “pro tanto” and eminent domain.

Not one argument to be made here in this discussion is ever afforded the defendant against a insulated beneficiary in non judicial or even procedurally overbearing judicial foreclosure proceedings.

My experience to date where broadcasting this massage of is consumer fear, ignorance and benevolence. Those brave enough to venture into the corollary known as securitization will find the same claims for racketeering which can include almost any pattern of illegal activity(, such as illegal gambling, prostitution rings, drug organizations) including “protection rackets.” Protection rackets involve some criminal organization extorting money from businesses for “protection” against crimes, which would be committed by the criminal organization itself.

The message I deliver is often discarded for hopes of a modification after four failed attempts by the servicing agent who does not own the loan and who offers you help that is impossible. So they call time and time again to say the file you sent in was lost.

Since January the government is moving these trust assets into Fannie and Freddie confines. What does a bail out plan have to do with the assets of the trust and its shareholders anyway (hint, hint). None the less the entire mortgage industry and the business it booked appear to all have been government insured. The fed has now lowered the rate on long term borrowing to near zero and solely for repurchasing trust assets.

The assets in default are none the less subject to lender foreclosure until the time they are repurchased. So therefore I ask who foreclosed on you. Read the deed upon sale and see for you where there is zero transfer tax, highest bidder is the transferee and beneficiary who are one in the same with the transferor. You cannot bid at sale under the terms set forth by FASB and under GAAP in an open market transaction using a credit bid or post dated check. You for sure cannot bid using a note as tender.

I have had repeated success working with attorneys and their clients using these facts for arguments. But referring to lenders as culprits and predatory villains or suggesting judges are less than ethical is an example of the ignorance permeating the market.

The rush by desperate homeowners to purchase a RESPA audit is even more debilitating and off base.

The parties selling the loans it originated transfer these assets as closed “Whole Loan” assets. I believe the note you signed was tendered in exchange for stock valued at multiples of 8:1. These lenders are licensed originators who earn a gain on sale for accounting and reporting purposes, but only upon the delivery and transfer of the assets. The party selling the loan, your loan, cannot influence the events of the transaction subsequent to sale. You lender cannot participate in the foreclosure process especially after walking on its recourse provisions. (Make him stop – someone please!)

In other words, FAP 140 and revised FAS FAP 140 cannot direct, nor redirect, cause to neither shift burden of responsibility nor circumvent a fiscal accountability by influencing a foreclosure.

The accounting rules set forth under GAAP and various pronouncements by FASB prohibit such actions and constitute the alleged initial sale to be void. Therefore, a lender can be argued in favor of the defense whereby it has no real standing to foreclose. The fact the lender may have no standing considers the loss of the right to a Power-of-sale or the other extreme for a borrower regaining the home free and clear. I won’t say which of the two extremes for arguments I am pursuing for clients.

I will say the fact is these foreclosures are riveted with strange, unacceptable and judicially challenges to a trustees transfer of title. That’s a simple clue and basis for building your arguments. Under federal law, racketeering is covered by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This law is so broad in scope that almost any criminal who commits multiple crimes can be charged under it. The law lists 35 crimes (murder, illegal gambling, drug dealing, kidnapping, etc.). Any person or group who commits 2 of those crimes in a 10 year period with the same purpose or effect, in a way that affects interstate commerce, can be charged with racketeering.

Sarbanes Oxley will raise the specter of doubt as to the Trustee’s roles, deceptiveness and having been a victim of the process. The legislation calls for prosecution of the attorney’s office where acting as a trustee and having encouraged a non transparent recovery program in line with the lenders’ desires and considered non compliant.

If the original sale of the asset (the loan) to the investor stands the lender is lost forever to the transaction. Derecongnition is an accounting term that fails if the lender emerges in a recovery or foreclosure. The effect of derecongnition or loans for cash and cash for securities sale is recast as debt. Therein the lender was borrowing against existing inventory or assets (at time of sale) and therefore will cause the trust to be subject to receivership.

Lenders are playing a dangerous game with the SEC assuming the enforcement ever arrives. Here’s another WTF award meaning “Where’s the Fed”.

I am referring to the non transparent and deceptive practices perpetrated against the county and its county recorders across America. There’s a weak lender defense here and it’s called limited jurisdiction. It’s a judicial loophole I am sad to say is being upheld by the courts.

I believe that attorneys have gone so long relying on jurisdiction and maneuvering in court they no longer understand the merit of the defendant’s response.

This legislative dilemma makes void the constitutional protections enacted by congress and the senate dating back to Garn St Germain. Even worse is the fact the condition is causing lenders to circumvent the published accounting rules and scrutiny of the courts. This is the situation I believe to be the most damaging component of the long list of affirmative defenses available for the foreclosure victim offers.

Under RICO, any person who is found guilty of racketeering can get up to 20 years in prison and/or up to $25,000 in fines. Furthermore, any money or property used to commit the crimes, or gained from them, is forfeited to the government. RICO also allows for individuals or businesses harmed by racketeering to sue for compensation. All that needs to be proven is the existence of a criminal enterprise, and some relationship between the enterprise and the defendant.

The law allows anyone injured to recover 3 times the amount of actual damages suffered. So, if a criminal enterprise causes $1,000 in harm, the person harmed can recover $3,000 against them.

M.Soliman
expert.witness.com
Ken Dost, on March 18, 2010 at 4:57 pm said:

Lets try this link again …..Mers vs Mers…..

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0P9zf0rg623ZGE3MTNjN2ItOWYzOS00ZDE4LWIyZTAtOTk1ODM1YjYzZTJj&hl=en
marcus, on March 18, 2010 at 1:43 pm said:

Jim,
In my opinion you have every right to defend the foreclosure.
1) You are in possession of the property.
2) You have an interest in the property.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com

—————————————————–
Author: Jim
Comment:

Hi,
I need to know if I can defend against foreclosure in the following scenerio. A year ago, I acquired a property as my primary residence. I acquired it ’subject to’ the underlying mortgage. That means title transfered, but the mortgage stayed in place. I took over payments at that point. I have faithfully made all payments, and the goal is to refinance it at some point.

Unfortunately, I recently lost my job and have gotten behind on payments. I need to know if I can defend title against foreclosure, should it come to that. I am the one on title, but the previous owner is the one on the mortgage. Has anyone ever run into this scenerio?? Can I use the strategies on this blog to protect myself?? I put down a big down payment, and I dont want to lose it. I want to keep the house.
Ken Dost, on March 18, 2010 at 9:25 am said:

Check this lawsuit out…..very interesting……Mers vs Mers

http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_LT/OpenPdfDownloadWindow
Abby in CA, on March 17, 2010 at 2:38 pm said:

John Crom

http://www.all-foreclosure.com/procedures.htm

check this list
Daniela Mars, on March 17, 2010 at 2:18 pm said:

Servicers Wonder How Long Foreclosures Can Be Delayed

By Amilda Dymi

The ever-increasing delinquency-to-foreclosure timeline and the question of whether loan modifications really work, as well as the inevitability of a delayed next-wave of foreclosures were among themes under discussion at the Mortgage Bankers Association’s National Mortgage Servicing Conference in San Diego last week.

At the conference National Mortgage News convened a roundtable of servicing executives at the show to share their thoughts on these topics and more.

The participants generally sounded concerned about the current situation, especially given the rules the federal government, as well as many state governments, are imposing. While there has been talk of recovery in the market at large, executives that took part in the roundtable indicated they fear a continuing downward spiral from negative equity situations.

Participating were Cary Sternberg, president of Excellon REO, a division of Titanium Holdings; Scott Goldstein, president of National Default Exchange Index; Richard Powers, senior vice president of real estate services for Altisource Portfolio Solutions; Ron Deutsch with Cohn, Goldberg and Deutsch; and Jim Satterwhite, EVP with Infusion Technologies.

STERNBERG: Titanium Solutions, our sister company, has been very involved with in-home outreach for HAMP, also doing a lot of short sales, getting involved with the new HAFA and I’m the guy they’re trying to put out of business and keeping the people in their homes, and hopefully, before it gets to REO, they can do something. From my standpoint, at the conference, I’m interested to see if anybody’s got opinions on what else they can come up with to delay this foreclosure pipeline that has been building up for several years now. And I’m not being critical of the administration or the programs that they’re trying to do, but I think if we look at what’s happened, haven’t we already gone and modified loans for people that could qualify, or that even wanted to? How much longer can we postpone the inevitable? And if anybody’s got any insight, that’s one of the things I was looking forward to here in the meeting. If anybody’s got any good knowledge about that, I’d love to hear it.

GOLDSTEIN: We do mortgage default processing for law firms in eight states … and we probably service the process files in 75% of a servicer’s portfolio, if they looked at it. And I agree with Cary, I think in the next year, the trend we’re going to be seeing is the term is going to be shadow inventory. And you’re hearing it a lot. It has different meanings all throughout the process. And now, you’re seeing just a long hose, with people stepping on it along the way from a shadow inventory started when they were first talking about the REO homes that hadn’t been put for sale yet. And then, they started talking about the shadow inventory of files that were delinquent, but not put into foreclosure yet. And now you’re seeing the shadow inventory that concerns me.

There was an article last week where notice of default to sale in California used to be 146 days, now it’s 230 days. So really … this is kind of an inventory problem, where … files are just sitting at different stages, so it’s a long hose that’s being stepped on all along the way. And to address your question directly, how it’s going to shake out is there would be nothing that would surprise me going forward anymore. I sit and I say, half sarcastically, if we ended up with a national mortgage holiday, where they gave everyone two or three months of mortgage-free months, it wouldn’t shock me. And we were headed there because they’re trying to extend this process any way possible to stop all the different shadow inventories from actually coming through. But it does create a problem because the files build up for the servicers, and it’s hard to handle that many files.

And that excuse for servicers, that we’re not staffed up enough, ended two years ago. You just can’t say that anymore. But the truth is, with these files just sitting and not being able to flush through the process and new ones coming in and not many going out, that is an issue.

POWERS: I’d like to make a comment, if I could. And Cary, your question is an excellent question. It’s one of those where the question is much easier than the solution. And I think if you step back through the whole issue of modifications, before there was ever HAMP, modifications in general have had just a horrendous track record … right?

STERNBERG: Right.

POWERS: I mean they kind of just defer the problem, they never really solve it. And so that’s just the history … of modifications. Now, we’re full blown into doing modifications. It does sort of stem the flow a little bit, but it doesn’t do anything at the end of the line. And for me, the biggest thing is what you do about the negative equity? So the long pipe, the hose that you’re talking about, that’s the stuff that’s already in some degree of distress. There’s another subset that’s unknown, the folks that are still paying that have significant negative equity that are going to be coming into part of that shadow inventory that we haven’t even seen yet because … at some point they go, you know what? You’ve got declining rents. You’ve started looking at “What’s my economically rational decision to make? I walk away from the home and get as nice a home and I’m spending 20%, 30%, 40% less than I am on my housing payment today.” So all those are part of the problem, now.

As far as the solution, I think the only way to get around it is to address … what’s happening with the equity situation. And that’s painful, it’s certainly painful for those who are paying their mortgages on time because it has a very depressing effect on home values, obviously. But I don’t know, I think that’s part of what has to happen because otherwise, we’re just kind of putting a little bit of a damper on the end of the flow.

DEUTSCH: To your point that people who are underwater are now going to be walking away from their mortgages, potentially, when that happens, that goes into the pipeline, of course, of the additional foreclosures. That’s going to depress prices further. If prices get depressed further, there will be more people, then, that will walk away from their mortgages, and it’s spiraling down in sort of a pernicious way. So the situation, to me, is very, very serious. And in response to your question of what else can they throw at us, we’re seeing the feds throw things, but in addition to the feds, the states are now throwing. Maryland was a state where we used to be able to foreclose in 40 days. We’re now up to 50 or 60 days. In addition, there’s a new bill going through the legislature right now on an emergency basis to create mediation. What’s worse about the – the mediation, [is that] in and of itself, if it was written correctly, it wouldn’t be so bad. But how they’re writing it is certain forms have to be filed, it’s going to be signed on an emergency basis and the forms haven’t been developed yet. So that puts a complete halt on foreclosures, which I do believe is the legislature’s intention … to halt the foreclosures until after the election in November. And if there are no forms, we won’t be able to go forward, and it’s going to stop the whole system.

SATTERWHITE: So we’re dealing with a number of our servicing clients, as well as the Realtor business partners, real estate professionals and business partners. The shadow inventory you’re speaking to, I think the next wave of that is going to be the short sale. Those are the ones that have already fallen out of the modification process. … With HAFA coming out, you’re beginning to see more of the servicers retrench back over the same loan that they’ve looked at already from a modification fallout to say, “OK, now there is a standardization and expectation by Treasury, in particular, as to how we should handle a fallout scenario.” So they’re literally going back through those, the fallout, portfolio fallout, to a certain extent, and looking at it.

One particular servicer we’re talking to … has denials that they’ve done nothing with. So they’re kind of … looking for assistance … ahead of April 5, the start date, if you will, of HAFA. We have another client we’re speaking with has 60,000 of the same thing … So now, here comes some of the creativity. I mean, out of every crisis comes creativity. So I think where you’re going to see them getting ahead of the short sale, or ahead of the foreclosures rather and ahead of the walk always is really two fold.

One, they’re going to start using more collateral intelligence. They’re going to use more data around actively listed assets, more data around FICO deterioration, and more data around runoff with depreciation in the market. They’re going to jump ahead of the early stage delinquency into the performing asset to say, FICO deteriorated X number of points within the last two quarters, depreciation has had a 20%, 25% hit in this market, this property has been for sale that I didn’t know was for sale prior to now, they’ve already basically said we’re stepping out of this situation, and what they’re beginning to engage upon with us is to put someone on the doorstep to investigate the nonretention act. So we’re going to start seeing more and more, I think on the front side of this, where there’s going to be a door-knock-type service, there’s going to be an extension of the service providers, such as ourselves, that says, Mr. Jones, we’re here, we know this is your situation. We know your house has been for sale for four months, let’s talk about a deed in lieu right now.

They … would know the circumstances around subordinate liens, and they’ll literally be in capacity of executing a deed-in-lieu on the doorstep to kind of stop that flow on the front side of that. The other thing it does for the servicers, if you think about it, is it takes them out of the realm of debt forgiveness. Nobody likes talking about that topic now, nobody wants to sit there and go, to make this modification, I’m going to have to reduce this debt by $40,000. If you can jump ahead of it in that frame, then you’re avoiding that conversation all together.

There was a forum in D.C. two or three weeks ago. There were two fairly predominant economists, but their point, ultimately, was unemployment has nothing to do with it. Unemployment compounds an exasperated situation, most certainly, but it’s the LTV that’s the driving force. So they showed quite a bit of data, they ran everything from an 8% to a 12% unemployment rate in markets, that showed the delinquency on a high LTV would be 125, 135, 150, it wasn’t affected by unemployment, it was affected by how upside down they were. So in fact, if you had someone that was 135% LTV or higher, that borrower, once they went 60 days delinquent, only 3% of them ever recovered. At 150% of LTV, it was zero. So it had nothing to do with whether the person had a job or not, it had to do with it was some stress in the family or their situation, the house next door becomes vacant, and they look at themselves going, “I’m $50,000 upside down, at some point, I have to send in the keys.”

Other Editor’s Note stories.
John Crom, on March 17, 2010 at 1:46 pm said:

Marcus,
Thanks for responding. I will see if there is a “Power to sell” clause. I am going to go to the courthouse and make a copy of everything there. I will also send a Qualified Written Request to the servicer, as you suggest. Thanks very much. You are the first one to actually offer advice and I greatly appreciate it.

John
Jim, on March 17, 2010 at 11:19 am said:

Hi,
I need to know if I can defend against foreclosure in the following scenerio. A year ago, I acquired a property as my primary residence. I acquired it ‘subject to’ the underlying mortgage. That means title transfered, but the mortgage stayed in place. I took over payments at that point. I have faithfully made all payments, and the goal is to refinance it at some point.

Unfortunately, I recently lost my job and have gotten behind on payments. I need to know if I can defend title against foreclosure, should it come to that. I am the one on title, but the previous owner is the one on the mortgage. Has anyone ever run into this scenerio?? Can I use the strategies on this blog to protect myself?? I put down a big down payment, and I dont want to lose it. I want to keep the house
HELGA, on March 16, 2010 at 2:11 pm said:

Hi Everyone,
I was wondering if anyone can help me with filing a quiet title action? I reside in California. My situation was that I was in a process or doing a loan modification and durning the process the lender forclosed on my property and sold it to a 3rd party. So I fought back and finally they reinstated my property back to me because they realized they made a mistake. ANyway I dont trust them anymore and I want to make sure I file something in court asap. I spoke with someone yesterday and they told me to go to court and file a quiet title action..but im so confused because I have no idea what it is..where to find one..and how it works. Please help.
Thanks
E-mail: helgaloans@yahoo.com
marcus, on March 16, 2010 at 10:06 am said:

John,
Do you have a “Power of Sale” clause in your mortgage?
That will determine if your foreclosure will be judicial or non-judicial.
If I were you, I will first send a Qualified Written Request to the servicer. You can find sample on this site or I can forward you one if you would like.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
John Crom, on March 15, 2010 at 9:23 am said:

Frustrated in NC

I have contacted three of the four “lawyers that get it” in NC and so far none have any interest in looking at my situation. I have a loan through “MidCarolina Bank” that was immediately snapped up by “CountryWide” and now is processed through Bank of America. The original closing documents list MERS as the ” beneficiary under this security instrument”. I am in a situation that I just can’t pay the payments anymore.

After exhausting the list of “lawyers that get it” what do I do? None of the “lawyers who get it” expressed enough interest to even want to look at my documents. I am not asking for something for nothing. Is there anything to all this? Has anyone else run into a brick wall?
Deontos, on March 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm said:

“BAD FAITH” BY BANK SANCTIONED

In re CLAWSON v. Indymac Bank Bankruptcy No. 08-45900 Adversary No. 09-4045 AN

PRESIDING JUDGE NARRATIVE…….

Protecting the integrity of the judicial process is at the heart of this matter. Over the past two years, the average number of adversary proceedings filed per month in the Oakland Division of this court is 37, and the average number of motions for relief from the automatic stay filed per month is some 318. A large percentage of these motions seek orders allowing lenders to go forward with foreclosures on debtors’ homes. At each weekly calendar of relief from stay motions, debtors plead with the court for assistance in obtaining a loan modification. Sometimes they have been unable to penetrate the lenders’ impenetrable phone tree to talk to a live person; or having reached someone at the other end of the line, they are unable to obtain answers to their inquiries after weeks or months of trying; or they have submitted paperwork to the lender, only to be told that more papers are required, or that the papers they’ve already submitted have been lost.

Many, perhaps most, of these debtors are not good candidates for a loan modification. But that does not excuse the indifferent and sometimes deplorable treatment they too often receive at the hands of their lenders; nor does it obviate the desperate and helpless condition in which they find themselves. Indeed, never in my 27 years on the bankruptcy bench have I witnessed such financially and emotionally distressed families as I have seen pass through this court over the past two years.

Ultimately, there is little this court can do to facilitate the loan modification process or right the wrongs that debtors may have suffered from that process. That is particularly true in chapter 7 cases such as this, where the automatic stay lifts upon entry of the discharge, regardless of what the court does with a lender’s motion for relief from the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

BUT WHEN ATTORNEYS COME BEFORE THE COURT AND PLAY “FAST AND LOOSE” WITH THE TRUTH, OR RELY ON THE BUREAUCRATIC OBFUSCATIONS OF THEIR CLIENTS TO DODGE COMMITMENTS THEY HAVE MADE, THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO ACT TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ITS PROCESSES. If the court cannot rely on and trust the authority and words of the lawyers that appear before it, it cannot effectively handle the increasingly heavy volume of work confronting it, thus risking systemic collapse. That trust has been breached in this adversary proceeding, and the remedy of judicial estoppel perfectly suits the facts presented.

CASE FILE:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28277204/Onewest-Essopped-by-Indymac-Federal-Agreements-INDYMAC-FEDERAL-BANK-FSB-JUDICIAL-ESTOPPEL-Sanctions
mary, on March 14, 2010 at 7:12 am said:

Hey Marcus: Would you send me the florida cases when you find them.

Thanks so much

xbrooklynite21@yahoo.com
marcus, on March 13, 2010 at 3:23 pm said:

Jeff,
I don’t know what state your from, but I am getting to file my quiet title action in Florida. Next week I will be spending some time at the county court house reviewing past cases.
Give me your email, and I will keep you updated.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Jeff, on March 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm said:

There has been alot of conversation in reference to “QUIET TITLE” on this blog and others. Has anyone been involved in filing for Quiet Title or know of any cases that are available to review.

Thank you.
marcus, on March 12, 2010 at 2:16 pm said:

I meant to say, you CAN’T fool everybody all the time.
marcus, on March 12, 2010 at 2:12 pm said:

Drip…drip..the truth is coming out. You can fool everybody all the time.
——————————————
Report Details How Lehman Hid Its Woes
03/12/10 –NYTimes

It is the Wall Street equivalent of a coroner’s report — a 2,200-page document that lays out, in new and startling detail, how Lehman Brothers used accounting sleight of hand to conceal the bad investments that led to its undoing.

The report, compiled by an examiner for the bank, now bankrupt, hit Wall Street with a thud late Thursday. The 158-year-old company, it concluded, died from multiple causes. Among them were bad mortgage holdings and, less directly, demands by rivals like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, that the foundering bank post collateral against loans it desperately needed.

But the examiner, Anton R. Valukas, also for the first time, laid out what the report characterized as “materially misleading” accounting gimmicks that Lehman used to mask the perilous state of its finances. The bank’s bankruptcy, the largest in American history, shook the financial world. Fears that other banks might topple in a cascade of failures eventually led Washington to arrange a sweeping rescue for the nation’s financial system.

According to the report, Lehman used what amounted to financial engineering to temporarily shuffle $50 billion of assets off its books in the months before its collapse in September 2008 to conceal its dependence on leverage, or borrowed money. Senior Lehman executives, as well as the bank’s accountants at Ernst & Young, were aware of the moves, according to Mr. Valukas, the chairman of the law firm Jenner & Block and a former federal prosecutor, who filed the report in connection with Lehman’s bankruptcy case.

Richard S. Fuld Jr., Lehman’s former chief executive, certified the misleading accounts, the report said.

“Unbeknownst to the investing public, rating agencies, government regulators, and Lehman’s board of directors, Lehman reverse engineered the firm’s net leverage ratio for public consumption,” Mr. Valukas wrote.

Mr. Fuld was “at least grossly negligent,” the report states, adding that Henry M. Paulson Jr., who was then the Treasury secretary, warned Mr. Fuld that Lehman might fail unless it stabilized its finances or found a buyer.

Lehman executives engaged in what the report characterized as “actionable balance sheet manipulation,” and “nonculpable errors of business judgment.”

The report draws no conclusions as to whether Lehman executives violated securities laws. But it does suggest that enough evidence exists for potential civil claims. Lehman executives are already defendants in civil suits, but have not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing.

A large portion of the nine-volume report centers on the accounting maneuvers, known inside Lehman as “Repo 105.”

First used in 2001, long before the crisis struck, Repo 105 involved transactions that secretly moved billions of dollars off Lehman’s books at a time when the bank was under heavy scrutiny.

According to Mr. Valukas, Mr. Fuld ordered Lehman executives to reduce the bank’s debt levels, and senior officials sought repeatedly to apply Repo 105 to dress up the firm’s results. Other executives named in the examiner’s report in connection with the use of the accounting tool include three former Lehman chief financial officers: Christopher O’Meara, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt.

Patricia Hynes, a lawyer for Mr. Fuld, said in an e-mailed statement that Mr. Fuld “did not know what those transactions were — he didn’t structure or negotiate them, nor was he aware of their accounting treatment.”

Charles Perkins, a spokesman for Ernst & Young, said in an e-mailed statement: “Our last audit of the company was for the fiscal year ending Nov. 30, 2007. Our opinion indicated that Lehman’s financial statements for that year were fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and we remain of that view.”

Bryan Marsal, Lehman’s current chief executive, who is unwinding the firm, said in a statement that he was evaluating the report to assess how it might help in efforts to advance creditor interests.

Repos, short for repurchase agreements, are a standard practice on Wall Street, representing short-term loans that provide sometimes crucial financing. In them, firms essentially lend assets to other firms in exchange for money for short periods of time, sometimes overnight.

But Lehman used aggressive accounting in its Repo 105 transactions: it appears to have structured transactions such that they sold securities at the end of the quarter, but planned to buy them back again days later.

The effect of the accounting was to artificially and temporarily lower the firm’s debt levels to hit certain targets, making the firm look healthier than it really was.

In a series of e-mail messages cited by the examiner, one Lehman executive writes of Repo 105: “It’s basically window-dressing.” Another responds: “I see … so it’s legally do-able but doesn’t look good when we actually do it? Does the rest of the street do it? Also is that why we have so much BS [balance sheet] to Rates Europe?” The first executive replies: “Yes, No and yes. ”

Mr. Valukas was appointed by the United States Trustee in the case in January 2009 to investigate the causes of the Lehman bankruptcy, as well as to find out if any fraud or misconduct took place.

Mr. Valukas writes in the report that “colorable claims” could be made against some former Lehman executives and Ernst & Young, meaning that enough evidence existed that could lead to the awarding of damages in a trial. He added that Lehman’s directors were not aware of the accounting engineering.

By his reckoning, Lehman managed to “shed” about $39 billion from its balance sheet at the end of the fourth quarter of 2007, $49 billion in the first quarter of 2008 and $50 billion in the second quarter. At that time, Lehman sought to reassure the public that its finances were fine — despite pressure from short-sellers like the hedge fund manager David Einhorn.

Executives, including Herbert McDade, who was known internally as the firm’s “balance sheet czar,” seemed aware that repeatedly using Repo 105 was disguising the true health of the investment bank. “I am very aware … it is another drug we r on,” he wrote in an April 2008 e-mail cited by the examiner’s report. At other times, he is described as calling for a limit to the number of Repo 105 transactions.

By May and June of 2008, a Lehman senior vice president, Matthew Lee, wrote to senior management and the firm’s auditors at Ernst & Young flagging “accounting improprieties.” Neither Lehman executives nor Ernst & Young alerted the firm’s board about Mr. Lee’s allegations, according to the report.

Mr. Fuld is described in the examiner’s report as denying having knowledge of the Repo 105 transactions, and there is no evidence that he directed subordinates to make use of that aggressive accounting. (He did recall issuing several directives to reduce the firm’s debt levels.) But Mr. McDade is reported as telling Mr. Fuld about using Repo 105 to achieve that goal.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Jeff, on March 12, 2010 at 9:54 am said:

Decided on March 3, 2010

Supreme Court, New York County

U.S. Bank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee for the Benefit of the Insurers and Noteholders of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-HE1, Home Equity Loan Asset-backed Notes Series-HE1; SYNCORA GUARANTEE INC., formerly known as XL CAPITAL ASSURANCE INC., as Controlling Insurer, Note Controlling Party and Class Ax Insurer; and CIFG ASSURANCE NORTH AMERICA, INC., as Class Ac Insurer, Plaintiffs,

against

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Defendant.

600352/09

For Plaintiff Syncora Guarantee Inc. and CIFG Assurance North America, Inc.

Paterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP.

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10036

Philip R. Forlenza, Esq.

(212) 336-2222

For Plaintiff U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Indenture Trustee

Nixon Peabody LLP

437 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Constance M. Boland, Esq.

(212) 940-3111

For Defendant Greenpoint

Mortgage Funding, Inc LeClair, a Professional

Corporation,

840 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor

New York, New York 10022

Michael T. Conway, Esq..

(212) 430-8032

Bernard J. Fried, J.

In this beach of contract action arising out of the recent mortgage-backed securities debacle, defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (GreenPoint) moves, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (1) and (7), to dismiss the complaint.

The transaction among the parties proceeded as follows. GreenPoint originated at least 30,000 home equity lines of credit and other home mortgage loans. The loans were then sold to GMAC Mortgage Corporation (GMAC), as servicer of the loans, pursuant to a “Flow Revolving Credit Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement” (HELOC), and a “Flow Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement” (Mortgage Loan Sale Agreement), dated September 26, 2005 and July 26, 2006, (together, Sales Agreements) respectively. The term of the two Sales Agreements are substantially the same. The loans were then sold to Lehman Brothers Bank, F.S.B. (Lehman Bank). Lehman Bank, in turn, assigned the loans to Lehman Brothers Holdings (Lehman Holdings), Lehman Bank’s parent company, through an Assignment and Assumption Agreement.

Lehman Holdings then assigned the loans to Structured Assets Securities Corporation (SASCO), through a Mortgage Loan and Sales Assignment Agreement. The loans were then deposited by SASCO into the GreenPoint Mortgage Trust (Trust), pursuant to a Transfer and Servicing Agreement among the Trust, SASCO, GMAC and U.S. Bank (U.S. Bank) (Transfer Agreement), to form a pool of mortgages.[FN1] U.S. Bank is Indenture Trustee of the Trust, pursuant to an Indenture Agreement. The total value of the loans in the mortgage pool is at least $1.8 billion.

At this point, the loans became securitized for the benefit of numerous noteholders, who stood to benefit from the interest and cash generated by the loans. The loans are insured by plaintiffs Syncora Guarantee Inc. (Syncora) and CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. (GIFG) (together, Insurers), pursuant to Insurance and Indemnification Agreements among Lehman, SASCO, the Trust and the Insurers. At this time, GreenPoint also entered into Indemnification Agreements with the Insurers. No claims have been brought under these agreements.

The Indemnification Agreements were followed by the preparation of a prospectus, which was used to sell the interest in the loans to investors. The prospectus was augmented by a document called the Prospectus Supplement (together, ProSupp), of which Lehman Holdings was the sponsor. The ProSupp contained certain other representations concerning GreenPoint’s adherence to its underwriting guidelines. While the ProSupp contains representations and warranties as to the viability of the loans, it is not clear what role GreenPoint played in the preparation or execution of [*2]this document, which apparently was prepared after the original sale of the loans to GMAC, and after the creation of the Trust. GreenPoint is neither a sponsor or issuer of the ProSupp.

Between the time the loans were securitized in 2005 and 2006 and the present, the home mortgage crisis devastated the value of the loans in the Trust, to the vast detriment of the investors. In this action, plaintiffs attempt to recover the entire loss of the $1.8 billion original value of the loans, based on GreenPoint’s alleged violation of representations and warranties contained in the Sales Agreements and, according to the complaint, the ProSupp. U.S. Bank alleges that the home mortgage loans and lines of credit were based on faulty representations by GreenPoint of such things as the earning potential of the home buyers, and thus, their ability to afford the homes, all of which allegedly rendered the loans unstable and valueless from the time of their origination. U.S. Bank contends that GreenPoint failed to follow its own underwriting guidelines when it allowed these loans to be made.

The Sales Agreements contain numerous representations and warranties concerning the viability of the original loans. The warranties and liabilities are contained in sections 6 and 7 of the Sales Agreements, and the remedies for breach of the representations and warranties are contained in section 8.

The dispute is whether, under sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Sales Agreement, GreenPoint was in breach of the Sales Agreements, and whether the breaches require GreenPoint to pay to plaintiffs the entire cost of all of the loans before their disintegration, or merely the original value of any individual loan which might be found to have been made in breach of the representations and warranties found in the Sales Agreements.

This argument arises from the following facts. On March 14, 2008, U.S. Bank sent a letter to GreenPoint demanding that GreenPoint cure alleged breaches in 655 of the loans, or that GreenPoint repurchase the loans (the March 2008 letter).[FN2] The March 2008 letter alleged that there were breaches of subsection 7 of the Sales Agreements in the case of each of the individual loans. GreenPoint responded with a letter requesting information concerning the basis for the demand, and for copies of the various sales and assignment agreements by means of which U.S. Bank had acquired the loans, claiming that it was unaware of the progress of the loans into the Trust after they had been transferred to GMAC. GreenPoint also asked for the servicing files of each of the 655 loans.

U.S. Bank allegedly sent a further letter to GreenPoint on July 9, 2008 (July 2008 letter) concerning 308 additional loans which also were allegedly made by GreenPoint in violation of section 7 of the Sales Agreements. GreenPoint maintains that it never received this letter, and, like the 655 loans in the March 2008 letter, has no idea what specific loans are at stake.

Finally, in a letter dated December 9, 2008 (the December 2008 letter), U.S. Bank claimed that GreenPoint had breached section 6 (h) of the Sales Agreements (as opposed to 7), and, as a result, demanded that GreenPoint repurchase all of the 30,000 plus loans contained in the Trust. According to GreenPoint, U.S. Bank has never identified which loans were to be repurchased, an important lapse, because some loans in the Trust were originated by non-party Impac. [*3]

GreenPoint responded to the December 2008 letter requesting, as before, the servicing files on the loans which U.S. Bank claimed to be in breach, and, more importantly, denying that any breaches existed under section 6 (h) of the Sales Agreements.

GreenPoint argues that plaintiffs cannot, by virtue of the plain language of the Sales Agreements, establish any duty on GreenPoint’s part to pay plaintiffs back for the cost of the entire pool of loans. GreenPoint also contends that the insurer plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action, because Syncora and CIFG were never intended to benefit from the representations and warranties contained in the Sales Agreements.

GreenPoint also maintains that the present action is premature under the terms of the Sales Agreements, because plaintiffs commenced the action before the 60-day cure period contained in the Sales Agreements, and have never provided GreenPoint with the identities and particulars of the loans alleged to have been made in breach of the representations and warranties in the Sales Agreements, such that GreenPoint cannot evaluate the problems alleged to be contained in the individual loans.

It is basic that on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, we must accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint and submissions in opposition to the motion, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.

Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Development Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 414 (2001); see also Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 (1994). A motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) “may be granted where documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law.’” Held v Kaufman, 91 NY2d 425, 430-431 (1998), quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 88; Foster v Kovner, 44 AD3d 23, 28 (1st Dept 2007)(“[t]he documentary evidence must resolve all factual issues and dispose of the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law”).

“Standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked.” Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 812 (2003). Therefore, it is essential that the matter of the plaintiffs’ standing be addressed, as a threshhold question.

The Insurers base their standing on a claim that they were the intended third party beneficiaries of the Sale Agreements, the ProSupp, and the Indemnification Agreements with GreenPoint. They argue that the Sales Agreements “expressly fore[saw] the type of securitization transaction that led to the Insurers’ involvement” at the time the Sales Agreements were executed (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, at 22), and that GreenPoint intended that the Insurers would directly benefit from the warranties and representations contained in the Sales Agreements. They also claim that the representations in the Indemnification Agreements to the effect that “[a]ll material provided in writing to the [Insurers] for inclusion in the Offering Documents … shall be true and correct in all material respects” (Aff. David W. Dykhouse, Ex. C, at section 5 [f] and Ex B, section 3) provide the necessary intent on GreenPoint’s part to benefit the Insurers in the matter of the securitization of the loans.

The Insurers argue that the rights conferred upon them by the Indemnification Agreements, the Insurers’ Insurance and Indemnity Agreements, the Indenture, and the Transfer and Servicing [*4]Agreements, along with the Sales Agreements, “will allow the fact finder to determine that both GreenPoint and GMAC intended the Sales Agreements to benefit the insurers directly.” Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, at 24.

A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish “(1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for his benefit and (3) that the benefit to him is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate him if the benefit is lost.”

State of California Public Employees’ Retirement System v Shearman & Sterling, 95 NY2d 427, 434-435 (2000), quoting Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 336 (1983). There must be a “clear intention to confer the benefit of the promised performance.” PT. Bank Mizuho Indonesia v PT. Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Corp., 25 AD3d 470, 471 (1st Dept 2006). “Absent such intent, the third party is merely an incidental beneficiary with no right to enforce the contract.” Strauss v Belle Realty Co., 98 AD2d 424, 426 (2d Dept 1983), affd 65 NY2d 399 (1985).

“Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts.” W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 (1990); see also Nautilus Insurance Co. v Matthew David Events, Ltd., ___AD3d___, 2010 NY Slip Op 00296 (1st Dept 2010). It is settled that contract terms are to be construed to reflect the parties’ intent. Greenfield v Philles Records, Inc., 98 NY2d 562 (2002). “Thus, a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.” Id. at 569. Decidedly, “[p]arol evidence cannot be used to create an ambiguity where the words of the parties’ agreement are otherwise clear and unambiguous.” Riverside South Planning Corp. v CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 60 AD3d 61, 66 (1st Dept 2008), affd 13 NY3d 398 (2009); see also Innaphos, Inc. v Rhodia, S.A., 38 AD3d 368 (1st Dept 2007), affd 10 NY3d 25 (2008).
The Insurers have not pointed to anything in the mass of documents, including, especially, the Sales Agreements, which would make them direct beneficiaries to these representations and warranties contained in these agreements. Thus, there cannot be read into the various agreements an intent to apply the warranties and representations contained in the Sales Agreements to the Insurers, sure it is is patently not in the documents (see U.S. Fidelity & Guarantee Company v Annunziata, 67 NY2d 229, 232 [1986]["courts should refrain from rewriting the agreement"]) Moreover, parol evidence contained in other agreements cannot alter the plain terms of the Sales Agreements. W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, supra. Evidence “unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing.” Id. at 162. Even aside from the Sales Agreements, the Insurers’ conclusory allegations that they are somehow beneficiaries of these warranties through other, later, documents, such as the ProSupp and Indemnification Agreements, fail to show that they were ever intended beneficiaries to any warranties or representations made by GreenPoint in the original Sales Agreements between GreenPoint and GMAC, or any of the later assignees. The Insurers have shown nothing that would give them direct rights to rely on the Sales Agreements’ warranties emanating from GreenPoint at any stage in the transactions. As such, they have failed to establish they have standing to appear in this action.

In GreenPoint’s memorandum of law, GreenPoint only addresses the issue of whether the Insurers have standing to pursue this action. However, at oral argument, GreenPoint argued that [*5]U.S. Bank lacks standing as well, this despite the fact that GreenPoint stated that U.S. Bank was the “real party in interest” in its Memorandum of Law. GreenPoint’s Memorandum in Support of Motion, at 24. Since plaintiffs have had the opportunity to respond to GreenPoint’s arguments, the issue of U.S. Bank’s standing is ripe for decision.

Greenpoint argues that U.S. Bank lacks standing to bring an action based on the representations and warranties contained in the Sales Agreements, because the transactions following GreenPoint sale of the loans to GMAC were made in derogation of the explicit terms of the Sales Agreements, stating that all transfers of the loans must be made to substantially comport with the detailed form annexed to the Sales Agreements. Conway Aff., Ex. D, section 21. This section, which is contained in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, states, in pertinent part, that:

the transferee will not be deemed to be a Purchaser hereunder binding upon the Seller unless such transferee shall agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and an original counterpart of the instrument of transfer and an assignment and assumption of this Agreement in the form of Exhibit H hereto executed be the transferee shall have been delivered to the Seller.
It is uncontested that (1) the Lehman entities did not use the form in question; (2) that the forms used were not substantially in the form of Ex. H; and (3) that neither the Lehman entities nor U.S. Bank obtained the loans, and the status of “Purchaser,” pursuant to any such form.

U.S. Bank counters that GreenPoint is raising form over substance, and that the form supplied in the Sales Agreements was not a necessary part of the transactions which occurred after the loans left GreenPoint’s hands; that GreenPoint waived any right it had to object to the use of other forms of transfer; and that the transaction after the sale of the loans to GMAC, and the assignments which occurred thereafter, were part of a “securitizied transaction,” which did not require the use of any forms in particular.

U.S. Bank turns to section 21 of the HELOC, which differs, in part, from the language in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement.[FN3] Section 21 also states that a sale of the HELOC loans must be made pursuant to the attached form (Ex. G thereto), “provided that (i) in the case of a Securitization Transfer … Purchaser shall have the right to assign its rights under this Agreement into such Securitization Transfer.”

U.S. Bank notes that, although a definition of “Securitized Transfer” is not contained in section 21 of the HELOC, in section 28, a “Securitized Transfer[]” is described as a “securitized trust structure.” U.S. Bank explains that “securitized trust structure” does not mean a single entity (such as itself), but an overall transaction with the outcome being a securitization of the loans in question. Thus, U.S. Bank claims that the Lehman entities and SASCO did not need to follow any particular form in transferring the loans, because the transaction from day one always anticipated the securitization of the loans.

As a result of this argument, U.S. Bank insists that this motion must be denied, as it has yet to be afforded such discovery as would allow a determination whether the transaction GreenPoint [*6]instigated anticipated the eventual securitization of the loans, making the entire HELOC transaction from its inception a “securitized trust structure.” U.S. Bank maintains that discovery would show, for example, that the Sales Agreements comported with industry practice in the sale of securities for eventual securitization.

GreenPoint, in rebuttal, argues that there is no evidence that the sale of the loans was intended to create a “securitized trust structure,” in that the sale of the loans could have ended in any one of three scenarios, including, but not limited to, the securitization of the loans. According to GreenPoint, the Sales Agreements also contemplated the possibility that GreenPoint might sell the loans as a “whole loan Sales” transaction (Transcript, at 14), or do an “agency transfer,” wherein the loans are taken to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and sold in return for securities from these entities. Id.; see also Sales Agreement, Aff. of Conway, Ex. C, section 28. Thus, GreenPoint insists that the loans only became securitized as a result of the transfers which took place after GreenPoint sold the loans to GMAC, that is, after they were out of GreenPoint’s hands and control.

While GreenPoint argues that the terms of the HELOC do not anticipate the securitization of the loans, the terms of this agreement fail to clarify the matter. There is an ambiguity as to whether the entire transaction from its inception was meant to be, or became, a “securitized trust structure.” As a result of the ambiguity, U.S. Bank should be allowed to conduct the discovery it needs to determine the intent of the parties in respect to the matter. As a result, GreenPoint cannot, on this motion to dismiss, preclude U.S. Bank from pursuing this matter by claiming that U.S. Bank does not have standing.

U.S. Bank has afforded less time to the argument that transactions following the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreementcomport with the requirements of section 21 of this agreement, since it is not questioned that the assignments were not made using the designated form. However, at this stage in the proceedings, it cannot be determined whether the various forms used in the assignments were “substantially” the same as the designated form, incorporated the material in the forms, so as to bring the assignments in compliance with the Sales Agreements, or whether GreenPoint waived any right to require the assignments to comply with the Sales Agreements. Dismissal is not warranted on this point at this time.

Having established that the complaint sufficiently alleges U.S. Bank’s standing to bring this action, I turn to the allegations in the complaint, the gist of which is that the majority of the 30,000 loans which GreenPoint originated were rife with misrepresentations as to such things as the earning potential of prospective home buyers, and their ability to afford the houses which they purchased with GreenPoint loans; that is, that the loans were made without regard to the purported rigors of GreenPoint’s underwriting procedures. As a result, the precipitous drop in the value of homes caused widespread defaults in the mortgages, by persons who apparently could not afford their homes in the first place, resulting in a catastrophic drop in the value of the loans originated by GreenPoint, all to the detriment of the numerous investors in the Trust.

The disagreement between the parties involves the interpretation of specific provisions in the Sales Agreements, to determine whether misrepresentation allegedly made by GreenPoint in the origination of discrete loans, however widespread, required GreenPoint merely to repurchase those loans in which fault could be found, or to repurchase the entirety of the 30,000 loans represented in the Sales Agreements.

Section 7 of the Sales Agreements is entitled “REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES [*7]REGARDING INDIVIDUAL MORTGAGE LOANS.” The section, which runs to 12 pages, is essentially summed up in its first paragraph, which reads “[a]s to each Revolving Credit Loan [or Mortgage Loan], The Seller [GreenPoint] hereby represents and warrants to the Purchaser [GMAC] that as of the related Closing Date: (a) Revolving Credit Loans [Mortgage Loans] as Described. The information set forth in the related Revolving Credit Loan Schedule is complete, true and correct.”

On the other hand, section 6 states that:

[t]he Seller, as a condition to the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, hereby makes the following representations and warranties to the Purchaser as of each Closing Date … (h) No Untrue Information. Neither this Agreement nor any statement, report or other document furnished or to be furnished pursuant to this Agreement or in connections with the transactions contemplated hereby contains any untrue statement of fact or omits to state a fact necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.”
Section 8 of the Sales Agreements contains different remedies for breaches of section 6 or section 7. Section 8 (b) of the HELOC states, in relevant part, that:

within 60 days of the earlier of either discovery by, or notice to, the Seller of any breach of the warranties or representations set forth in clauses (qq), (vv), (ww), (xx), (aaa), (bbb) and (ccc) of Section 7, the Seller shall repurchase such Revolving Credit Loan at the Repurchase Price. In the event that a Breach shall involve any representation or warranty set forth in Section 6, and such Breach cannot be cured within 60 days of the earlier of either discovery by or notice to the Seller of such Breach, all of the Revolving Credit Loans shall, at the Purchaser’s option, be repurchased by the Seller at the Repurchase Price [emphasis added].

The language in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement contains the same language in section 8 (c).
The confluence of these sections indicates, simply, that a breach of warranties or representations in an individual loan under section 7 calls for the section 8 remedy of the repurchase of that individual loan, while a breach of section 6 calls for the repurchase by GreenPoint of the entire loan pool. GreenPoint argues that U.S. Bank can only seek to compel the repurchase of the individual loans it revealed to GreenPoint as being in derogation of section 7, while U.S. Bank claims that the sheer volume of invalid loans, as indicated in its random sampling of loans,[FN4] amounts to misrepresentations and breaches of warranties under section 6 (h), such as compel the application of the section 8 remedy of the repurchase of all of the 30,000 loans in the loan pool. The breaches highlighted by U.S. Bank involve GreenPoint’s allegedly “pervasive failure to follow its underwriting guidelines during the origination of the Loans” (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, at 2), raising the severity of the breaches of the individual loans beyond the narrow constraints of section 7, into the [*8]overarching language of section 6 (h).[FN5]

The question that arises is this: under the language of the Sales Agreements, is there a point at which breaches of the representations and warranties in individual loans rise to a violation of section 6 (h), as opposed to section 7, so as to require the draconian remedy of repurchase of all 30,000 loans, and, has U.S. Bank established that such a limit, if intended by the parties, has been reached? It is evident that the language of the competing sections of the Sales Agreements creates ambiguities, which cannot be deciphered on a motion to dismiss. At the pleading stage, these questions cannot be answered, and discovery is required to address the question. Consequently, dismissal of the complaint as to U.S. Bank is inappropriate at this time.

In sum, GreenPoint has established that the Insurers have no standing as third-party beneficiaries, or under any other theory, of the Sales Agreements, and must be dismissed as plaintiffs in this action. The action will not be dismissed, however, as against U.S. Bank.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted only to the extent of dismissing the complaint as to Syncora Guarantee Inc. and CIFG Assurance North America, Inc., and is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. is directed to serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days of service of this order with notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED that the remainder of the action shall continue.

Dated: March3, 2010

ENTER:

______________________________

J.S.C.
btb, on March 11, 2010 at 9:46 pm said:

does anyone know what this soliman guy is talking about.? does anyone know if he know what hes talking about? he writes in weird gibberish and is very confusing.
msoliman, on March 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm said:

CLASS ACTION SUIT FOR DECEPTIVE MODIFICATION OFFERS BY LENDERS AND CLAIMS OF BREACH
March 11th, 2010
By M.Soliman

The claims are NOT simple, the two filings say: “When a large financial institution promises to modify an eligible loan to prevent foreclosure, homeowners who live up to their end of the bargain expects that promise to be kept.”

The issue at hand is “tender”. Here is another wasted class action suit lacking substance for the correct and proper arguments.

Counsel, you have earned my monthly “WTF” award for failing to realize the lenders generous offers are just that. . A source of tender and mere proposition for an offer to assist. God Bless them. But a lack of tender in the foreclosure process will hurt your chances especially if the lender can demonstrate your were BROKE.

Now the offers are made, albeit under a Fed and State (CC {} 2923.56) mandate. Once again a sucker is born every day. Your original lender is broke and gone, the trustee of record replaced by a debt collector, one of the instruments make logical sense and the grant Deed Upon Sale sticks of something Al Capone would never participate in.

With the issue of Modifications, I side with the lender.

HOW YOU DOING!
We know the matter will always come down to a financial capacity argument. And you are trying to qualify for avoiding the judicial right of a lender to a recovery by going to the “Loan Mod Squad” to asset you.

Read 1122AB and that’s all I will say about that!

Look, a lender in an economic bail plan that has “parties of a lost interest sold long ago” with their backs against the wall

S*U*C*K*E*R*S!

Questions proposed to set the matter for early hearings and dismissal will be – - – “could the borrower offer recognized tender to either

a) Cure the foreclosure or
b) Offer an amount a court could determine to be sufficient consideration.

A lender that assists in a modification effort is not acting as a fiduciary and how many times has a judge told us this. Under the doctrine of “caveat emptor”, the borrower could not recover from the lenders transfers and securities registration defects on the property that rendered the loan and obligation unaffordable.

A so too will the court speak to the fact known in Latin as “you-snooze- loose” or pay attention.

So the property is now unfit for ordinary purposes subject to your lack of capacity and market conditions and appraisal changes and NOT THE LENDERS FAULT!

The only exception was if the Lender actively concealed material information and you prove latent defects or target material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

Okay, hear the judge tell you, call a cop, see the DA and “get out” of your home as you lost possession.
The caveat emptor rule applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer) and I am using it for the clients advantage in a “lease to own” botched securitization. Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.

Before statutory law, the debtor had no warranty of the quality of goods or in these case services. In many jurisdictions now, the law requires that goods or services must be of a condition of earnest and quality.

However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce and may not apply to the exact extent of the law as for mortgage products. Hence, borrowers then and now are still advised to be cautious.

Funny, when you consider that according to the definitions I researched – - -In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit.

So does a modification fall into to a legal category of judicial question as to tangible assets and defects to title? Tough question I will surrender to my Ivy League bearded scholars can help out with the correct response over the years to come.

For now the question of tender and capacity will govern these cases and the lender is sitting on prime USDA evidential material, and all thanks to you and the willingness to once again fall into their trap. It’s called the “Loan Mod Fraud” that you perpetrated against yourself.

Peace.

Ps. Lenders writing business plans and making plans for a come back. . . .I and others are waiting and hope to hear from you soon!

M.Soliman
Expert. Witness to Counsel
expert.witness@live.com

The views shared here are solely the opinions of Maher Soliman and not construed to be the law or a legal opinion. Always consult an attorney if you believe your legal rights have been violated. Call your State Bar Association; inquire into local judicial referral sources or contact the Rip-Off report for more information.
m.soliman, on March 9, 2010 at 7:25 pm said:

No Remedy By Way Of Rescission

Can an illegal or unenforceable contract that was executed, be rescinded by the courts? Or how about this fellow purveyors of expert testimonials…can a lender enforce a foreclsure in a securites deal gone bad that resembles a ponzi scheme?

The answer as it is exolaineed is If a person or entity has lost money or parted with any consideration in the performance of an illegal agreement, he will not be aided by the courts in the recovery of what he has parted with.

As is frequently said, “The Court shall part ways and leave him where it finds him.”

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Jeff, on March 9, 2010 at 7:30 am said:

WELLS FARGO ACTS IN BAD FAITH

Plaintiff: Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., by Deborah M. Gallo, Esq.

Defendant: Western New York Law Center by Denetra Williams, Esq.

Timothy J. Walker, J.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

On March 24, 2005 Defendant Julianne Hughes (“Hughes”) borrowed $72,000.00 from Argent Mortgage Company, LLC (“Argent”) and signed a promissory note (“Note”) requiring her to make monthly payments to Argent commencing on May 1, 2005 and ending on April 1, 2035. This debt is secured by a mortgage on Hughes’ real property located in the Town of Hamburg, New York (“Mortgage”), recorded in the Erie County Clerk’s Office on March 24, 2005 in liber 13218 of mortgages at page 8094. Thereafter, Hughes defaulted on the loan, and on April 13, 2009 Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) commenced this foreclosure action.

The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo is “the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note, or has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note.” Wells Fargo, however, has failed to attach a copy of an applicable assignment of mortgage and note, assuming one exists. Nor has Wells Fargo submitted an affidavit of merit from a representative of Wells Fargo, with knowledge, attesting to the delivery of the Note and Mortgage to Wells Fargo prior to the commencement of this action. Similarly, in the event Wells Fargo did not own the Note and Mortgage at the commencement of this action, Wells Fargo has failed to submit a power of attorney from the holder of said Mortgage and Note, authorizing it to proceed with the action. Accordingly, Wells Fargo has not established that it has standing to commence this action. [see Mortgage Electronic [*2]Registration Systems, Inc. V. Coakley, 41 AD3d 674 (2nd Dept. 2007); see also HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Cherry, 18 Misc 3d 1102(A) (Sup. Ct.., Kings County 2008)].

The instant Mortgage is a subprime adjustable rate mortgage (“ARM”) loan. According to the Note, Hughes was required to pay principal and interest in the amount of $520.81 per month for the first three years at 7.850%. Then, on April 1, 2008 and every six months thereafter, the interest rate could change on the “change date,” based upon an “index” that is “the average of interbank offered rates for the six-month U.S dollar-denominated deposits in the London market (“LIBOR”), as published in The Wall Street Journal.” The specific terms of the Hughes Note provide that the new interest rate would be the LIBOR rate, 45 days prior to the “change date,” plus 6.00%, rounded to the nearest .125%. The interest rate could increase up to 1.00% on each “change date,” but the Note capped the adjusted interest rate at 13.850% and set 7.850% as the floor if rates decreased.

As shown below, ARM loans have been universally condemned both nationally and by the New York State Legislature, as contributing to the start of the current foreclosure crisis and its perpetuation into the reasonably foreseeable future.

U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, in his opening statement at the March 22, 2007 Committee hearing on “Mortgage Market Turmoil: Causes and Consequences,” stated that “[o]ur mortgage system appears to have been on steroids in recent years, giving everyone a false sense of invincibility.” He went on to strongly criticize ARM loans, referring to them as “unconscionable and deceptive”:

The subprime market has been dominated in recent years by hybrid ARMs, loans with fixed rates for two years that adjust upwards every six months thereafter. These adjustments are so steep that many borrowers cannot afford to make the payments and are forced to refinance, at great cost, sell the house, or default on the loan. No loan should force a borrower into this kind of devil’s dilemma. These loans are made on the basis of the value of the property, not the ability of the borrower to repay. This is the fundamental definition of predatory lending.

Frankly, the fact that any reputable lender could make these kinds of loans so widely available to wage earners, to elderly families on fixed incomes, and to lower-income and unsophisticated borrowers, strikes me as unconscionable and deceptive.

In the August 26, 2009 on-line edition of The New York Times, reported in “Loans That Looked Easy Pose Threats to Recovery,” Elena Warshawsky, a residential credit analyst with Barclay’s Capital, described ARM loans as,

a loan meant for sophisticated investors, or people who expected their cash flow to increase over time. … But then they were extended to all sorts of buyers. Now it wasn’t people hoping their income would grow. It was people hoping their house price would increase [so they could refinance or sell their home].

The article also reported that Barclay’s Capital expects 81% of ARM loans originated in 2007 to [*3]default and that many economists characterize ARM loans as “a looming threat to a housing recovery” because more than a half-million of them “are scheduled to reset in the next four years, at rates many homeowners cannot afford.”

New York State’s view of ARM loans is similarly critical.

“HALT” is New York State Governor David A. Patterson’s Interagency Task Force to Halt Abusive Lending Transactions. In a report, dated December 31, 2008, submitted by Richard H. Neiman, New York Superintendent of Banks, (the “HALT Report”), it is noted that “[a]djustable rate mortgages and nontraditional loans such as interest-only products have been a particular contributor to the foreclosure crisis, as rates reset or loans begin to amortize and many borrowers face payment shock.” [Id., p. 11]. HALT’s Report went on to state that subprime loans were the “primary driver” behind the increase in the percentage of loans 90 or more days past due as of the third quarter of 2008:

According to the Mortgage Banker’s National Delinquency Survey, the percent of loans 90 or more days past due continues to increase across the board. The trends were starker for loans categorized by the survey as “seriously delinquent,” which includes the 90 or more day past due category and loans in the foreclosure process. Subprime adjustable rate loans were the primary driver, with nearly one-third of such loans [in New York] listed as seriously delinquent during the third quarter of 2008. This exceeds the rate for the nation.

[Id. at p. 12 (Emphasis in original and internal table omitted)].

According to the HALT Report, New York participates in the State Foreclosure Prevention Working Group, which is a cooperative dialogue between state officials across the nation and mortgage servicers that began in 2007. Since October 2007, the Working Group has been collecting data from the largest subprime mortgage servicers, with thirteen of the largest twenty servicers participating. The Working Group issued a report, dated September 29, 2008, which indicates “that industry measures to keep homeowners out of foreclosure have slipped, and are failing to keep pace with the increasing rate of loan delinquencies.”[Id. at p. 38].

The New York State Legislature has also criticized ARM loans. Last year, both houses of the sponsored an amendment to Tax Law §250, which would eliminate the mortgage tax for people who refinanced their home from an ARM loan. In their respective Sponsoring Memoranda, the State Assembly and State Senate referred to ARM loans as constituting “shady lending practices”:

This lending crisis has been fed by adjustable rate mortgages and other shady lending practices that often offer low initial teaser rates that then skyrocket after a period of time. The increase in rates which occur unannounced raises the amount homeowners pay each month. … This legislation will eliminate the mortgage tax for people who were victims of this sub-prime mess and refinanced from an adjustable rate to a fixed rate.

[New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2009 A.B. 7705 (April 25, 2009); New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2009 S.B. 2073 (March 14, 2009)]. The proposed amendment remains pending.

In 2008, New York enacted comprehensive subprime lending reform legislation. [See Chapter 472 of the Laws of 2008]. One of the new laws added by such legislation included [*4]CPLR §3408. Pursuant to CPLR §3408, for residential foreclosure actions involving a high-cost home loan created between January 1, 2003 and September 1, 2008, or a sub-prime, or non-traditional loan where the defendant is a resident of the property, the court must hold a voluntary conference within sixty (60) days after the date proof of service of the foreclosure is filed with the county clerk, or on an adjourned date agreed to by the parties, if the defendant-homeowner requests a conference. Section 3408 is applicable to this case and this Court held several conferences with the parties in accordance with it. While this Court has interpreted CPLR §3408 as requiring the parties to act in good faith during the mandatory settlement conference process, in late 2009, the State Legislature amended CPLR §3408 to expressly require that they negotiate in good faith. In sponsoring such legislation, both the State Assembly and State Senate found that “[a]s the mortgage crisis has worsened … it has become evident that more must be accomplished to protect New Yorkers in these difficult times and beyond.” [New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2009 A.B. 8917 (June 27, 2009); New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2009 S.B. 5931 (June 27, 2009)].

Moreover, while there are no allegations that Hughes is a minority or that her home is located in a minority area, it is telling that at least one court has determined that a mortgage granted to a minority buyer for the purchase of property in a minority area, which carries an interest rate exceeding 9.00%, creates a rebuttable presumption of discriminatory practice. [M & T Mortgage Corp. V. Foy, 20 Misc 3d 274 (Sup. Ct., Kings County 2008)].

It is against this universal condemnation of ARM loans and their contributory role in the current foreclosure crisis that this Court evaluates Well’s Fargo’s conduct in this case.

Commencing on August 13, 2009, and through the end of October 2009, this Court conducted several conferences with counsel for the parties, pursuant to CPLR §3408. The conference process concluded with Wells Fargo offering Hughes a proposed loan modification agreement, dated October 27, 2009 (the “Modification Agreement”), which included, inter alia, the following terms:

Interest Rate: An initial interest rate of 7.850% for the first five years of the modified loan, but, thereafter, rate changes would resume in accordance with the terms of the original Note. Not surprisingly, Hughes objected to the proposed Modification Agreement because it included an ARM. This Court informed Wells Fargo that it rejected the ARM and directed Wells Fargo to offer Hughes a modification agreement that included a fixed interest rate. Wells Fargo refused to do so.

Amounts Past Due to be Capitalized: As of October 27, 2009, Wells Fargo determined that Hughes owed it $24,414.65 in arrears, which it agreed to recapitalize into the modified loan. Included in this amount were unspecified “corporate advances” of $3,708.02 and an unexplained charge of $5,562 identified as “OSFC.”

Amortization Term: The amortization term did not change and the loan, as proposed to be modified, would have matured on April 1, 2035 as set forth in the original Note. Wells Fargo’s refusal to extend the term resulted in a monthly principal and interest payment in the Modification Agreement, commencing on November 1, 2009, of $703.67, as compared to the [*5]monthly payment of $520.81, which Hughes was required to pay commencing on May 1, 2005 in accordance with the original Note. The required monthly payment of $703.67, which does not reflect any upward adjustments created by the adjustable rate provision, was approximately 35% higher than the Note’s original monthly payment of $520.81, which Hughes could not afford.

It is well settled that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief, such as Wells Fargo in the instant foreclosure action, has the burden of satisfying the requisites of equity by coming to court with “clean hands.”[Dunn v. Moss, 64 AD2d 838 (4th Dept. 1978); see also, M & T Mortgage Corp. V. Foy, supra, at 275]. The terms of the proposed Modification Agreement, particularly but not exclusively the inclusion of an adjustable rate component, are unacceptable to the this Court. The proposed Modification Agreement flies in the face of the above-described legislation passed in 2008 and in December of 2009, which was designed to assist borrowers in foreclosure cases to remain in their homes and to prevent a foreclosure crisis like the one currently gripping this State and the nation from re-occurring in the future. Moreover, Wells Fargo has acted in bad faith and contrary to CPLR §3408 by presenting Hughes with the Modification Agreement described above and, notwithstanding the Court’s directive, obstinately refusing to revise its terms in accordance with the stated intention of the Legislature.

For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the above matter is hereby dismissed, without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that in the event Wells Fargo commences a new action in foreclosure with respect to this borrower and the premises at issue herein, no additional costs or attorney fees will be allowed, absent good cause shown.

This constitutes the Order and Judgment of this Court. Submission of an order by the Parties is not necessary. The mailing of a copy of this Order and Judgment by this Court shall not constitute notice of entry.

Dated: January 13, 2010

Buffalo, New York

_________________________________

HON. TIMOTHY J. WALKER

Acting Supreme Court Justice
msoliman, on March 9, 2010 at 5:43 am said:

SECURITIZATION, MERS AND NOAH’S ARK

Securities come in all sizes shapes and flavors. There are equities and debt offerings such as stock and bonds. The problem with a bond is it drops to your bottom line as debt where a preferred acts as equity. Preferred get recorded on the businesses capital account.

But the Street and the hellbender lenders took it a step further with the art of derecongnition. UNBELEIVEABLE! (More later).

Look, there are 1) cumulative preferred shares with an 2) option to convert offering a 3) discretionary return versus 4) assured and 5) kicker at term including 6) senior sub classes of the same.

I guess that’s old school now. Today you can write a PPM and offer the various classes of securities such as preferred certs, varying classes of senior sub certs, a cumulative preferred cert, a preferred to common cert (depositors) and a participating preferred cert, etc. It is literally six of one and half a dozen of the other that allowed the street to create the waterfall for offering mortgage backs.

In securitization everything seems to come in pairs. There are two types of security instruments with two classes of security interests including two sources of revenue from two classes of borrower.

A Deed of trust in California is a security instrument filed to secure a lien and recorded against real property. It’s not to be confused with a stock certificate sold in a private placement registration to accredited investors that are considered securities offering. Recording the deed of trust at or around the time of funding will ensure the lender of its priority over other claims for liens against the same real property. Compare this to a single UCC filing in the name of a nominal party that may secure from 1 to 1000 or more recorded liens against properties throughout the US.

The payments due from a borrower are accrued and paid as the debtor or trustor. The monthly amounts are collectively received by the servicing agent who is another name for a lender gone “Depositor” having sold its entre interest in the loans it originated.

Borrower payments are booked accordingly and have not a damn thing to do with the monthly amount it must pay out in one lump sum. The obligor is another name for payor of big dividends payments made by a lender depositor under the roof of a Wall Street combination of companies. They were skilled at using dramatic hocus pocus and Tide Talking Stain rhetorical discourse in offering REMIC and MBO securitization. The CDO certificates provide the transformed lender to Depositor a good storyline for nothing more than offering a series of “Dividends” tied exclusively to a business segment or “”Pool” of performing assets.

I continue to struggle with the fact that not any time prior to the settlement of the loan will the trustor be informed of the use of a nominee. MERS will act neither in substitution or unison with the trustee named in the original deed of trust. I note this in my recent testimony whereby the trustor will rely on the terms and conditions for the note and deed which contemplate the power of sale and use of a trustee in that traditional role of the trustee.

The Trustee is arguably a fiduciary in the truest sense of the word. But the Nominee is in my opinion still and always will be used and abused in a confusing and non transparent manner by the registrants. A nominee as MERS claims to be is by definition an entity (individual, corporation or association) holding assets for another party, often with the legal authority and duty to make decisions regarding financial matters on behalf of the other party.

A Trustee acting as a fiduciary is not likely requiring the added support of a second fiduciary in the role of a joint custodian or nominal beneficiary as MERS portrays itself as. So again let’s assume that the trustee represents one loan at a time for a borrower as a debtor and maintains the rights afforded o it under a power of sale. And let’s assume that MERS holds the rights to the security instrument known as a UCC filing that covers the bundle of assets held on the trust balance sheet.

The bad news for homeowners is the likelihood that MERS can be and will remain a nominal beneficial interest in the cash flow offered to securities ertificate holders.

The good news for defaulted borrowers is MERS does not have a damn thing to do with enforcing lenders rights in an asset charged down to zero and lost to the seller in a stock trade gone sour! No MERS and No Power of Sale California. This is especially true for a lender who is forever lost to the note and collateral it sold out for securities a long long time ago.

Come on Wall Street. .. . Got to do better than that!

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Dan Edstrom, on March 8, 2010 at 10:49 am said:

VG Diaz,
Excellent. Now that you show it as Wells Fargo you can go to their site and download all of the other info – including the monthly certificateholder statements, loan level details, etc. You will need to register on the site and they will give you a login (it appears to be automated).

I did find GREENPOINT MTA TRUST 2006-AR3 on this site.

http://www.ctslink.com

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Jeff, on March 8, 2010 at 7:38 am said:

NY JUDGE AWARDS $155,092.00 TO HOMEOWNER

Wells Fargo v Tyson

Decided on March 5, 2010

Supreme Court, Suffolk County

Wells Fargo, Plaintiff

against

Steven E. Tyson, SUSAN L. TYSON, LEITH ANN TYSON, LINDSAY TYSON and KYRA TYSON, Defendants

2007-28042

Richard Femano, Esq.

Fein Such & Crane L.L.P.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200

Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977

Steven E. Tyson

Defendant Pro Se

2064 Hendricks Avenue

Bellmore, New York 11710

and

3 Danville Court

Greenlawn, New York 11740

Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, J.

On September 7, 2007 Plaintiff commenced this action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage by filing its Notice of Pendency and Summons and Complaint with the Clerk of Suffolk County. The mortgage at issue was originally given in favor of New Century Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff’s assignor. Said mortgage was given to secure a note and constitutes a first lien upon premises known as 3 Danville Court, Greenlawn, Town of Huntington, New York. On November 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed an application with this Court seeking the appointment of a referee pursuant to RPAPL § 1321 but withdrew that application on December 5, 2007. Subsequently and on September 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second application for the same relief which was granted by Order of this Court dated November 4, 2009.

On January 14, 2010, upon the written request of Defendant STEVEN TYSON, this Court convened a conference in order to address certain serious issues which had arisen with respect to the property under foreclosure. Defendant took the time to appear in person while Plaintiff dispatched a per diem attorney who had absolutely no knowledge of the matter inasmuch as she was not regular counsel, was not provided with any information and hence no meaningful progress could occur. The Court was thereupon compelled to continue the conference to February 24, 2010, at which time the Defendant again appeared in person, on this occasion, with counsel of record for the Plaintiff, appearing as instructed by the Court.

The issue that brings these parties before the Court at this time concerns the entry, without permission, into Defendant’s dwelling house, by agents dispatched expressly for that purpose by Plaintiff. Plaintiff vociferously [*2]asserts that it has the absolute and unfettered right, under the express terms of the mortgage, to enter the premises at any time, for purposes of inspection and protection of its security interest and that it is free to do so without having to obtain Defendant’s consent for the same. Defendant counters that Plaintiff has wrongfully and without justification entered the dwelling on at least two separate occasions, causing damage to the premises and resulting in the loss of various items of personalty.

The following facts are not in dispute. Defendant and his wife are the owners, in fee simple absolute, of the premises known as 3 Danville Court, Greenlawn, New York, which are subject to a first lien in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has commenced an action to foreclose that lien, but there has been no devolution of title. Defendant’s personal financial situation is such that he can no longer maintain the high cost of utility service, resulting in the voluntary discontinuance of same. Defendant has previously winterized the plumbing and heating systems in the dwelling, has secured the building, maintains the exterior of the premises and retains virtually all of his personalty in the home including furniture, clothing and foodstuffs. Defendant has, previous to any entry on the premises herein, notified Plaintiff of the discontinuance of utility service and the winterization and securing of the dwelling. Defendant, although he is now residing elsewhere, has not abandoned the property, has not evinced any intent to abandon it and he visits the premises at least once weekly and sometimes with greater frequency. In addition, Defendant has arranged with a neighbor to keep a watchful eye on the property in his absence.

It is also undisputed that without any notice to Defendant, on or about November 13, 2009, Plaintiff dispatched an agent to the premises who thereupon changed the locks, thus barring Defendant from access to his property. When Defendant contacted Plaintiff relative to his wrongful ouster from the dwelling and demanded access, Plaintiff’s representative denied any knowledge of the entry and directed him to contact Fein Such & Crane, their counsel of record. Upon contacting them, Defendant was advised by someone named Matt that the entry into the home was standard procedure but a new key to the premises would be provided to him by Plaintiff, and Defendant expressly directed that they remain away from the property. In spite of Defendant’s requests Plaintiff caused the property to be entered yet again in late December or early January, at which time Defendant, having been telephoned by his neighbor, actually confronted these persons and urged them to immediately leave the premises. Defendant was able to discover that these persons obtained access by use of a key identical to the one that was previously provided by Plaintiff to Defendant . Defendant then secured the premises only to return later that day to find his garage open and the loss of various items of personal property, including an 8 kilowatt portable generator, a 14 foot aluminum sectional extension ladder, an aluminum step ladder, a convertible hand truck, an AquaBot pool cleaning device and other items, valued, according to documentation supplied by Defendant, at $ 4,892.00. Defendant thereafter contacted the Suffolk County Police Department and made a full report, which was docketed under central complaint no. 10-85647.

It is at this point that the accounts begin to diverge. Defendant offered sworn testimony as follows: he arrived at the premises on November 17, 2009 to discover that he had been “locked out,” so to speak; upon communicating with Plaintiff, he was redirected to their attorney who informed him that the property was “inspected and secured” due to its abandoned state; they dispatched a new key to him whereupon he discovered that his door lock cylinders had been drilled out; Plaintiff advised Defendant that he was in possession of the premises, that he had not abandoned the dwelling, that it was replete with his furniture and personal effects and he further instructed them to remain away from the property and to refrain from any entry into the dwelling; according to Defendant, Plaintiff’s representative apologized and stated that they would not enter the premises.

On February 24, 2010, Plaintiff produced a witness, one John Denza, who testified under oath, as follows: at the express direction of Plaintiff, his company (a private property inspection and preservation firm) caused the mortgaged premises to be inspected on November 3, 2009, allegedly found the front door to be wide open and the premises completely unsecured and so notified Plaintiff; Plaintiff faxed his company a work order on November 6, 2009 directing that the locks be changed and the dwelling be secured and winterized and further, that on November 13, 2009 his company caused the locks to be changed; he flatly denied that the locks had been drilled or otherwise forcibly removed, instead asserting that the front door to the premises was ajar and the existing lock cylinders were simply unscrewed and set aside. It was only after a rather probing examination by the Court that Mr. Denza conceded that he had no actual knowledge as to the matters about which he testified since he never visited the premises, relying instead upon another individual to whom he had delegated all responsibility. Placing things into simpler terms, the totality of his testimony consisted of nothing more than self-serving statements constituting [*3]inadmissible hearsay not subject to any exception, Latimer v. Burrows 163 NY 7, 57 NE 95 (1900), People v. Huertas 75 NY2d 487, 554 NYS2d 444 (1990). No testimony or evidence from a party with actual knowledge was proffered by Plaintiff.

The law is clear that it is both the province and the obligation of the trial court to assess and determine all matters of credibility, Matter of Liccione v. Miuchael A. 65 NY2d 826, 482 NE2d 917, 493 NYS2d 121 (1985), Morgan v. McCaffrey 14 AD3d 670, 789 NYS2d 274 (2nd Dept. 2005). It is for the trial court to apply and resolve issues of witness credibility. Here, Plaintiff has produced a witness who has absolutely no firsthand knowledge of the controversy, hence his testimony is devoid of all probative value and cannot be the subject of any serious consideration. On the other hand, upon assessment of Defendant’s demeanor and comportment, the Court is convinced that he is telling the truth and he is worthy of belief.

At the February 24, 2010 conference, Plaintiff’s counsel doggedly insisted that Plaintiff was wholly justified in taking the actions complained of by Defendant (entry upon the property), asserting that it had done so in accordance with the rights conferred upon it under the terms of the mortgage and therefore Plaintiff bore no liability whatsoever to Defendant. At no time was there any denial that Plaintiff had caused Defendant’s property to be entered on more than one occasion, counsel simply asserting that Plaintiff had the right to enter into and protect the property as it saw fit.

Though not specifically enumerated by counsel, the Court presumes that Plaintiff derives its claimed rights from Paragraph 7(b) of the mortgage herein, which states, in pertinent part, that “Lender, and others authorized by Lender may enter on and inspect the Property. They will do so in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times. If it has a reasonable purpose, Lender may inspect the inside of the home or other improvements on the Property. Before or at the time an inspection is made, Lender will give me notice stating a reasonable purpose for such interior inspection.” Though this contractual provision clearly requires some kind of notice to Defendant, there is no indication that any notice at all was provided to Defendant. Indeed Plaintiff does not even advance any claim that it has complied with this section but instead baldly asserts, through counsel and not through any person with actual knowledge, that it has what appears to be an unfettered right to enter the premises at any time.

Presumably, counsel for Plaintiff further relies upon the express provisions of Paragraph 9 of the mortgage which states, in pertinent part, that “If…I have abandoned the Property, then Lender may do and pay for whatever is reasonable and appropriate to protect Lender’s interest in the Property…Lender’s actions may include but are not limited to: (a) protecting and/or assessing the value of the Property; (b) securing and/or repairing the Property;…Lender can also enter the Property to make repairs, change locks…and take any other action to secure the Property.” This section presupposes that Defendant has abandoned the property. It logically follows then that abandonment would be a strict pre-requisite to Plaintiff’s right of entry upon and within the premises. Here, Defendant’s testimony plainly reveals that he has not abandoned the property in any manner whatsoever and therefore the required condition precedent to Plaintiff’s entry does not exist.

A fair reading of the contractual provisions set forth, supra makes it abundantly clear that any and all actions taken by Plaintiff must be reasonable and, where entry into improvements on the property s contemplated, then the same must be accomplished only upon notice to the other party. It is apparent that Plaintiff has breached its own contract by its failure to give notice and further, that its actions are not reasonable under the circumstances presented. This is especially true herein since the condition precedent to Plaintiff’s right of entry has not occurred.

Since the mortgage at issue is an instrument promulgated by the lender to the borrower and since the operative and binding terms thereof are not negotiable by the borrower, such an instrument is considered to be a contract of adhesion which is typically construed against the drafter thereof, Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance Company 100 NY2d 377 (2000). Under the circumstances presented to this Court, it is appropriate and fair that the terms of the instrument be construed in favor of Defendant.

In the matter before the Court, it is apparent that Plaintiff has perpetrated a trespass against the real property of Defendant, which is actionable and subjects Plaintiff to liability for damages. Distilled to its very essence, trespass is characterized by one’s intentional entry, with neither permission nor legal justification, upon the real property of another, Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead 46 AD3d 802, 849 NYS2d 79 (2nd Dept. 2007). The injury arising [*4]therefrom afflicts the owner’s right of exclusive possession of the property, Steinfeld v. Morris 258 AD 228, 16 NYS2d 155 (1st Dept. 1939), Kaplan v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook 12 AD3d 410, 784 NYS2d 586 (2nd Dept. 2004). The elements of a claim for trespass are intent coupled with the entry upon the land that is in possession of another. In order for trespass to lie, general intent is legally insufficient. Instead, there must be a specific intent, either to enter the land or to engage in some act whereby it is substantially certain that such entry onto the land will result therefrom, Phillips v. Sun Oil Co. 307 NY 328, 121 NE2d 249 (1954). The intent need not be illegal or unlawful, MacDonald v. Parama Inc. 15 AD2d 797, 224 NYS2d 854 (2nd Dept. 1962) but even one who enters the land upon the erroneous belief that he has the right to enter thereon will be held liable in trespass, Burger v. Singh 28 AD3d 695, 816 NYS2d 478 (2nd Dept. 2006). Trespass will lie against a party if entry upon the land was perpetrated by a third party, such as an independent contractor or other party, at the direction of the party to be charged, Gracey v. Van Kamp 299 AD2d 837, 750 NYS2d 400 (4th Dept. 2002). It follows then, both logically and legally, that the injured party must have been in possession, whether actual or constructive, at the time that the alleged wrongful entry occurred, Cirillo v. Wyker 51 AD2d 758, 379 NYS2d 505 (2nd Dept. 1976). In the matter that is presently sub judice, it is clear that a trespass has occurred on at least two separate occasions. It is apparent to the Court that this trespass was perpetrated against the property of Defendant and was done at the special instance and request and upon the affirmative directive of Plaintiff. Since the Court finds that liability for trespass lies against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant, the Court must now move forward to consider and to determine the damages, if any, that should properly be awarded to Defendant.

Actual damages may be recovered against the trespasser-tortfeasor though they are not a mandatory component of the claim, Amodeo v. Town of Marlborough 307 AD2d 507, 763 NYS2d 132 (3rd Dept. 2003). The rule applicable herein is that where the invasion is de minimis or the actual amount of damages is not capable of calculation nor is it readily quantifiable, then an award of nominal damages will be appropriate under the circumstances, Town of Guilderland v. Swanson 29 AD2d 717, 286 NYS2d 425 (3rd Dept. 1968), aff’d 24 NY2d 802, 249 NE2d 467, 301 NYS2d 622 (1969). Indeed, the damages that are recoverable by the injured party include those resulting from each and every consequence of the trespass, inclusive of both damage to property and injury to the person but only to the extent that such damages arose as a direct result of the wrongful intrusion by the trespasser-tortfeasor, Vandenburgh v. Truax 4 Denio 464, 1847 LEXIS 157 (Supreme Court Of Judicature Of New York, 1847).

Damages for injury to real property are typically calculated and awarded as the lesser amount of the decline in fair market value versus the cost of restoring the property to its state before the trespass, in other words, the injured party is entitled to recover the amount by which the property has been devalued, Hartshorn v. Chaddock 135 NY 116, 31 NE 997 (1892) Slavin v. State 152 NY 145, 46 NE 321 (1897). In this matter, there is no evidence that the value of the property has been diminished or otherwise adversely affected by the trespass, hence this method of calculation of damages is inapplicable.

In instances where the conduct complained of is willful, wanton or egregious, the Court is vested with the power to award exemplary damages. Exemplary damages may lie in a situation where it is necessary not only to effectuate punishment but also to deter the offending party from engaging in such conduct in the future. Such an award may also be made to address, as enunciated by the Court of Appeals in Home Insurance Co. v. American Home Products Corp. 75 NY2d 196, 550 NE2d 930, 551 NYS2d 481 (1989) “…gross misbehavior for the good of the public…on the ground of public policy”. Indeed, exemplary damages are intended to have a deterrent effect upon conduct which is unconscionable, egregious, deliberate and inequitable, I.H.P. Corp. v. 210 Central Park South Corp. 12 NY2d 329, 189 NE2d 812, 239 NYS2d 547 (1963).

Since an action to foreclose a mortgage is a suit in equity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investing Co. 274 NY 215, 8 NE2d 493 (1937), all of the rules of equity are fully applicable to the proceeding, including those regarding punitive or exemplary damages, I.H.P. Corp. v. 210 Central Park South Corp. , supra . Indeed this Court is persuaded that Judge Benjamin Cardozo was most assuredly correct in stating that “The whole body of principles, whether of law or of equity, bearing on the case, becomes the reservoir drawn upon by the court in enlightening its judgment” Susquehannah Steamship Co. Inc. v. A.O. Andersen & Co. Inc. 239 NY 289 at 294 (1925). In a suit in equity, the Court is empowered with jurisdiction to do that which ought to be done. While the Court notes that the formal distinctions between an action at law and a suit in equity have long since been abolished in New York (see CPLR 103, Field Code of 1848 §§ 2, 3, 4, 69), the Supreme Court is nevertheless vested with equity jurisdiction and [*5]the distinct rules governing equity are still very much applicable, Carroll v. Bullock 207 NY 567, 101 NE 438 (1913). Therefore, in a matter where the conduct of the party to be charged is either willful, wanton or reckless, the Court may invoke the principles of equity so as to make an award of exemplary damages.

Here, the Court is constrained to find that the conduct of Plaintiff in this matter was both willful and wanton, as evidenced by not one but two unauthorized entries into Defendant’s dwelling, occurring in complete derogation of Defendant’s right of possession. This conduct becomes even more glaring when consideration is given to the fact that Defendant affirmatively notified Plaintiff that he had secured the property and that it was not abandoned and still contained his personal property. Even so, Plaintiff maintains that it has entered the property under a color of right, which turns out to be illusory under the circumstances. In spite of these declarations, Plaintiff willfully took it upon itself to enter the property on more than one occasion, doing so unreasonably and without notice, in direct contravention of the terms of its mortgage promulgated to Defendant by its assignor. This is even more distressing when it is considered that Plaintiff breaches its obligations to Defendant under the mortgage, running roughshod over Defendant’s rights with a specious claim that it is acting to protect its rights and the property. In short, the conduct of Plaintiff was nothing short of oppressive and would best be described as heavy handed and egregious, to say the very least. Certainly, the trespass was willful and calculated and was not accidental in any way and the Court finds that Plaintiff did not act in good faith. Under these circumstances, an award of both actual and exemplary damages is necessary and appropriate in order to properly compensate Defendant for the losses he has sustained by way of Plaintiff’s shockingly wrongful conduct as well as to serve as an appropriate deterrent to any future outrageous, improper and unlawful deeds.

The Court finds the appropriate measure of damages for the trespass to Defendant’s possessory interest in the property to be in the amount of $ 200.00. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to recover $ 4,892.00 representing the value of the personalty lost as a direct result of Plaintiff’s actions in trespass. Finally, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to recover exemplary damages from Plaintiff in the amount of $ 150,000.00.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is, therefore

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Defendant STEVEN E. TYSON residing at 3 Danville Court, Greenlawn, New York 11740 recover judgment against the Plaintiff WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. with an office located at 3476 Stateview Boulevard, Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715 the sum of $ 200.00 for damages resulting from trespass, together with the sum of $ 4,892.00 for actual loss, together with the sum of $ 150,000.00 for exemplary damages, for a total recovery of $ 155,092.00 and that the Defendant have execution therefor. The Clerk of Suffolk County is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

This shall constitute the Decision, Judgment and Order of this Court.

Dated: March 5, 2010

Riverhead, New York

E N T E R:

______________________________________

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, J.S.C
VG Diaz, on March 8, 2010 at 5:28 am said:

Dan –

The Plaintiff in my case, WELLSFARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., GREENPOINT MTA TRUST 2006-AR3, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-AR3.

I found it in http://www.secinfo.com as STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENT II TRUST 2006-AR3.

Wells Fargo alleges to be the Trustee, but according to the 8K, 10K and prospectus reports, it is the Master Servicer. The Trustee is JPMorgan Chase. I am in Florida and I found Florida Supreme Case law that ruled Trustees lack standing.

Thanks for trying.
Dan Edstrom, on March 7, 2010 at 9:05 pm said:

VG Diaz,
Sorry that was wrong information. I found 2007-AR3, which is not what you were looking for. The only thing I could find that was close was this one:

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc/Series 2006-AR3

One of the originators for this “deal” was GreenPoint. The cut-off date was May 1, 2006 and the closing date was on or about May 31, 2006. This might be it.

The URL is X_http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.v1tn.htm

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on March 7, 2010 at 8:52 pm said:

VG Diaz,
Go to the following website and search for GreenPoint “deals” … it is listed there. I did not try to search on secinfo.

X_http://www.usbank.com/abs

Looks like it may have a lot of other information also – including the certificateholder statements and loan level details.

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy, on March 7, 2010 at 7:20 pm said:

Maher, I think the FDIC knows EXACTLY what is going on. They are the regulatory authority, right? They are the insurer of all these banks’ accounts, right? How can you say they’re “in a fog”? The fog is the smoke they are blowing up everyone’s asses who question them about the behavior of the member institutions. There are people at the Comptroller of the Currency who have absolutely NO CLUE how to answer a question when you ask. So much for “regulatory authority”.
VG Diaz, on March 7, 2010 at 4:43 pm said:

Correction: I am looking for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR3, but it does not show. It reflects AR4, AR5, AR6, AR7, and AR8, but AR3 does not appear at all.
VG Diaz, on March 7, 2010 at 4:40 pm said:

Does any one knows the reason for the so called “Trust”, the Plaintiff alleges to be a trustee does not appear in the http://www.secinfo.com website? Does that means that the trust does not exist? For example, I am looking for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2003-AR3, but it does not show. It reflects AR4, AR5, AR6, AR7, and AR8, but AR3 does not appear at all.

Can someone that has had experience this provide some sort of an explanation or answer?

Thanks.
Darryl-CA, on March 6, 2010 at 5:59 pm said:

WE THE PEOPLE

We the PEOPLE, the taxpayers invest our hard earned money in pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc., that are managed by Wall Street firms, who for a fee claim to provide us a return on our investments, by investing our money with Wall Street created Special Purpose Vehicles.

The Special Purpose Vehicles create Trusts which are managed by Trustees whose primary function are to hold in trust pools of fictitious mortgage loans which were previously created by the Special Purpose Vehicles and deemed by them to be Financial Assets.

The Financial Assets are highly rated by Credit Risk Rating Companies and assigned cash value equal to at least part of the money invested with the Special Purpose Vehicle so that in the future, Mortgage/Asset Backed Securities can be issued by the Trustee of the Trust to the Investors.

The issuance represents the Investor’s purchase of beneficial ownership interest in the Financial Asset.

The Special Purpose Vehicle and the Trustees enter into Pooling and Servicing agreements according to which the Trust will issue securities, then an Assignment and Assumption agreement according to which the Special Purpose Vehicle will purchase pools of authentic mortgage loans from a Master Servicer/ Aggregator.

Both agreements will be made subject to the terms of Seller Contracts which the Master Servicer previously entered into with individual Loan Originators, Lenders and Servicers.

Once the Trustee is in receipt of the proceeds from the issuance of the securities to the Investors. the Special Purpose Vehicle will use the proceeds to purchase the pool of authentic mortgage loans and acquire a security interest in the same.

We the PEOPLE are the creditors.
marcus, on March 5, 2010 at 2:21 pm said:

Giant bank, giant struggle: Foreclosure-assistance pipeline clogged for Bank of America

Source: Orlando Sentinel

NEW YORK – March 5, 2010 – Two years after swallowing the troubled mortgage giant Countrywide Financial, Bank of America trails other major U.S. lenders in resolving troubled home loans through short sales or modified loan terms.

The lender, one of the nation’s biggest banks, holds more than a million mortgages that are months behind on their payments – twice as many defaulting home loans as any other lender in the country. But it has given permanent mortgage modifications to only about 1 percent of those borrowers – one of the lowest rates among lenders nationally, according to a report released last month on the federal government’s Home Affordable Modification Program.

The issue is key in Metropolitan Orlando, which has the nation’s 11th-highest rate of mortgage modifications, with 18,000 homeowners in trial modifications and 2,468 in permanent ones, the report stated.

Loan modifications aren’t the only way of out a foreclosure. In January, about a quarter of all Orlando-area home closings were short sales, which occur when the lender allows a homeowner to sell the property for less than what’s owed on the mortgage.

But when it comes to short sales, Bank of America also lags other lenders, real-estate agents say, by taking too long to respond to offers.

“Realtors that I work with, if they hear Bank of America, they won’t even show the property,” said David Pruett, a broker for D.A. Pruett Properties.

The chairman of the Orlando Regional Realtor Association, Kathleen Gallagher McIver, said recently that Bank of America has the worst record for expediting short sales, “and there’s not anyone out there who will tell you otherwise.”

Bank of America acknowledges it needs help with its short sales.

“We clearly recognize the need to improve the short-sale process for both our customers and the real-estate professionals who are critical to a successful transaction,” said Jumana Bauwen, a bank spokeswoman.

The company said it has updated its training, enhanced its technology and established a short-sale team to help customers and real-estate agents navigate the process. It is piloting a short-sale program for owners who don’t qualify for new mortgage terms. And it has established a 24-hour phone line so agents, buyers and sellers can track the status of their short sales.

Bank of America is not alone in its struggles to deal with the avalanche of defaulting home mortgages, according to the February modification report by the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Wachovia Corp., now owned by Wells Fargo & Co., has approved permanently modified terms for fewer than 1 percent of its 86,461 defaulting mortgage customers. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. has a similar track record with the 127,521 mortgages headed toward foreclosure that it holds. Among the nation’s largest lenders, GMAC Mortgage Inc. had the best rate: 17 percent of its 65,751 defaulting home loans have been permanently modified.

Bank of America, which inherited much of its mortgage portfolio from Countrywide, says part of the problem is that many homeowners have not been diligent about submitting the documents needed to convert a trial mortgage modification into a permanent one.

Clermont resident George Simmons said he is now totally frustrated, having tried for more than a year to get Bank of America to convert a series of trial modifications into something permanent.

“Let’s see, the last correspondence I had from them said they didn’t have my income-tax return and my Social Security records,” Simmons said. “I sent it to them so many times. I’ve got my fax receipts and my certified postal receipts. They just keep asking for the same paperwork over and over and over again.”

Overall, about a fifth of Bank of America’s defaulting-mortgage customers have received temporary, three-month trial modifications. To address the huge volume of troubled loans needing permanent solutions, the company has hired about 15,000 staffers. Workers knock on doors and call homeowners with trial modifications at least 10 times before the temporary terms expire in three months.

At one point, Bauwen said, Bank of America was behind in getting homeowners into trial loan modifications. But it has ramped up those efforts, she said, and many of those trials will be converted into permanent modifications.

More importantly, Bauwen added, the company is not ramping up its foreclosure efforts unnecessarily.

marcus@foreclosureprose.com
marcus, on March 5, 2010 at 2:17 pm said:

Head of FDIC Supports Loan Write-Downs

The possibility of solving the underwater mortgage problem by writing down principal has been deemed politically impossible by the Obama administration, but some government officials see write-downs as the best long-term solution.

One of the most outspoken supporters of write-downs is Federal Deposit Insurance Chair Sheila Bair. This week, she called underwater mortgages a continuing problem and said the FDIC is “actively looking” at ways to encourage principal write-downs in the deals it does to facilitate acquisitions of failed banks.

Overall, Bair was positive about housing finance. “After three long and difficult years for housing and mortgage finance, I think we’re seeing some progress in stabilizing our housing markets,” she said.

Source: Reuters News, Karey Wutkowski (03/04/2010)
marcus, on March 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm said:

Obama Bank Policy Signals $1 Trillion in Writedowns

April 3 (Bloomberg) — U.S. regulators may force Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and at least a dozen of the nation’s biggest financial institutions to write down as much as $1 trillion in loans, twice what they’ve already recorded, based on Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. auction data compiled by Bloomberg.

Banks failing Federal Reserve evaluations of loans this month may be ordered to make sales worth as little as 32 cents on the dollar, according to FDIC data. That would be less than half of the 84 cents on the dollar the Treasury Department suggested was a possible purchase price. Some of the bank- insurance agency’s auctions brought 0.02 cent on the dollar.

Lower valuations would lead to new writedowns and capital injections from the $134.5 billion remaining in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

“The only way banks will sell is under duress,” the 66- year-old professor at Columbia University in New York said in a phone interview.

Asset sales are the latest step in President Barack Obama’s effort to restart the U.S. economy through the most costly rescue of the financial system in history. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s Legacy Loan Program and Legacy Securities Program together are targeted to start at $500 billion and may expand to $1 trillion.

Auctioning Assets

Geithner’s plan will purchase loans and be overseen by the FDIC, which will offer debt guarantees while the Treasury invests capital alongside investors.

The FDIC would auction assets after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision or the Fed signals that a bank is in danger of failing.

“If we thought that was the right decision to address their situation, we would certainly tell an institution to move in that direction,” said William Ruberry, an OTS spokesman in Washington.

Geithner’s plan to buy loans and securities “can be very useful,” Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan said in a Bloomberg Television interview today. “It’s one more arrow in the quiver to address problems with assets on banks’ balance sheets.”

Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said in an e-mail that the program is voluntary and the government expects banks will want to sell assets to clean their balance sheets and make it easier to raise capital from investors, he said.

Financing Help

“Past auctions cannot reliably predict asset prices in the Public Private Investment Program, as we are creating a new market that has not previously existed to help value these assets, and offering financing to help investors purchase them,” Baker said.

Setting up a facility to purchase distressed loans will allow the FDIC to put a bank into “a silent resolution,” said Joshua Rosner, a managing director at investment-research firm Graham Fisher & Co. in New York.

“This is a way to functionally wind down a bank as big as Citi without the world realizing that they’re essentially in resolution,” he said. “The real value of this is a tool to resolve a too-big-to-fail institution.”

The FDIC is considering allowing banks to share in future profits on loans sold to public-private partnerships to encourage healthier lenders to participate, according to Jim Wigand, the agency’s deputy director for resolutions and receiverships. The regulator is seeking comments through April 10 on the program, said spokesman David Barr.

Assets sold under the Legacy Loans Program may be worth an average of 56.3 cents on the dollar, based on the results of FDIC auctions at failed banks over the past 15 months.

‘Large Amounts’

Writedowns would total $1 trillion if the program buys $500 billion in loans at 32 cents on the dollar, the average for non- performing commercial loans in the FDIC sales.

Geithner said March 29 that some financial institutions will need “large amounts of assistance.” He’s trying to avoid bank nationalizations by wooing investors to purchase loans with taxpayer-guaranteed financing to protect them against loss. The U.S. move to clear away distressed assets contrasts with Japanese financial authorities’ reluctance to do so in a 1990s financial crisis, which led to a decade of economic stagnation.

“This is going to be our Yucca Mountain right here,” said Joseph Mason, an associate professor at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and former FDIC visiting scholar, referring to the proposed radioactive-waste storage site in Nevada.

Half-Life

“You can put it in a train car and ship it across the country. The half-life of this stuff is real long, but it has to burn off,” he said.

The FDIC’s average auction value of 56.3 cents on the dollar for residential and commercial loans is based on 312 sales worth $1.1 billion since Jan. 1, 2008, according to the FDIC. The average for 348 commercial loans for which borrowers stopped paying was 32 cents on the dollar. Auction prices ranged from 0.02 cent to 101.2 cents on the dollar, according to the FDIC.

In announcing its loan-sale program last week, the Treasury provided an example of a purchase price of 84 cents on the dollar, with taxpayers putting up 6 cents, investors 6 cents and the FDIC guaranteeing 72 cents in financing.

“Eighty-four cents is just laughable” because the market value for loans is much lower, said Barry Ritholtz, chief executive officer of New York-based FusionIQ, an independent research firm.

The U.S. is structuring the loan purchases to leave the government with most of the risk, while investors stand to gain most of any profit, economist Stiglitz said.

‘Almost No Upside’

“There’s almost no upside for the taxpayer,” he said. “The government is giving a 110 percent bailout.”

How much investors offer for assets is “going to be the key” determinant of Bank of America’s participation in the government’s two asset-purchase programs, CEO Kenneth Lewis said in a Bloomberg Television interview March 27.

“If there’s an issue with the program, it’s going to be trying to get banks to sell assets,” FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a speech the same day at the Isenberg School of Management of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

“If I have concern, it’s the pricing may not be where seller and buyer are willing to meet,” she said.

Any standoff between investors and banks over loan prices may scuttle Geithner’s plan to segregate non-performing assets and restart lending, said Bob Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist with Vineland, New Jersey-based Cumberland Advisors and a former Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank research director.

‘Really Bad Stuff’

“It’s hard to believe that the really bad stuff that’s causing all the problems are going to be offered for sale,” Eisenbeis said. “The institutions won’t want to sell them if they get a true price, because their capital would take too much of a hit.”

With preparations for auctions under way, U.S. banks are being put through so-called stress tests, which Geithner said last month are a comprehensive set of standards for the financial system’s most important lenders. The examinations of loans and their collateral and payment histories are scheduled to be completed by April 30.

Banks have almost $4.7 trillion of mortgages and $3 trillion of other loans that aren’t packaged into bonds, according to the Fed. The vast majority are carried at full value because they don’t need to be written down until they default, according to Daniel Alpert, managing director of New York-based investment bank Westwood Capital LLC.

“Just because it’s being held at full value doesn’t mean it’s not bad,” Alpert said.

Obama Effort

While regulators don’t intend to publish the details of their stress tests, the results will effectively become known once banks announce how much capital they need to raise. Regulators will then give lenders six months to obtain funds from investors or taxpayers as a last resort.

The tests are designed to mesh with Obama’s effort to remove banks’ distressed mortgage assets that have hampered lending to consumers and businesses. Officials aim to have the first loan purchases by private investors financed by the government within weeks of the conclusion of the stress tests, according to the Treasury.

Including TARP, the U.S. government and the Fed have spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion to combat the financial collapse and a recession that began in December 2007. The amount approaches the $14.2 trillion U.S. gross domestic product last year.

‘Constructive Plan’

Obama met with the CEOs of the nation’s 12 biggest banks on March 27 at the White House to enlist their support to thaw a 20-month freeze in bank lending.

Lenders undergoing stress tests include New York-based Citigroup, which has received three rounds of capital infusions valued at $60 billion, including $45 billion from TARP, according to Bloomberg data.

“The administration has put forth a constructive plan to address the critical issues facing the financial services industry, and we are committed to working together with the industry to help achieve the goals of the plan,” CEO Vikram Pandit said in a statement before meeting with Obama.

Citigroup spokesman Stephen Cohen declined to comment.

The U.S. tests also involve Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, which also received $45 billion from TARP. It bought Merrill Lynch & Co. — the largest underwriter of failed collateralized debt obligations, according to Standard & Poor’s — and home-lender Countrywide Financial Corp.

Bank of America spokesman Scott Silvestri declined to comment.

Option ARMs

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia Corp., the nation’s biggest provider of option adjustable-rate mortgages, for $15 billion. In doing so, it took responsibility for about $122 billion of option ARMs sold by the Charlotte bank.

Option ARM loans allow borrowers to defer part of their interest payments and add it to their principal. When housing collapsed, many holders of the mortgages were left owing more than the value of their homes.

Wachovia issued more than half its option ARMs in California, according to bank filings. Wells Fargo was already the biggest lender in the state.

“Wells Fargo supports any plan by the Treasury that helps financial institutions efficiently sell troubled assets while still providing an investment return to the U.S. taxpayer,” spokeswoman Janis Smith said in an e-mail.

Web Distribution

The ability to distribute loan information over the Internet will also support prices by expanding the number of buyers and allowing for sales as small as $100,000, said Stephen Emery, a managing director at New York-based Mission Capital Advisors, which brokered $3 billion of real-estate loan sales last year.

Terms offered under the Legacy Loans Program, including government-backed financing, will also help boost demand and selling prices by as much as 20 percent, he said.

“The leverage will allow buyers to bump their price a little bit,” Emery said. “But that still doesn’t mean that something that was worth 30 is now worth 60. What’s going to happen is now it’s worth 35 or 36 cents.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net;

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
PMBVA, on March 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm said:

I am learning more and more everyday with the help of this site. THANK YOU Neil!

Can anybody advise?

1.Could I still be liable for full debit of 947,000 on mortgage if the wrong party was named in my BK 7 discharge in 8./08. The (pretender lender) was identified as owner of the note and was granted Motion for Releif of Stay and showed proof ( albet false) to the the Bankruptcy Court?

What would be my recourse?

2. I am still in the home never reaffirmed debt and now am 12 months behind . Tried everything I could to get the bank to work with us but they said the loan was securitized and the best they could do was a payment plan that was way to high for me to agree to on reduced income. Since BK 7 dicharge I was able to make three lump sum payments to keep them from foreclosing trying to buy time. Bank started refusing payments in 3/09 and filed NOD in 4/09 in non-judicial state. Ten months later on 12/14/09 get notice from Foreclosure attorney saying Mers the beneficiary or successor beneficiary ( not the Pretender lender who told the court in my Bk7 that they were the owner) is starting foreclosure proceedings. It said Take Note the orginal note evidencing your indebtedness has been lost, misplaced, destroyed and is unavailable.. If you beleive you may be subject to a claim by another person or enity other than MERS to enforce the note, you may petition the Circut Cout of XXXXXX County for an order requireing the benieficiary to provide adequate protection against such actions.

So did my pretender lie to the Court when they showed them they had the note? Also MERS is not a lender or a holder of the note and a successor beneficery has not been identified so do we still wait to see if they make a move?

3. Sent servicer (pretender lender) QWR on 12/108/09 no responce as of 3/5/10 90 days later, but they just sent me notice they sold Servicing rights to Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. The new servicer statement shows no arrears just my normal monthly payment? So do we serve them with a QWR quickly and start the QWR time clock all over again?

4.I read on this blog if the loan is in default it is no longer a security . Is this a good or bad thng for a homeowner fighting foreclosure? To me it seems that in my case if the servicer reported the loan filed in BK 7 it would have triggered insurance pay out many times over to the trust since it was securitized. Due to the size of my loan it could have many investors. How do we find them all? If the servicer did not report my loan in default then they need to do some fast foot work to make up a paper trail at this point to the trust. I have never been notified it was sold or securitized nor has the county records office. The mortgage broker transfered loan to lender ( who we now know is servicer and pretender lender) and they now have sold the servicing rights twice in the last year since my BK 7 and default. The motion for Releif of Stay shows one assingment no recourse from broker to Lender and then a another assignment stamp showing Pay to the order of ________(blank) without recourse to Name of Bank and then signature of bank officer. Neither are dated.

Is it likley the loan has been charged off by now for the servicer and or the trust?

Am I protected against collection from a different servicer for a home that was filed and discharged in BK 7. already?

I would assume the BK 7 filing triggered the insurance to the pretender lender or other parites of what ever trust it is in.

If these folks are all not the true parties I feel like all my payments since inception need to go to the rightful owner of my loan not to a pretender lender!

I have an Audit with many TILA,RESPA and HOPEA violations along with proof servicer continued to report me late for 1 year after Bk 7 discharge a violation of the Fair Credit Act.

I owe the money and want to keep and pay my payments but the more I learn the madder I get.! I am not a deadbeat nor do I walk away from my responsibilities . Bad things happen to good people and now throught this site and others I am learning I have been paying the wrong person to the tune of $ 88,000!

Now I must pay an attorney big bucks to unravel this mess I think that is a better investment then paying one more dime to a pretender lender who is trying to steal my home. . Let the chips fall where they may. After all I have gone through BK-7 how much worse can it get.

Still so confused but holding on…
rob, on March 5, 2010 at 11:39 am said:

This is straight from the Texas AG’s office and may be of help

REMEDIES

There are several civil and criminal remedies available when someone files a bogus lien. Under Chapter 12 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a claim for civil damages may be filed by the person harmed by the fraudulent lien. The suit may be filed in any district court in the county where the lien was filed or where real property subject to the lien is located. The victim may file suit on his or her own behalf, with or without an attorney. In the case of a government employee, the attorney for the employee’s agency may file suit. The statute of limitations on a suit for damages is four years.

In addition, Penal Code Section 37.101 makes it an offense to knowingly file a UCC financing statement that is forged, groundless or contains a material false statement. This offense is a Class A misdemeanor or 3rd degree felony, depending on the offender’s prior criminal history and whether intent to defraud can be shown. Charges under this section may be filed by the appropriate county or district attorney at the request of the victim.

Finally, under Penal Code Section 36.06, it is a 3rd degree felony to file a fraudulent financing statement against a public servant in retaliation for performance of their duties. This offense is punishable by two to ten years incarceration and up to a $10,000 fine.

REMOVAL

Fraudulent liens can be removed by filing a Motion for Judicial Review of Documentation or Instrument Purporting to Create a Lien or Claim with the appropriate district court. This can be done using standard forms given in Sections 51.902 and 51.903 of the Texas Government Code. You can access these forms in the Texas Statutes section of the Legislature’s website, at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us.

To remove a lien, you will need to file: 1) the Motion for Judicial Review; and 2) an affidavit that describes any business relationship between yourself and the purported lien holder/secured party and that denies participation in any contract, agreement or instrument that would create a debt between you and the person who filed the lien. The documents that claim to create a lien should be attached to the affidavit. You are not required to give notice to the alleged “secured party.”

After reviewing the documents filed by the alleged lien holder, the court may sign an order declaring that they in fact do not create a valid lien or debt under state or federal law. You should request certified copies of the motion, affidavit and order from the district clerk and file them with the UCC filings section of the Secretary of State’s Office. If the bogus lien was also filed in the county clerk’s real property records, certified copies of the motion, affidavit and order must be filed there as well. There is a four-year statute of limitations on Motions for Judicial Review.
Linda, on March 5, 2010 at 7:21 am said:

Mike, I’m in Sarasota–there is a group forming here to assist Pro Se’s learn and help each other (we also go to each other’s hearings for support)–several attorneys are involved–if interested, call me 941 377-9930. Good Luck!
mike, on March 3, 2010 at 11:53 am said:

Hello Everybody! Thanks for the good work you do. I need some advice. I’m in Manatee County, FL (Bradenton) and fighting One West (Indy Mac).

Their attorney e-filed a “notice of non-residential bond” on 1/29/10 but the document says it was electronically filed on 11/2/09 (Oct. was scratched out). The same problem w/the dates appears on the “Filing of Original Assignment of Mortgage” (which doesn’t show anything, no assignment, no info).

1) How can they file on 1/29/10 but say they electronically filed 11/2/09?!?!

2) How come the filing of the original assignment doesn’t show anything?

3) How long do they have to get in all of their info after the 1/19/10 “Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery”?

4) The Court Docket says the court can’t approve the res non-cost bond due to “lack of funds”. Can I use this to get the case kicked out?

Thank you a MILLION times over for your help. I really need it. ~mike
help, on March 3, 2010 at 8:14 am said:

Attorney Fees Foreclosure-

I have two lawsuits filed against the pretend lender, they are claiming be due attorney fees. IF the loan was sold and they are no longer the note holder they inturn are not due attorney fees, per the loan docs. I would think.

If these lenders realize they can not sock the attorney fees on to borrowers debt or deficiency judgments they might settle faster.

Any thoughts?

Any motion to strike attorney fees floating around.
Deontos, on March 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm said:

BK Judges in Mass. send a Message to the good people at Goldman et al.

MASSACHUSETTS BANKRUPTCY COURT: NEW RULE FOR MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS

by Nicholas Ortiz, Boston Bankruptcy Attorney on March 2, 2010 · Posted in *Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure

Today, the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court issued a new, emergency standing order pertaining to mortgage modifications. THE ORDER VOIDS PROVISIONS IN PROPOSED LOAN MODIFICATIONS STATING THAT THE AUTOMATIC STAY WILL BE LIFTED OR WAIVED AFTER DEFAULT ON THE LOAN MODIFICATION PAYMENTS.
http://www.mab.uscourts.gov/pdfdocuments/so10_02.pdf

The order is an artful one: it will not stop mortgage companies from submitting mortgage modifications containing the forbidden terms, nor stop the Court from approving them. Instead, the terms pertaining to the automatic stay will just be void and unenforceable absent specific approval from the Court, which the Court appears to have no intention of giving.
Abby in CA, on March 2, 2010 at 9:13 am said:

Link to MERS forms – good info – you may want to ask for the signed versions of these docs in your pro se discovery or have your attorney do it.

http://www.mersinc.org/MersProducts/forms.aspx?mpid=1
Dan Edstrom, on March 1, 2010 at 5:54 pm said:

Old news but worth a look again:

Bear Stearns and EMC Mortgage to Pay $28 Million to Settle FTC Charges of Unlawful Mortgage Servicing and Debt Collection Practices

The Bear Stearns Companies, LLC and its subsidiary, EMC Mortgage Corporation, have agreed to pay $28 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they engaged in unlawful practices in servicing consumers’ home mortgage loans. The companies allegedly misrepresented the amounts borrowers owed, charged unauthorized fees, such as late fees, property inspection fees, and loan modification fees, and engaged in unlawful and abusive collection practices. Under the proposed settlement they will stop the alleged illegal practices and institute a data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of consumers’ loan information.

“Like other companies that send a bill, mortgage servicers must make sure that the amount they say is due really is the amount due,” said Lydia B. Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Consumers have the right to expect accuracy from the company that collects their mortgage payments.”

As stated in the FTC’s complaint, Bear Stearns and EMC have played a prominent role in the secondary market for residential mortgage loans. During the explosive growth of the mortgage industry in recent years, they acquired and securitized loans at a rapid pace, but they allegedly paid inadequate attention to the integrity of consumers’ loan information and to sound servicing practices. As a result, in servicing consumers’ loans, they neglected to obtain timely and accurate information on consumers’ loans, made inaccurate claims to consumers, and engaged in unlawful collection and servicing practices. These practices occurred prior to JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s acquisition of Bear Stearns, which became effective on May 30, 2008.

According to the complaint, EMC is the mortgage servicer for many of the loans Bear Stearns and EMC acquired. Many of these loans are subprime or “Alt-A” (less than prime) loans, including nontraditional mortgages such as pay option adjustable rate mortgages (“pick-a-payment” loans), interest-only mortgages, negative amortization loans, and loans made with little or no income or asset documentation. EMC’s loan servicing portfolio has grown significantly in recent years; as of September 2007, it serviced more than 475,000 mortgage loans with a total unpaid balance of about $80 billion.

THE FTC COMPLAINT

The complaint charges Bear Stearns and EMC with violating the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Truth in Lending Act’s (TILA) Regulation Z.

FTC Act Violations: The defendants are charged with unfair and deceptive loan servicing practices in violation of the FTC Act. They allegedly misrepresented the amounts consumers owed; assessed and collected unauthorized fees, such as late fees, property inspection fees, and loan modification fees; and misrepresented that they possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis for their representations about consumers’ loans.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations: The defendants allegedly violated several provisions of the FDCPA in collecting loans that were in default when they obtained them. They also allegedly made harassing collection calls; falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of consumers’ debts; and failed to communicate that debts were disputed. In addition, they allegedly used false representations or deceptive means to collect, and failed to send consumers a validation notice containing the amount of the debt and the consumer’s right to dispute the debt and obtain verification of the debt.

Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations: The FTC alleges that the defendants furnished information about consumers’ payment status to credit reporting agencies (CRAs). When consumers informed the defendants that they disputed the completeness or accuracy of the reported information, the defendants failed to report the dispute to the CRAs as required by the FCRA.

Truth in Lending Act’s Regulation Z Violations: The complaint also states that the defendants charged borrowers a loan modification fee, typically $500, and automatically added the fee to the modified loan’s principal balance. In doing so, the defendants failed to provide the borrowers with required TILA disclosures.

THE SETTLEMENT

The proposed settlement requires Bear Stearns and EMC to pay $28 million to redress consumers who have been injured by the illegal practices alleged in the complaint. In addition, the settlement bars the defendants from future law violations and imposes new restrictions and requirements on their business practices. Specifically, the settlement:

bars the defendants from misrepresenting amounts due and any other loan terms;
requires them to possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence to support claims made to consumers about their loans;
bars them from charging unauthorized fees, and places specific limits on property inspection fees even if they are authorized by the contract;
prohibits them from initiating a foreclosure action, or charging any foreclosure fees, unless they have reviewed all available records to verify that the consumer is in material default, confirmed that the defendants have not subjected the consumer to any illegal practices, and investigated and resolved any consumer disputes; and
prohibits the defendants from violating the FDCPA, FCRA, and TILA.
The proposed settlement further requires Bear Stearns and EMC to establish and maintain a comprehensive data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of data and other information that they obtain about consumers’ loan accounts, before servicing those accounts. The defendants must obtain an assessment from a qualified, independent, third-party professional within six months and then every two years, for the next eight years, to assure that their data integrity program meets the standards of the order.

The proposed settlement also contains record-keeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with the order.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final order was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Including the case announced today, the Commission has brought 23 actions in the past decade alleging deceptive or unfair practices by mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers. Several of these landmark cases have resulted in large monetary judgments that have returned more than $320 million to consumers.

CONSUMER HOTLINE: If the court approves the settlement, consumers who are eligible for redress will be contacted by mail. The Commission’s consumer hotline regarding the settlement is 1-877-787-3941. Consumers who have changed their address recently may provide updated contact information by calling the hotline. Consumers also can find information about the settlement on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674
STAFF CONTACT:
Lucy Morris,
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3224
(FTC File No.0623031)
(EMC)

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Jeff, on February 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm said:

NY FORECLOSURE MILL STEVEN J. BAUM

FINALLY GETTING SOME HEAT!!!!

HERE IS THE LINK. TO LONG TO POST ARTICLE

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/liening_on_brXWsORtBjnxgpXskq8x5N#ixzz0gqgQfkpT
Abby in CA, on February 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm said:

Check out

It’s Time for Swaps to Lose Their Swagger

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: February 27, 2010

article in New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/business/economy/28gret.html
marcus, on February 26, 2010 at 7:03 pm said:

Homeowners seek class-action status in suits against banks

© 2010 The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.),

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Feb. 26, 2010 – More frustrated homeowners turned to federal court this week for help with their mortgages, saying Bank of America and Wells Fargo failed to provide promised payment modifications.

The two cases, filed Tuesday in Massachusetts, seek class-action status.

Three specific families are identified, one with a loan serviced by Bank of America and two by Wells Fargo – the nation’s two largest mortgage servicers. They were granted trial modifications, according to court documents, but haven’t received long-term modifications despite having submitted all required documents and made timely payments for more than three months.

The claims are simple, the two filings say: “When a large financial institution promises to modify an eligible loan to prevent foreclosure, homeowners who live up to their end of the bargain expect that promise to be kept.”

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) is the main federal plan for reducing mortgage payments, part of a $75 billion plan to stem the national foreclosure crisis. The program calls for a three-month trial period, intended to give time for the homeowner to demonstrate an ability to keep up with the lower payments. However, there are growing reports of homeowners in trial plans ultimately being rejected for modifications despite making their trial payments or even being foreclosed on during the process.

The modification process has generated so many complaints that regulators and lawmakers are pressuring lenders to improve.

The Massachusetts cases, which are not open to borrowers in other states, say homeowners are “living in limbo” and spending scarce resources on payments that might ultimately not save their homes.

“Some are in fact continuing to receive foreclosure notices,” said Stuart Rossman, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center in Boston, which brought the lawsuit, along with a law firm and another advocacy group.

Bank of America said it couldn’t comment on the lawsuit because it hadn’t yet been served. The Charlotte bank has said its “extraordinary measures” include sending workers to borrowers’ homes to help them fulfill requirements for long-term modifications.

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said the company “will respond to the lawsuit once we have a chance to review it.”

The San Francisco bank, which bought Wachovia late in 2008, has been “diligently working to convert – from trial to completed modifications – customers who meet the HAMP guidelines,” Debora Blume said in an e-mail. “Unfortunately, not all customers who enter a HAMP trial do ultimately qualify for the program. In these instances, we work to determine if another foreclosure prevention option is available to them.”

Earlier this month, 10 Ohio homeowners filed a civil case in federal court against Bank of America, also saying the bank broke promises to modify their payments.

The circumstances differ, in that the Ohio homeowners say they were promised modifications during a federally sponsored event last year. As of the filing date, they hadn’t received documents or had their payments reduced, meaning they are not as far along in the process as the Massachusetts families.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on February 25, 2010 at 1:06 pm said:

Pearl
I have evidence that my loan originator sold my loan to 3 different entities almost simultaneously. Another guy showed me where his home loan was put into over 30 securities trusts.
HELP, on February 25, 2010 at 7:21 am said:

1) Sued the bank to stop nonjudicial foreclosure.

2) While loan is in defualt and in a lawsuit, bank sells my loan to a hedge fund

4) Asked for the info about this sale in admissions

5) HOW DO I WIN MY LAWSUIT with thisinfo. Just want to sell the home and move past? Have offers.
Foreclosure Fraud, on February 25, 2010 at 6:35 am said:

Here we go…

Class Action Against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank National Association, Lender Processing Services, Inc. and DOCX, LLC

4closureFraud
ed, on February 25, 2010 at 5:11 am said:

VERY IMPORTANT

Deposition of document robo signer

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/02/widespread-assignmentnotaryforeclosure-fraud-deposition-of-david-stern-employee-cheryl-sammons/
Pearl, on February 24, 2010 at 7:33 pm said:

I think you guys are going to like this.

This morning I was helping a friend collect information off of the SEC website in order to help fight his Indymac foreclosure. Look what I found.

Click on this link and go to the following SEC website,
http://www.secinfo.com/drjtj.v4V7.htm#5rj , then scroll down to page 36. Look at the line that says “Georgia.” There are 3 loans valued at an aggregate total of $1,241,160.78. “One” of those three loans is supposedly my friend’s loan. The average principal balance of the “three” loans is reported as $413,720.26

According to the Notice Of Foreclosure, the original amt of my friend’s mortgage loan was $412,500. The first payment on said loan was approximately $1,220. ($413,720.)

$412,500 + $1,220 = $413,720. (x3) = $1,241,160.

Hmmm…you don’t suppose that Indymac only made 1 mortgage loan, tripled the amount, and reported to the SEC that it had made 3 loans, do you?

Nah….that would be fraud!
Abby in CA, on February 23, 2010 at 12:50 pm said:

Secret AIG Document Shows Goldman Sachs Minted Most Toxic CDOs
by Richard Teitelbaum

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) — When a congressional panel convened a hearing on the government rescue of American International Group Inc. in January, the public scolding of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner got the most attention.

Lawmakers said the former head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank had presided over a backdoor bailout of Wall Street firms and a coverup. Geithner countered that he had acted properly to avert the collapse of the financial system.

A potentially more important development slipped by with less notice, Bloomberg Markets reports in its April issue. Representative Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought $62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG.

These were the deals that pushed the insurer to the brink of insolvency — and were eventually paid in full at taxpayer expense. The New York Fed, which secretly engineered the bailout, prevented the full publication of the document for more than a year, even when AIG wanted it released.

That lack of disclosure shows how the government has obstructed a proper accounting of what went wrong in the financial crisis, author and former investment banker William Cohan says. “This secrecy is one more example of how the whole bailout has been done in such a slithering manner,” says Cohan, who wrote “House of Cards” (Doubleday, 2009), about the unraveling of Bear Stearns Cos. “There’s been no accountability.”

CDOs Identified

The document Issa made public cuts to the heart of the controversy over the September 2008 AIG rescue by identifying specific securities, known as collateralized-debt obligations, that had been insured with the company. The banks holding the credit-default swaps, a type of derivative, collected collateral as the insurer was downgraded and the CDOs tumbled in value.

The public can now see for the first time how poorly the securities performed, with losses exceeding 75 percent of their notional value in some cases. Compounding this, the document and Bloomberg data demonstrate that the banks that bought the swaps from AIG are mostly the same firms that underwrote the CDOs in the first place.

The banks should have to explain how they managed to buy protection from AIG primarily on securities that fell so sharply in value, says Daniel Calacci, a former swaps trader and marketer who’s now a structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases, banks also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans bundled into the CDOs, he says.

‘Too Uncanny’

“It’s almost too uncanny,” Calacci says. “If these banks had insight into the underlying loans because they had relationships with banks, originators or servicers, that’s at the least unethical.”

The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A, and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured — more than any other investment bank. Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created $13.2 billion of the CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion.

These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so much under wraps, Professor James Cox of Duke University School of Law says: “They may have been trying to shield Goldman — for Goldman’s sake or out of macro concerns that another investment bank would be at risk.”

Poor Performers

Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment.

Schedule A also makes possible a more complete examination of why AIG collapsed. Joseph Cassano, the former president of the AIG Financial Products unit that sold the swaps, said on a December 2007 conference call that his firm pulled back from selling swaps on U.S. subprime residential CDOs in late 2005. The list shows that the $21.2 billion in CDOs minted after 2005, mostly based on prime and commercial mortgages, performed as badly as or worse than the earlier subprime vintages.

A lawyer for Cassano declined to comment.

As details of the coverup emerge, so does anger at the perceived conflicts. Philip Angelides, chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, at a hearing held by his panel on Jan. 13, questioned how banks could underwrite poisonous securities and then bet against them. “It sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars,” he said.

‘Part of the Coverup’

Janet Tavakoli, founder of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc., a Chicago-based consulting firm, says the New York Fed’s secrecy has helped hide who’s responsible for the worst of the disaster. “The suppression of the details in the list of counterparties was part of the coverup,” she says.

E-mails between Fed and AIG officials that Issa released in January show that the efforts to keep Schedule A under wraps came from the New York Fed. Revelation of the messages contributed to the heated atmosphere at the House hearing.

“What date did you know there was a coverup?” Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray of California demanded of Geithner. Lawmakers used the word coverup more than a dozen times as they peppered Geithner with questions.

Geithner said that he wasn’t involved in matters of disclosure and that his former colleagues did the best they could. In a Jan. 19 statement, the New York Fed said, “AIG at all times remained responsible for complying with its disclosure requirements under the securities laws.”

The government has committed more than $182 billion to AIG and owns almost 80 percent of the company.

Document Withheld

In late November 2008, the insurer was planning to include Schedule A in a regulatory filing — until a lawyer for the Fed said it wasn’t necessary, according to the e-mails. The document was an attachment to the agreement between AIG and Maiden Lane III, the fund that the Fed established in November 2008 to hold the CDOs after the swap contracts were settled.

AIG paid its counterparties — the banks — the full value of the contracts, after accounting for any collateral that had been posted, and took the devalued CDOs in exchange. As requested by the New York Fed, AIG kept the bank names out of the Dec. 24 filing and edited out a sentence that said they got full payment.

The New York Fed’s January 2010 statement said the sentence was deleted because AIG technically paid slightly less than 100 cents on the dollar.

Paid in Full

Before the New York Fed ordered AIG to pay the banks in full, the company was trying to negotiate to pay off the credit- default swaps at a discount or “haircut.”

By March 2009, responding to a request from Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, AIG released the names of the counterparty banks. In a filing later that month, AIG included Schedule A, showing bank names while withholding all identification of the underlying CDOs and the amounts of collateral each bank had collected. The document had more than 800 redactions.

In May 2009, AIG again filed Schedule A, this time with about 400 redactions. It revealed that Paris-based Societe Generale got the biggest payout from AIG, or $16.5 billion, followed by Goldman Sachs, which got $14 billion, and then Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch. It still kept secret the CDOs’ identification and information that would show performance.

‘Right to Know’

“This is something that belongs in the public domain because it was done with public money,” Issa says. “The public has the right to know what was done with their money and who benefited from it.” Now, thanks to Issa, the list is out, and specific information about AIG’s unraveling can be learned from it.

At the Jan. 27 hearing, the New York Fed was still arguing that the contents of Schedule A shouldn’t be fully disclosed. Thomas Baxter, the New York Fed’s general counsel, testified that divulging the names of the CDOs could erode their value: “We will be hurt because traders in the market will know what we’re holding.”

Tavakoli calls that wrong. With many CDOs, providing more information to the market will give the manager a greater chance of fetching a realistic price, she says.

Jack Gutt, a spokesman for the New York Fed, declined to comment, as did AIG’s Mark Herr.

Bad to Worse

Tavakoli also says that the poor performance of the underlying securities (which are actually specific slices or tranches of CDOs) shows they were toxic in the first place and were probably replenished with bundles of mortgages that were particularly troubled. Managers who oversee CDOs after they are created have discretion in choosing the mortgage bonds used to replenish them.

“The original CDO deals were bad enough,” Tavakoli says. “For some that allow reinvesting or substitution, any reasonable professional would ask why these assets were being traded into the portfolio. The Schedule A shows that we should be investigating these deals.”

Among the CDOs on Schedule A with notional values of more than $1 billion, the worst performer was a tranche identified as Davis Square Funding Ltd.’s DVSQ 2006-6A CP. It was held by Societe Generale, underwritten by Goldman Sachs and managed by TCW Group Inc., a Los Angeles-based unit of SocGen, according to Bloomberg data. It lost 77.7 percent of its value — though it isn’t in default and continues to pay.

SocGen spokesman James Galvin and TCW spokeswoman Erin Freeman declined to comment.

Documentation Needed

Ed Grebeck, CEO of Tempus Advisors, a global debt market strategy firm in Stamford, Connecticut, agrees that more digging is necessary. “You need all the documentation and more than that, all the e-mails,” he says. “That would allow us to understand what went wrong and how to fix it going forward.”

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who delivered a report on the AIG bailout in November, says he’s not finished. He has begun a probe of why his office wasn’t provided all of the 250,000 pages of documents, including e-mails and phone logs, that Issa’s committee received from the New York Fed.

Schedule A provides some answers — and raises questions that need to be tackled to avoid the next expensive bailout.

To contact the reporter on this story: Richard Teitelbaum in New York at rteitelbaum1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: February 23, 2010 00:01 EST
Rik, on February 23, 2010 at 10:02 am said:

Hi All,

My mortgage was originally through MERS, and was re-worked with a VA streamline to Wells Fargo. If MERS did all of the original paperwork, does this mean that the current mortgage can be invalidated due to the MERS handling?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Rik
angry & and not taking it, on February 22, 2010 at 8:41 pm said:

abby ….i think this is the link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/elizabeth-warren-its-bank_n_469939.html
Abby in CA, on February 20, 2010 at 3:38 pm said:

Watch Elizabeth Warren interview with Bill Maher

http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/container/420/451/decor/players/flow
player_3/flowplayer-3.0.3.swf
marcus, on February 20, 2010 at 1:38 pm said:

Allan,
One important correction. Bob Hurt is NOT an attorney.
He is currently studying law but not licensed to practice law.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on February 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm said:

Facing Forcelosure, Man Screws Bank by Bulldozing Home
Source: alternet.org

This one’s for you, Mr. Thill …

Like many people, Terry Hoskins has had troubles with his bank. But his solution to foreclosure might be unique.

Hoskins said he’s been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home.

“When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn’t going to stand for that, so I took it down,” Hoskins said.

Hoskins said the Internal Revenue Service placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property on state Route 125 after his brother, a one-time business partner, sued him.

The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.

Hoskins said he’d gotten a $170,000 offer from someone to pay off the house, but the bank refused, saying they could get more from selling it in foreclosure.

Hoskins told News 5’s Courtis Fuller that he issued the bank an ultimatum. “I’ll tear it down before I let you take it,” Hoskins told them.

And that’s exactly what Hoskins did…

“As far as what the bank is going to get, I plan on giving them back what was on this hill exactly (as) it was,” Hoskins said. “I brought it out of the ground and I plan on putting it back in the ground.”

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
bt, on February 19, 2010 at 1:30 pm said:

SMOKING GUN OR NOT?

1. Loan funded in 2006
2. Defaulted in Dec 2008
3. Sued to stop foreclosure in July 2009
4. LOAN SOLD- November 2009 (loan sold while in defualt and in the middle of my lawsuit)

Is this a smoking gun that will help bring the bank, now servicer to the table to negotiate, since they sold the loan while in default and in the middle of a lawsuit? any thoughts?
Deontos, on February 18, 2010 at 8:54 pm said:

No Joe.
No, I don’t agree with your actions.
No, I don’t agree with everything that you said.
But I do agree with TRUTH.
So I read IT for that.

His LAST WORDS:

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)
goliath, on February 17, 2010 at 5:32 pm said:

Thanks Maureen. I have seen that and been in contact with him but he seems to not want to release any info. I am still trying. Thanks!!!
Maureen McGrath, on February 16, 2010 at 9:53 pm said:

Goliath:

Re: Indymac, OneWest, Deutsche, Roger Stotts, Erica Johnson-Seck, to include Seck’s depo.

Check this out: xhttp://www.youtube.com/user/DinSFLA#p/u/0/LoSPTjd_PXM

Courtesy of the MSFraud site.
marcus, on February 16, 2010 at 9:03 pm said:

Tonight Frontline program on PBS was very interesting. It delves into the genesis of the financial crisis we’re now facing.
One woman saw it coming, but she was ignored in Washington and Wall Street.
The title of the piece is “The Warning”. It can be viewed online at frontline.org.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
goliath, on February 16, 2010 at 8:15 pm said:

If anyone has any evidence against Indymac, OneWest, Deutsche, Roger Stotts, Erica Johnson-Seck, to include Seck’s depo and depo responses I would very much appreciate it if you could share. I have been trying to acquire the depo and no one seems to respond to their posting of the document and its not download enabled. Many like to talk about their cases but I find it hard to get some to share the dirt they have gathered. After all, that is what this and many other sites are for is to collectively gather, build and bury these @#$%^& that are raping us of our rights, our homes and civil liberties. Power of the people only works if the people share and spread the power.

Any and all info would be very much appreciated. You can send to death2banks@gmail.com
L.Fitzgerald, on February 16, 2010 at 3:35 am said:

This is a very important decision for us the Floridian foreclosure victims . The post was copied from Matt Weidner Blog ..
Read on :

1st version
A Stunning Second District Court of Appeals (Florida) Foreclosure Reversal! (The Courts Are Finally Pushing Back Against Lender/Attorney Lies!)February 14th, 2010 · Foreclosure
BAC FUNDING CONSORTIUM V. US BANK- The Liar Lender Game is Up!
Remember that case name because this case, which was released by the Florida Second District Court of Appeals on February 12, 2010, represents a stunning change in the legal landscape governing foreclosures. The full text of the opinion can be found here. This case is an absolute must read for any attorney practicing law, any homeowner in foreclosure and respectfully, any judge who presides over foreclosure cases.
As I’ve been screaming about on this blog, and as I plead in virtually all my foreclosure cases, a lender must present some kind of evidence to show they have any rights whatsoever to foreclose on a home. In the vast majority of cases, Plaintiff’s attorneys file pathetic foreclosure lawsuits with attached copies of notes and mortgages, but no documents that show the Plaintiff has any rights whatsoever to file the foreclosure case. The standard response from Plaintiffs attorneys has been, “Screw off, we say we have the right to take the home and we’re taking the home.” Unfortunately in far too many cases, and despite case law to the contrary, judges have often given in to these unsound positions, just as the trial court did in this case. This brand new opinion should help to eliminate these arguments because the appellate court reversed the trial court finding:
U.S. Bank’s complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing and the exhibit does not show that U.S. Bank has standing to foreclose the mortgage, U.S. Bank did not establish its entitlement to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law.
But wait, there’s more oh so much more. When challenged, a bank will often come to court with the original note. Judges have been quite impressed with this and have responded….”Plaintiff has the original note, they must be entitled to foreclose”…..not so fast…
Moreover, while U.S. Bank subsequently filed the original note, the note did not identify U.S. Bank as the lender or holder. U.S. Bank also did not attach an assignment or any other evidence to establish that it had purchased the note and mortgage. Further, it did not file any supporting affidavits or deposition testimony to establish that it owns and holds the note and mortgage. Accordingly, the documents before the trial court at the summary judgment hearing did not establish U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and thus, at this point, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor. And that part of the opinion really is earth shattering because even if the lender comes marching into court with the original note, the appellate court is now saying that’s not enough. (I can hear plaintiff law firms across the state fabricating the evidence they need to comply with this new ruling right now.) The real irony of this opinion is that the stunning reversal did not come because a homeowner had a talented foreclosure defense attorney defending the case….no, the parties involved in this appeal were two banks fighting over the loans they had on the home…..how’s that for ironic justice.
It doesn’t matter where it came from, the opinion represents a watershed moment in foreclosure defense and is a tremendous victory for justice and the integrity of the court
2nd Version
BAC FUNDING- The End of Summary Judgment For Foreclosures In Florida?
February 15th, 2010 · Foreclosure
Every so often, the appellate courts issue opinions that dramatically change the legal landscape. BAC Funding v. US Bank is just such an opinion, because no longer will banks and lenders get a free shot at foreclosure on concocted evidence and mere possession, even of original documents. The full text of the opinion can be found here, but it should be brought to the attention of every judge in every foreclosure case across the state.
The opinion is full of great direction, but the bottom line is the appeals court has made it clear that it is no longer permissible for Plaintiffs attorneys to come marching into court with documents alone….even if they are original documents. Throughout the foreclosure crisis, Plaintiffs attorneys have been permitted to ignore the basic rules of evidence and just enter in documents without any explanation of how they came into possession….this will now change and Plaintiffs will be required to have both the original documents and some evidence to support how they came into possession of the documents–something they will have a difficult time doing in many cases.
Here is language taken directly from the opinion:
U.S. Bank filed a written response to BAC’s motion to dismiss. Attached as Exhibit A to this response was an “Assignment of Mortgage.” However, the space for the name of the assignee on this “assignment” was blank, and the “assignment” was neither signed nor notarized. Further, U.S. Bank did not attach or file any document that would authenticate this “assignment” or otherwise render it admissible into evidence. (That last sentence is key because it now requires Plaintiffs to “authenticate” their filings.)
Despite the lack of any admissible evidence that U.S. Bank validly held the note and mortgage, the trial court granted summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. (Although the bank had introduced an assignment, the court is saying that assignment should not have been the basis to grant summary judgment because it was not properly admitted into evidence.)
When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment before the defendant has filed an answer, “the burden is upon the plaintiff to make it appear to a certainty that no answer which the defendant might properly serve could present a genuine issue of fact.” Settecasi v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Pinellas County 156 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); see also W. Fla. Cmty. Builders, Inc. v. Mitchell, 528 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) As these cases show, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment before an answer is filed must not only establish that no genuine issue of material fact is present in the record as it stands, but also that the defendant could not raise any genuine issues of material fact if the defendant were permitted to answer the complaint.
Further, it did not file any supporting affidavits or deposition testimony to establish that it owns and holds the note and mortgage. Accordingly, the documents before the trial court at the summary judgment hearing did not establish U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and thus, at this point, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor. (This language is key because it directs the courts to demand an evidentiary basis for documents, not just the documents themselves.)
Regardless of whether BAC answered the complaint, U.S. Bank was required to establish, through admissible evidence, that it held the note and mortgage and so had standing to foreclose the mortgage before it would be entitled to summary judgment in its favor. Whether U.S. Bank did so through evidence of a valid assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer, it was nevertheless required to prove that it validly held the note and mortgage it sought to foreclose. See Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (The key word here is “validly”. The Plaintiff cannot just show up in court with the documents, it must validate them and authenticate the documents for the court to consider.)
The incomplete, unsigned, and unauthenticated assignment attached as an exhibit to U.S. Bank’s response to BAC’s motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence establishing U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and U.S. Bank submitted no other evidence to establish that it was the proper holder of the note and/or mortgage. (The Plaintiff must introduce authenticated, properly introduced evidence to proceed.)
The Court Recognizes That Insuring Proper Title To Property Will Be a Real Challenge in Years to Come….
Given the vastly increased number of foreclosure filings in Florida’s courts over the past two years, which volume has taxed both litigants and the judicial system and increased the risk of paperwork errors, it is especially important that trial courts abide by the proper standards and apply the proper burdens of proof when considering a summary judgment motion in a foreclosure proceeding. Accordingly, because U.S. Bank failed to establish its status as legal owner and holder of the note and mortgage, the trial court acted prematurely in entering final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.
And so, in this brand new, and as yet, unpublished opinion, the legal landscape for foreclosures changes forever!

LF
nick, on February 16, 2010 at 2:14 am said:

Ok we got summing here why was this letter that I posted last night taken off it all true What don’t you want these people to see I though we were here to help these people what going on here .
Nile you need to email me back let me no why this has happen. I like to no the reason.
I will tell you I am going to help these people if I can and it looks like you don’t want me too why.
I the letter I said you need to check out these lawyer because I am not sure. But in your site all these people that need help are an easy pick for the lender and the lawyer that why this is a set up. Again with respect to the lawyer but these bad one are giving you guys a bad name. First the brokers and the lenders now the bad lawyers
My case number is down below you people need to look it up stop in May 2009 that when I hire that lawyer that cost my case you have a better Change on your own When in court with a lawyer you will not be ale to talk there were they get you .Go to the law library it is designed to assist you finding the legal resources necessary to correctly determine the state of the law

February 10, 2010

Honorable Judge Brenda Harbin-Forte SENT VIA E-MAIL & FAX
Dept. 516
Hayward Hall of Justice
24405 Amador Rd.
Hayward, CA
Dept516@alameda.courts.ca.gov

FAX NO. (510) 267-1587

RE: RAMIREZ v. ARGENT MORTGAGE; CASE NO. RG07-353134
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FEBRUARY 10, 2010 @ 2:30 p.m.
DEPT. 516
Plaintiff’s Additional Declaration of Opposition to Defendants Summary Judgment
and Stipulation requesting additional time to conduct proper discovery in order to file a proper response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to obtain new Counsel.

Dear Honorable Judge Harbin-Forte:

Plaintiff, Nicolas Ramirez, is requesting that your honor please consider my request to continue the February 10, 2010 hearing for Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to a future date to allow Plaintiff time to conduct additional discovery necessary to resist the Summary Judgment and to obtain new Counsel

The purpose of this attached Declaration is to inform the Court of the outstanding discovery necessary to properly resist Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. It will also inform your honor, of the unprofessional misconduct and blatant disregard of Court deadlines, by my attorney, xxxx, which caused a negative impact on my case.

xxxxneglected to inform me of important dates of depositions and responses that were due to Defendant, which as a result, has caused the Defendant to file Motion to Compel, and have requested sanctions, at several upcoming hearings. Now she has requested to be relieved as Counsel, a hearing is set for February 19, 2010. She does not want to take responsibility for her actions, by requesting that she be relieved as Counsel, prior to the hearing for Motion to Compel. Her actions (or lack thereof) have put me and my case in jeopardy.

I am aware that this case has been going on for long time, but that is due to the numerous unsuccessful Law & Motion and attacks on the Pleadings by Defendant. I feel that is continuance is vital for me to obtain necessary evidence to support my case.

Thank you for your kind consideration to this request.

Yours Truly,

Nicolas E. Ramirez, Plaintiff
Cc: Jason Goldstein, jgoldstein@buchalter.com

=[ I am submitting this on my own, without the authorization of my attorney, xxxxx.
DECLARATION

I, Nicolas E. Ramirez, Plaintiff in the above matter, declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
The purpose of this attached Declaration is to inform the Court of the outstanding discovery necessary to properly resist Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. It will also inform your honor, of the unprofessional misconduct and blatant disregard of Court deadlines, by my attorney, xxxxxx, which caused a negative impact on my case.
My attorney, xxxxxxdid not conduct proper discovery, if any, to uncover essential evidence that may exist. I requested numerous times that my attorney send out written Interrogatories and Request for Admissions, and to schedule depositions of employees of Argent named in the Second Amended Complaint, who were involved in the investigation of my initial forgery claim to Argent prior to my filing the lawsuit. None of this was done. Had additional discovery been conducted it would of revealed the fact that it is an undisputed fact that none of the signatures on my loan papers match my signature, and there are different signatures on the loan application, loan documents, Grant Deed and Deed of Trust. There was also a report done by a handwriting expert, who works for the Department of Justice which states the signatures are forged. Had he been deposed, this would of revealed this information.
In addition, as you can see by the Courts register of Actions, since the November 5, 2009 Case Management Conference, my lawyer has basically abandoned my case. She completely ignored all Discovery requested by Argent. She neglected to inform me that any discovery responses were even due until January 12, 2010. (E-mail dated January 12 attached as Exibit By this time Argent had already filed a Motion to Compel Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. My attorney claims that she was unable to reach me, which is simply not true. According to Defendant’s Proof of Service, my attorney received the Request for Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admissions since November 25, 2009. I was in contact with her on numerous occasions after the date of Service, a mediation was conducted on December 18, 2009, where she should of given me a copy to complete, or she could of mailed them to me at my home. None of these were done.
I was never made aware of the January 22, 2010 deposition set by Argent. My lawyer never informed me that a deposition was scheduled. It was not until Argent filed the Motion to Compel the deposition that I found out about it. I immediately asked xxxwhy I was not informed of my deposition. (shown in email dated Exibit A) She informed me that she did not see the Notice of Deposition because it was stuck to the back of the other discovery. She never had any intention of responding to any of the discovery on my behalf because she never even read it. In Argents Motion to Compel, it also states that they left xxxseveral phone messages and emails confirming the deposition, which they never received a response to. xxxneglected to inform me of such messages.
xxxxnever intended to respond to Argent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as she stated in the attached e-mail dated January 27, 2010, (listed as Exhibit B ) She also stated that the only reason she has agreed to continue on as my Council is if I agreed to accept Argent’s settlement offer they made at the December 18th mediation, which I declined on December 21 (email dated December 21, 2009 as Exhibit B )
A Motion to be Relieved as Council was not filed by xxxuntil January 28, 2010. The hearing is set for February 19, 2010. xxxis still my attorney of record until such time when the court may relieve her of her duties. xxxx, as my attorney, is obligation to me to represent me to my best interest . xxxxhas been verbally abusive towards me, (see e-mail dated January 27 Exhibit B), and has blatantly ignored court deadlines. She stated that she was going to Amend the Complaint to add additional defendants which she never did. She also refused to submit my counter offer to Argent (see e-mail dated January 27 Exhibit B)
EXHIBIT A & B TO THE ATTACHED DECLARATION

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, xxxxx> wrote:
From: xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: RE: signature
To: "'Nick Ramirez'"
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 9:00 AM
Nick,
When we spoke on the phone earlier today, you agreed to put in writing your decision to accept Argent’s settlement offer. (Provided, of course that the offer was still on the table.) Once again, I am totally perplexed by your email, which includes numerous conditions on the settlement that we never discussed.
This appears to be yet another example of how you agree to follow my legal advice and/or authorize me to act on your behalf, only to later change your mind. I have already explained that it is difficult for me to conclude anything other than that you did not intend to follow through with your decision from the beginning. Fortunately, you (and Debbie) provided me with the unexpressed conditions before I contacted Argent regarding acceptance of the offer. After receiving your email, I do not intend to contact Argent and try to re-open negotiation at the 11th hour after Argent already indicated that it was the final offer.
Responding to each condition separately:
1. An “admission” by Argent that the Deed of Trust is forged is essentially worthless. What I suggested is proposing that Argent stipulate to allow you to amend your complaint to add a cause of action for declaratory relief. Basically, you request that the Judge make a ruling that the signature is forged. You would need to submit enough evidence to convince the judge to so rule. As I explained, this is important because it would force the current owner of your mortgage to pursue judicial foreclosure, without you having to initiate legal action to get an injunction against them.
2. Again, Argent cannot declare anything about the validity of the Deed. It requires a judicial declaration. I also do not understand why you and Debbie believe a distinction between void and voidable has any legal relevance.
3. You are now attempting to add a substantial amount of money to Argent’s offer by demanding all fees associated with the loan. I believe the mediator made it very clear that Argent was not willing to offer a higher amount. Furthermore, the mediator reiterated what I had already explained to you: Argent is confident that they will win their motion for summary judgment, meaning the case will be dismissed without any money judgment against Argent. Argent’s offer, as both the mediator and I explained, is based on the costs and attorney fees that Argent would incur in bringing the motion and completing discovery.
4. This also was never discussed in our phone conversation, and also attempts to add (presumably) significant amounts to the offer by Argent. Again, Argent made it clear during mediation that their offer was the highest they were willing to go. Even if Argent were willing to pay fees as part of its settlement offer, I should also add that it is only appropriate for you to ask for attorney fees that you actually paid. I will also point out again that your apparent belief that you are entitled to completely wipe out your mortgage AND reap tens of thousands of dollars in damages is not supported by any legal theory.
RE: Validity of Forged Deed of Trust
I have discussed this issue with you numerous times, so I am just providing you with the basics, not the detailed explanation I have provided in the past. As I explained above, if the Deed of Trust is forged, the entity who owns the loan would not be able to use non-judicial foreclosure process because without a valid deed of trust they do not have the power of sale. Even if the deed of trust is declared invalid as a forgery, it does not mean that you do not owe money to the current owner of the loan. The present owner would, however, have to use the judicial process to foreclose. Basically, the bank would go to court and ask the judge to give them an equitable lien for the amount that you still owe on the loan, then get the judge’s approval to sell the house in order to pay the amount owing. The basic premise is this: even if the deed of trust is forged, you received a substantial benefit (large loan that paid off your previous mortgage plus $60,000 cash), and you shouldn’t be allowed a huge windfall by not being required to pay the money back.
I have previously discussed several strategies with you. If the new owner tries to foreclosure judicially, you can counterclaim for any wrongdoing on the part of the new owner; any damages you win may offset the amount you owe the bank. (Keep in mind that since you have not given me the notice you received regarding transfer of your mortgage, I cannot be more specific about potential claims or liability of the new owner of the promissory note.) As I also pointed out, if through discovery you find that that the promissory note was also forged, the bank may be able to foreclose or get any monetary award. I have also suggested bankruptcy as a potential option; in a Chapter 13 reorganization, the loan is unsecured and would be paid off in full after completion of 3-5 year repayment plan. Unfortunately, you need to have an income to qualify for a chapter 13. Although you initially seemed to be open to considering these and other options, you eventually rejected my legal advice. I trust you understand how frustrating it is to hear that you trust information you read on the internet over my legal advice.
RE: Future Communications
First let me be frank: I am well aware that Debbie, not you, wrote the email. I am really losing patience with you and Debbie continuing to try to insult my intelligence by pretending otherwise. I have already advised you of the loss of attorney-client privilege, but if you choose to give up the confidentiality by sharing emails with Debbie, there is nothing I can do to stop you. As I also explained, however, you continue to put me in an untenable ethical dilemma when I know that someone other than my client is attempting to make decisions about the case by masquerading via your email address.
As if that were not enough, I previously provided a warning in writing regarding your contradictory instructions about sharing anything about your case with Debbie and the resulting ethical dilemma I have been placed in. Need I remind you of the emails and phone conversations, including references to Debbie as a cunt, bitch, etc., requesting that I provide legal representation to evict her from your home, relating your fear that you will end up in jail because you have been close to strangling her, etc.? Again I ask you: How can I simultaneously maintain your confidentiality and honor your desire to not reveal any information to Debbie because she is using you to get free rent -- while at the same time communicate by email to an account that Debbie obviously has access to? We previously agreed that my continued representation was contingent on your promise not to allow Debbie to communicate with me using your name and email.
I also want to point out the irony in your request for me to communicate via email: You have not been responding to me emails despite your promises to check your email daily.
During the mediation session, which was preceded by yet another extended period of non-communication on your part, I indicated that I had no choice but to seek to withdraw from your case. I continued on as counsel of record only because you agreed to accept Argent’s settlement offer.
When you withdrew authorization to accept the settlement, and then refused to respond by phone or email, I scheduled a motion to be relieved as counsel. The hearing is scheduled for February 19, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. in Dept. 516, and you will receive notice in the mail.
Unfortunately, the motion for summary judgment is scheduled for hearing on February 10, 2010. As I already informed you, I am unable to oppose the motion because 1) the causes of action as plead while you were representing yourself have no merit, and 2) you have failed to pay the money promised to obtain evidence to support your claims, including having a mortgage audit conducted, and 3) you still have not provided the documents you promised to deliver months ago. This is not the first time that I have informed you of my belief that Argent will win their motion and be dismissed from the case. Although it makes no sense to me, you are certainly free to give up $7500 and disregard my advice based on your own analysis of the strength of your case.
xxxxxxx

From: Nick Ramirez [mailto:nick.ramirez80@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:32 PM
To: xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fw: RE: signature
Chris-
As I stated on the phone today, I would be willing to settle my case with Argent Mortgage Company, only if Argent agrees to the following terms.
1. Argent must admit that my signature on the Deed of Trust, loan application and all loan documents pertaining to this loan is forged.
2. That the Deed of Trust be considered void (not voidable) and invalid. (this is very important)
3. Argent must refund to me all fees that I was charged in association with this loan including but not limited to the Pre-Payment Penalty with interest. Amount to be determined.
4. Argent must pay all attorney fees associated with this case.
You stated to me on the phone that by Argent admitting to the forgery, the Deed would be invalid, and whoever currently holds the note could not foreclose. My understanding is that only a judge can declare a Deed void. Please confirm this.
I would prefer that we communicate via e-mail, so that I am clear on what we discussed and what I am agreeing to. Also, I am requesting that I be copied on any communications that you have with Argents attorneys.
Thank you,
Nick Ramirez

— On Tue, 12/22/09, Nick Ramirez wrote:

From: Nick Ramirez
Subject: RE: signature
To: “xxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 6:24 AM
xxxxx
I will not take the offer from Argent Attorney.
Give me a call or email will be checking let no what next or if there any thing I can do for you
Thanks for the advice and good job at the meeting.
If I don’t hear from you before the end of the week hope you have a Merry Christmas
Nick Ramirez
Deontos, on February 15, 2010 at 9:42 am said:

A Florida Lawyer talks about the Foreclosure Mills “Play Book”.
Their primary strategies: Fraud, Deception, Abuse of Judicial Procedure and Lies.

Pro Se, I think this is relevant info to know regardless of what state
you are in.

———————————————

Surprise, Surprise-Bank owned lawyers lying to judges.
December 28, 2009 G J Beckus
Florida Foreclosure Lawyer
Helping Others

Banks, judges, and lawyers typically all work together to get through as many foreclosure cases a day as they can. After all, the judges get more filing fees for their court by handling a larger caseload, and lawyers can bill all the hours they want to a bank that can create money out of thin air. But even in such a scheme as this, the judges that may want to evaluate a foreclosure case on its merits have to deal with deceptive lawyers.
The Herald Tribune in Florida, the same state in which some judges are going through 800 foreclosure cases a day, giving homeowners less than thirty seconds to defend their homes, reports that, “A Sarasota attorney, Richard Kessler, enlisted a few friends to go through 180 foreclosure cases in Sarasota County looking for errors. They found three out of four cases proceeded with incomplete or improper documentation.”

So seventy-five percent of foreclosure lawsuits that banks initiate are based on wrong documentation. But too few homeowners even appear in court to defend their homes, and the ones do show up to a foreclosure hearing do not know enough about the law and their rights during foreclosure to mount a proper defense. Without pointing out the bank’s lawyers’ mistakes in just the right way, it would not matter anyway, with all of the procedural rules in courts.

The main finding in the study the report refers to is that few banks can prove that they actually own a mortgage that they are suing for foreclosure. The report states the following disturbing findings:

For instance, the survey found that only one in 12 cases had the documents to prove the company foreclosing on the property was also the company holding the mortgage note.
In half of the cases reviewed, the plaintiff said the mortgage note had been lost.

But simply not being able to prove that it has the right to collect on a loan does not stop the banks from filing lawsuits anyway. And the threat of a lawsuit, any kind of lawsuit, is typically enough to scare most borrowers into abandoning the home and moving out before eviction.

Another lie that the banks have their attorneys participate in is undermining court-ordered mediation services. When courts mandate that homeowners and lenders meet to discuss alternatives to foreclosure, the lawyers are just stating that the borrowers “had ‘no interest in the program or declined,’” whether or not that is actually true. And it is often not true, despite the bank’s attempts at deception.

The news story details a long list of practices that mortgage companies and lawyers representing those companies engage in to deceive judges and foreclosure homeowners into unlawful foreclosures. The list proves again that the courts are simply set up as formalities to “give people their day in court,” while sabotaging any effort they may make in an actual defense of their home. A number of such legal frauds are listed below:

•Judges simply take foreclosure attorneys’ at their word that all of the paperwork is in order and sign off on judgments and orders for sheriff sale or eviction.

•Bank lawyers file foreclosure lawsuits involving properties in other counties that the courts have no jurisdiction over, thereby taking advantage of a large caseload to get these fraudulent foreclosure through an overworked system.
•Lawyers file lawsuits on behalf of banks without documented proof the lender owns the mortgage or has the legal right to collect on it. In many cases, the bank simply says the note has been lost but still wants to go through with the foreclosure lawsuit. Judges comply.

•Lenders ignore county rules mandating they meet with borrowers to discuss solutions to foreclosure outside of the court system. Even if homeowners want to participate in negotiations, lawyers file paperwork stating the owners had no interest. No negotiations are ever held.

•Lawyers claiming that banks, in order to have the legal grounds to file a lawsuit against homeowners, have changed their names to the company that is shown as owning the loan, even if this is not the case at all.

•Banks offer to negotiate with borrowers and put the foreclosure process on hold during negotiations — but file the lawsuit anyway and obtain judgments and orders against the homeowners, who were led to believe there would be no legal action.
The only really surprising aspect of the entire news article is that the Herald Tribune seems to believe that these lies are “a new tool in foreclosure.” Unfortunately, these and similar fraudulent practices have been going on for years now, long before the housing boom turned into a bubble and then collapsed. The only difference now is that, with more and more homeowners in foreclosure, there is more lying being done.

These and other practices are just one more reason that homeowners in foreclosure should consider hiring their own foreclosure attorney or personal bankruptcy lawyer to help them examine various legal options they may have. If 75% of foreclosure cases have serious errors that the bank covers up through fraud and deception, then more borrowers may be able to save their homes or live mortgage-free for years just by spending the money to hire a good attorney to help them.

By George Beckus Esq.
floridadefensteam, on February 15, 2010 at 9:01 am said:

FRESH OFF THE PRESSES: THE 2nd District Court of Appeals in Florida on Friday 2/12/10 reversed a trial court ruling that summary judgment not possible when
Original Note does not have endorsment to Plaintiff. The best part: The court did not recognize the bogus assignment filed by US Bank (the Plaintiff in this case).

REMINDER: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE CASE IS COMPLETED TO APPEAL A “BAD” RULING DURING THE CASE – FILE A WRIT WITH THE LOCAL APPEALS COURT. BONUS: WHILE THE APPELLATE COURT DECIDES YOUR WRIT IT WILL PREVENT THE LOCAL TRIAL COURT FROM OBTAINING JURISDICTION TO RENDER FINAL JUDGMENT ON YOUR CASE.
marcus, on February 15, 2010 at 7:30 am said:

U.S. Housing Aid Winds Down, and Cities Worry
By DAVID STREITFELD
NYTimes
Published: February 14, 2010

ELKHART, Ind. — Over the next six months, the federal government plans to wind down many of its emergency programs for housing. Then it will become clear if the market can function on its own.
People here are pretty sure the answer will be no.

President Obama has traveled twice to this beleaguered manufacturing city to spotlight the government’s economic stimulus program. The employment picture here has indeed begun to improve over the last nine months.

But Elkhart also symbolizes the failure of federal efforts to turn around the housing slump at the heart of the economic crisis. Housing in this community has become almost entirely dependent on a string of federal support programs, which are nonetheless failing to prevent a fall in prices and a rise in mortgage delinquencies.

More than one in 10 mortgage holders in Elkhart is seriously behind on payments. The median sales price has plunged to the level of a decade ago. Many homeowners owe more than their home is worth, freezing them in place for years. Foreclosures recently hit a record.

To the extent that the real estate market is functioning at all, people here say, it is doing so only because of the emergency programs, which have pushed down interest rates on mortgages and offered buyers a substantial tax credit.

Equally important is an expanded mortgage insurance program run by the Federal Housing Administration, which encourages private lenders to accept borrowers with small down payments. The government takes the risk of default.

A few years ago, only one in 10 buyers in Elkhart used the housing agency program. Now about half do. Across the country, the agency has greatly expanded its reach so that it now insures six million mortgages.

“There has been all kinds of help for housing. I’m not unappreciative,” said Barb Swartley, president of the Elkhart County Board of Realtors. “But you can’t turn real estate into a government-sponsored operation forever.”

Many in Washington agree. With worries about the deficit intensifying, the government is eager to start withdrawing some of its support programs.

The first step could happen as early as next month, when the Federal Reserve has said it will end its trillion-dollar program to buy up mortgage securities. That program has driven mortgage interest rates to lows not seen since the 1950s.

Yet it is uncertain whether the government can really pull back without sending housing markets into another tailspin. “A rise in rates would kill us all by itself,” Ms. Swartley said.

The Obama administration has offered few ideas about reforming the housing market. Proposals for the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage holding companies taken over by the government at the height of the crisis, were supposed to be introduced with the president’s budget this month. They were not.

The government programs, however crucial, are distorting the market. The tax credit produced sales last fall, but some lenders here say it has troubling implications.

“People are buying to get that tax credit, to get some reserve money. They’re saying, ‘If something happens, I will have a little bit of money to fall back on,’ ” said Denny Davis of Horizon Bank in Elkhart. “That’s not healthy.”

The programs favor first-time buyers, who have the fewest resources to bring to a deal. Heather Stevens, a 23-year-old nurse here, is closing on a three-bedroom house this week. Since her loan was insured by the Federal Housing Administration, she had to put down only 3.5 percent of the $74,900 purchase price.

“It was a breeze to get approved,” she said.

The sellers are covering her closing costs, which agents say is often the case here. That meant Ms. Stevens had to come up with only the $2,600 down payment, which still took all her savings.

But the best part is the $7,500 tax credit. She will use that to remodel the kitchen. “If it wasn’t for the credit, we would have waited to buy,” said Ms. Stevens, who is getting married this year.

Buying houses with no money down was a feature of the latter stages of the housing bubble. It gave prices a final push into the stratosphere. But buyers with no equity were the first to abandon their properties as the market turned south.

With housing prices stagnant, bolstering the market by again letting people buy with hardly any money down is viewed in some quarters as a bad bet.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote in his most recent report to Congress that “the federal government’s concerted efforts to support” housing prices “risk reinflating” the bubble.

He noted one difference from the last bubble: taxpayers, rather than banks, are now directly at risk in these new mortgages.

In Elkhart, the worries are less about the risks of doing too much and more about the perils of doing too little. If the Federal Reserve really ends its $1.25 trillion program of buying mortgage-backed securities, economists say, mortgage rates could rise as much as one percentage point. In recent weeks, rates on 30-year fixed mortgages have drifted below 5 percent.

The tax credit requires home buyers to make a deal by April 30, the middle of the prime spring selling season.

For now, the F.H.A. is modestly tightening the requirements on some of its programs, trying to strike a balance between stabilizing the market with qualified buyers and overwhelming it with unqualified borrowers.

John Katalinich, chief lending officer at the Inova Federal Credit Union in Elkhart, says there is danger in letting buyers get into properties with so little at stake, but those risks are minimal compared to the alternative.

“If the government were not to continue the same level of support, it would be very detrimental, like cutting the legs off a wobbling child and expecting it to run a marathon,” he said. “It’s very possible we’ll still be at this level of need five years from now.”

Elkhart, in the northeast corner of Indiana, became a symbol of distressed Middle America after Mr. Obama chose it as the place to introduce his stimulus plan last February. The region is a hub of recreational vehicle manufacturing, one of the first industries to falter in the recession. In less than a year, the unemployment rate tripled, peaking at 18.9 percent last March.

Mr. Obama returned in August to promote the effectiveness of the stimulus program and of government grants for the manufacture of battery-powered electric vehicles. Several companies have announced they are hiring. Unemployment in December was down to 14.8 percent.

No such improvement is visible with housing. In the last 18 months, the F.H.A increased its loans in Elkhart by 40 percent even as its defaults rose 174 percent.

As these troubled loans become foreclosures, the government takes over the property and tries to sell it. On Saturday, Gina Martin, an administrative assistant, examined a three-bedroom government house for sale southeast of Elkhart.

In late 2003, the house sold for $115,000, but in these depressed times the government was willing to let it go for $75,000.

Ms. Martin’s agent, Dean Slabach, thought the government would eventually have to take a much lower bid, substantially increasing its loss. Most of the F.H.A. properties on the market in Elkhart carry notations like “significant price reduction” and “all reasonable offers considered.”

“They’ll end up selling this for $60,000 or less,” Mr. Slabach said.

But Ms. Martin, a 47-year-old renter who has approval for an F.H.A. loan, said she was not tempted at any price.

“We’ll see what else is out there,” she said.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on February 14, 2010 at 5:59 pm said:

Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis
NYTimes
Published: February 13, 2010

Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.
As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street’s help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November — three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety — a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.

The bankers, led by Goldman’s president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece’s health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe’s monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe’s deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.

Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Street’s role in the world’s latest financial drama.

As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities.

Some of the Greek deals were named after figures in Greek mythology. One of them, for instance, was called Aeolos, after the god of the winds.

The crisis in Greece poses the most significant challenge yet to Europe’s common currency, the euro, and the Continent’s goal of economic unity. The country is, in the argot of banking, too big to be allowed to fail. Greece owes the world $300 billion, and major banks are on the hook for much of that debt. A default would reverberate around the globe.

A spokeswoman for the Greek finance ministry said the government had met with many banks in recent months and had not committed to any bank’s offers. All debt financings “are conducted in an effort of transparency,” she said. Goldman and JPMorgan declined to comment.

While Wall Street’s handiwork in Europe has received little attention on this side of the Atlantic, it has been sharply criticized in Greece and in magazines like Der Spiegel in Germany.

“Politicians want to pass the ball forward, and if a banker can show them a way to pass a problem to the future, they will fall for it,” said Gikas A. Hardouvelis, an economist and former government official who helped write a recent report on Greece’s accounting policies.

Wall Street did not create Europe’s debt problem. But bankers enabled Greece and others to borrow beyond their means, in deals that were perfectly legal. Few rules govern how nations can borrow the money they need for expenses like the military and health care. The market for sovereign debt — the Wall Street term for loans to governments — is as unfettered as it is vast.

“If a government wants to cheat, it can cheat,” said Garry Schinasi, a veteran of the International Monetary Fund’s capital markets surveillance unit, which monitors vulnerability in global capital markets.

Banks eagerly exploited what was, for them, a highly lucrative symbiosis with free-spending governments. While Greece did not take advantage of Goldman’s proposal in November 2009, it had paid the bank about $300 million in fees for arranging the 2001 transaction, according to several bankers familiar with the deal.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on February 14, 2010 at 4:45 pm said:

Todd-be careful with that. I’ve heard of cases where the bank sued folks for doing that sort of thing—stripping homes of ceiling fans, light fixtures, appliances etc…
Todd Runnels, on February 14, 2010 at 4:01 pm said:

To anyone loosing their home, If you know for sure the bank is going to take your home, put an ad in the local newspaper or craigs list and sell anthing on the house, overhead doors, furnace, water heater, kitchen cabinets are hot, decks, windows, doors, sheds etc, Do not take this advise unless you are crazy like me, But we need to send a message to the banks and maybe they will get the hint and start helping the little guy out if their foreclosures are stripped out and worth much less, My friend did this and the home sold for $115,000 less than it should have, good luck to all, Todd
Soliman, on February 12, 2010 at 12:13 am said:

Good Evening;

What blows me away is this concept of derecognition upon transferring the paper. Its capitalization provided by an FSB. It causes one to think that maybe the FSB was really used loan as front on warehouse lines to self capitalize these investment pools. Investment pools with tax free status aka Trusts.
None the less its government insured “capital” disguised as borrower debt. Know I see why Mozilla was bitching about not owning a bank a while back. I assume he felt he could no longer compete.
FSB or Federal Savings Bank “Fraudulent Sucker Bank” was a capital investment tool for accessing cheap funds. Derecognition is the evidence a bank defense attorney will struggle to refute.
I would love to testify in that one.
I am also convinced with out doubt this is none the less a recovery driven by the FDIC fbo OTS. The allegations include claims by clients for “adverse possession”. This is the latest claim you can take to the Bank (LOL) and be sure to include in your defenses.

More good stuff to come…really good stuff!

Msoliman
Expert.Witness@live.com
marcus, on February 11, 2010 at 11:13 am said:

Hello All,
I am looking for a sample Motion For Sanction against an attorney.
Thanks

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
expert.witness, on February 10, 2010 at 11:15 pm said:

Bryan, on August 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm Said:
To MSoliman
Yes, I have contacted proximatley 40 contract attorney’s throughout Arizona. Half want a consultation fee. That is out. The other half says several things.
A. I need a construction attorney.
B. I need a commercial litigation attorney.
C. I need a bankruptcy attorney.
D. I need a Civil Rights attorney.
Each time I get a response from either of those categories they send me to a different genre or Back to Legal Aide, or Lawers Refferal Services, who do not have any one on their list to help in my situation. I’ve spent my $35.00 with them and didn’t get anywhere.
On the tab above “Attorney’s” I sent Neil a long post of my newest discovery, asking him what kind of an attorney I need. I’m still waiting for an answer.
I also on August 4th, sent an e-mail to foreclosuredefensegroup asking about their services and if they could help me. I still have not got a reply, but I did get a receipt showing they received my e-mail.
Thanks for your help.
bt, on February 10, 2010 at 4:49 pm said:

consent judgment?

does anyone understand a consent judgement. I have offered deed-in-lieu, deed-in-lieu with recourse, and borught two Fair market value short sales to this lender that has not sold the note. They want attorney fees, i want to fight the attorney fees by claimign they coudl have stopped the foreclosure by taking the deed-in-lieum threfore not having attorney fees. Some suggested i also offer a consent judgment.
Deontos, on February 10, 2010 at 2:14 pm said:

FROM FORECLOSURE FRAUD: A PRWeb News Relase

Recently Discovered Flaw in Recording System Clouds Titles on Previously Foreclosed Properties

The modern system of mortgage refinancing and assignments created during the housing boom has left behind a wave of title defects on properties that have ever had a foreclosure in their history, due to a loophole in the property records recording system. This has been detected on a number of properties currently in foreclosure, and found to have been uncorrected on properties previously foreclosed

“A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PREVIOUSLY FORECLOSED PROPERTIES HAVE A TITLE DEFECT WHICH COULD TECHNICALLY AFFECT OWNERSHIP RIGHTS FOR FUTURE OWNER.”

Dawsonville, GA (PRWEB) February 10, 2010 — A previously undetected title flaw has been discovered on many previously foreclosed properties. As the number of real estate foreclosures skyrockets, the odds are higher that a home you live in today, or at some point in the future may have had a foreclosure in its history. Even if the foreclosure has long since passed, a loophole in the way mortgages are recorded can create a serious title defect for future owners. Title analysis performed this month by AFX Title has detected this error to be common in random samples of properties it reviewed. “This could affect the property ownership of millions of homes nationwide” said David Pelligrinelli, of AFX Title. “The mortgage recording method which created this title flaw did not exist until recently. As title abstractors are just seeing this problem emerge now but a wave of title claims is coming over the next year or so.”

The problem is created through a break in the chain of mortgage ownership. Until the 1980’s, most mortgages were loans between the homeowner and a bank, who lent the money directly. More recently, the mortgage financing system transformed into an international system of securitization, with mortgage lenders packaging their loans into securities, bought and sold by investors like stocks. These transactions even split individual mortgages into sections, where each loan could have parts owned by different investment banks.

The transfer of ownership in these mortgage backed securities (MBS) was done with contracts on the balance sheets of Wall Street investment banks, such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The company who originally appeared to make the loan was normally a retail lending company such as Countrywide or Lending Tree, who typically acted as a sales company, and sometimes remained contracted to service the loan.

In the event that the loan goes into foreclosure at a later date, the then-current owner of the loan files the foreclosure and sells the property to a new owner, often at auction. The land records would show a deed of transfer from the investment bank to the new owner. This creates a break in the chain of ownership of the mortgage rights. In many cases, the transfer of ownership of the mortgage loan has gone from the original lender, through several owners, and then to the foreclosing bank, none of which is recorded on the property title history. Technically, the foreclosing bank has no recorded title rights to foreclose in the first place. Owners of the loan normally do not publicly record each of the transfers out of expediency, and cost. Filing a document of transfer (called an assignment) in the land records incurs a substantial fee paid to the county clerk.

Some delinquent homeowners have used this error to delay the foreclosure, forcing lenders to “produce the note.” In these cases, the bank has to go through the process of getting assignments to the foreclosing bank after the fact. However, the title repair process is not required however in the majority of cases when the homeowner does not contest the foreclosure.

This leaves the break in chain of title dormant in the property records, vulnerable to be contested in the future. A few largely overlooked cases have already been decided by courts on this issue. In Lowell MA, a judge invalidated the foreclosure of homes based on missing and out-of-order assignments (US Bank v Ibanez).

Unraveling the chain of title and clarifying ownership of loans will create challenges for the courts and legislative bodies in all states. In the meantime, homeowners and buyers should be aware of how this could affect their property title. There are reports that some title insurers are indicating that they will not insure for this title defect.

As a national provider of property title searches, AFX Title is seeing an increasing number of files where the chain of title has obvious gaps in the recorded mortgage assignments. According to Pelligrinelli, the issue is serious. “When running searches for clients, we are noticing that a significant number of previously foreclosed properties have unconnected chain of assignments in the mortgage history. This could represent a title defect which could technically affect ownership rights for future owner.”

Pelligrinelli adds that some lenders and government institutions are rushing to repair the titles on lender-owned properties as they discover them in their portfolio. This does not help individual owners who own properties previously foreclosed.
msoliman, on February 10, 2010 at 6:47 am said:

Warehouse Lending

What is so very difficult to digest is the fact the lenders will fund the origination on a bank line known as a warehouse facility. I verified in the GMAC last published 10 K where the registrant cause the lender to curtail the funding line with a five percent “haircut” or the offset to the outstanding balance. In other words the GL will show as follows:

LOANS HELD for SALE $100,000
LOANS HELD on LINE – 95,000

A line of credit extended by a FED regulated financial institution to a loan originator to fund a mortgage that a borrower initially used to buy a property (refinance etc.) . The loan typically lasts from the time it is originated to when the loan is sold into the secondary market, whether directly or through a securitization. There was a time loan originators depend on the eventual sale of a loan to repay the warehouse lender; therefore, warehouse lenders closely monitor each loan’s progression with the originator toward its eventual sale.

To ensure the repayment of warehouse lines of credit, warehouse lenders typically require a small charge for each transaction as well as for when the originators post collateral. They also required from me an

ENDORSEMENT in BLANK and
BLANK ASSIGNEMENT.

So I am asking how the sale of the assets into a structured financing and securities offering survives the accounting and regulatory scrutiny as a whole loan trade. Its simply done for derecognition purposes.

The loan trades at a premium over par and likely not with anything to do with the lenders accrued basis at delivery. And I understand the need for the lender making settlement and where such appears booked as a whole loan “gain on sale”.

But they realize the entire balance of proceeds leaving the warehouse boys “uncovered” when contributing the assets proceeds into a SPE / SPV.

I do realize they then deposit the equity certificate proceeds with the bank as a depositor but really . . . these are FDIC insured funds used to capitalize a de novo. Give me a break as No Can Do!

Remember FIERREA?

M.Soliman
Expert .Witness @ Live.Com
VG Diaz, on February 9, 2010 at 6:08 pm said:

This is a MUST watch video.

How Indymac Bank/OneWest Bank gets all of the money back.

http://www.thinkbigworksmall.com/mypage/player/tbws/23088/1013723
Abby in CA, on February 9, 2010 at 1:45 pm said:

PRO SE- this is an excellant site for an outline of a civil action with annotations

http://faculty.washington.edu/tomcobb/civil_case/
Abby in CA, on February 9, 2010 at 10:10 am said:

IMPORTANT — in checking your assignments —
FOR FLORIDIANS AND CALIFORNIANS —

It is not legal for California notaries to notarize any stamped signatures. Therefore, no stamped signatures on recorded documents can be legal or valid in California. Some have been recorded with stamped signatures (the reason is the county recorders merely record!! they do not challenge the content of what is on the document to be recorded)

It is not legal in Florida for any stamped signatures to be on a recording. This confirmed directly from a major county recorder’s office in Florida.

NEW CENTURY & HOME123 victims should check their recorded assignments and other documents immediately!!!!

New Century & Home123 had notaries who did notarize a ‘stamped’ signature (Steve Nagy primarily) and I have personally seen these recorded in Florida and California.

Along with any of your other claims, you need to
make sure the judge sees the certified copies of these illegal recordings!!

—also look for forgeries on the assignments.

OTHER STATES—you should also check on the laws in your state as to the legality of a ‘stamped’ signature on a property recording.
Dan Edstrom, on February 9, 2010 at 8:57 am said:

Found this on the Deutsche website …

Site Notice
Due to the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers Derivative Products Inc., Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and certain other Lehman affiliates (the “Lehman Entities”), any payments shown in RMBS Statements to Certificateholders for the Lehman Entities have not been paid, and are shown for informational purposes only. Such non-payment is pursuant to certain provisions of the applicable derivative contracts to which such Lehman Entities are a party.

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
msoliman, on February 9, 2010 at 3:24 am said:

To the Reader question:

Loans charged (off) are a unique problem for the bank that I believe. Its something that is not covered here or much anywhere at all. A charge off is a charge to earnings and that creates a whole new line of consideration.

The government has brought back to the banks the novel approach of charging current years losses to future income. It’s called NOL and the last year I was a mortgage banker was the last year one could basically be rewarded a nice booty for sustaining massive losses.

It’s the opposite of a shelter where prior year’s net income before taxes paid can be returned for current years losses. In other words we got a huge refund on taxes paid the year before.

It’s a little insane for a government in dire straights from a massive deficit but it’s needed to stimulate a quicker “flush” for bad loans and to accelerate the current lethargic prepayments speed. That is my view given the current inventory nationwide of toxic assets that are or should be “classified” accordingly by lenders.

Your referring to loans written down by the bank as non collectable which I believe is 60 percent.

When you say “loan put on nonaccrual” it’s a non performing asset and therefore properly classified. The bank till January 1st was in no shape to write down these assets as the loss of value based on a write down (to 60%) and cost to repurchase using a fed funds rate in excess of the coupon for the subject note (say 10%) made things virtually impossible.

You continue to say “bank getting TARP funds” and also “bank getting goodwill impairment from parent company of $109 million for bad loans”. We know about the first and the latter refers to mark to market valuations on assets held (about time).

It’s the true “par” value for the stock. It just adds to the punishing effect the current sector of bank finance is being made to suffer.

Lender having bad loans in 2007, 2008, 2009 of $150 million is, as mentioned not all that bad considering. The number is easily managed by a modestly capitalized the lender so I question your numbers here.

More on this as the charge off is really what I have based my entire assumptions on for why a borrower may be right in arguing a loan on their home does not exist. I can go against 10 attorneys and testify to the defect caused by the delayed timing of the assignments or lack of standing due to the assignment having lacked the elements necessary to perfect a bonifide sale. As an expert I would say save your money and do it yourself as the attorneys can likely argue around these facts.

But I can establish a reconstruction of the general ledger and show from an accounting analysis the note is unsecured. Therein the deed is unenforceable.

That I will use against every attorney in America and the client should prevail.

I like these odds better. Constructive testimony is a tough sell here. Empirical data incorporated into testimony is a slam docket

M. Soliman
Expert.witness@live.com
Abby in CA, on February 6, 2010 at 11:00 am said:

There may be a very good reason why judges are not ruling favorably for the homeowner.

The judges and probably most of the federal or state workers (FBI, federal judges, federal bankruptcy trustees, other federal court workers, state court judges and those court workers, federal US Senators, attorney generals etc.) have retirement plans and the plans have invested heavily into the MBS & ABS securities.

These are ‘institutional’ investments.

Thus, they do not want to see their retirement monies diminish or vaporize. They do not want to rock the boat.

AND, if their retirment monies have dwindled….right now, they are more apt to blame the homeowner and NOT the banksters-fraudsters etc.

I think somebody recently sent me something showing the breakdown on investments for state judges in one state (maybe Minnesota)….very heavily invested in MBS & ABS.

Get the picture?
Deontos, on February 6, 2010 at 12:24 am said:

How to Research a Legal Problem:
A Guide for Non-Lawyers

This guide is intended to help a person with a legal problem find legal rules that can resolve
or prevent conflict. It is most useful to work through the steps and
sources in the order given.

GETTING STARTED
State the question clearly that you need to answer.

Determine the jurisdiction, meaning the particular subject and locality. You must first determine which court or government agency can resolve the conflict before beginning legal research.

Understand citations and abbreviations. Most law books are cited in the order of volume number, book, and page. For example, 410 U.S. 113 would signify volume 410 of United States Reports, page 113. Statutes are cited by statute title and section number, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for title 42 United States Code section
1983. Most of the abbreviations you will encounter are explained in the text of this pamphlet.

full article:
http://www.aallnet.org/sis/lisp/HowToResearchLegalProblem_FINAL.pdf
usedkarguy, on February 5, 2010 at 5:47 pm said:

Deontos, the unemployment rate video says it all. Thanks.
vickieb, on February 4, 2010 at 11:36 am said:

My house was sold at sheriff sale on Nov. 13. To make a long story short I signed one CFK to be out by the 13th of Jan. It was extended until Jan. 31 but without money (not a big deal to me — the extra time was more important). We signed two different CFKs.

Now it is Feb. 4th and we are still in our home because our son’s attorney said don’t leave until the sheriff shows up. BUT……he asked the attorney and the attorney said that the mortgage company – OCWEN – still does not have the official deed to the house. So we signed a CFK to leave a house that was still ours. My question is this — does this void the CFK? And if it does believe me I will not sign another one. Any advice out there?
bt, on February 4, 2010 at 9:14 am said:

Prose confused: POST REQUEST

bascially writing a post about how a bad lender, making $150 million in nonperforming loans helped perpertuate bad loans and now is chasing people like crazy.

Would you be able to write an article on any of these matters; I am pro se and can not find any helpful info about this stuff;

1) trying to prove a lender failed to mitigate a property and losses when borrower offered short sales and deed-in-lieu when it provided proof to the lender it is insolvent.

2) how to fight attorney fees in a foreclosure when the borrower offered deed-in-lieu

3) default interest rate goes to 18% ( any defenses of not paying such a high rate)

defenses for: 1) loans charged off 2) loans written down 3) loan put on nonaccrual 4) bank getting TARP funds 5) bank getting goodwill impairment from parent company of $109 million for bad loans. 6) lender having bad loans in 2007, 2008, 2009 of $150 million
bt, on February 4, 2010 at 8:45 am said:

HELP- I have a property worth $200,000 less than owed. Hve presented three short sales and deed-in-lieu to th bank and they refuse. The note is owned by a local bank, however the banak has gotten $30 million in TARP, has $150 million in bad loans, and the parent company gave them $110 million in good will impairment to offset bad loans, they have also charged my loan off.

ANyone know how to fight interest owed or foreclosure defenses for: 1) loans charged off 2) loans written down 3) loan put on nonaccrual 4) bank getting TARP funds 5) bank getting goodwill impairment from parent company.

Trying to fight interest they claim owed, attorney fees, since i offered deed-in-lieu and the fact the loan or interest may have been paid.
steve sinacola, on February 3, 2010 at 7:47 pm said:

viva italiano

Italy Seizes Bank of America, Dexia Assets Amid Probe

By Elisa Martinuzzi
Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) — Italy’s financial police are seizing 73.3 million euros ($102 million) of assets from Bank of America Corp. and a unit of Dexia SA as part of a probe into an alleged derivatives fraud in the region of Apulia.
Police are investigating losses on derivatives linked to the sale of 870 million euros of bonds sold by the regional government in 2003 and 2004, according to an e-mail from the prosecutor’s office in Bari today. The banks misled the municipality, located in the heel of Italy, on the economic advantages of the transaction and concealed their fees, the prosecutor said.
The region, also known as Puglia, joins more than 519 Italian municipalities that face 990 million euros in derivatives losses, according to data compiled by the Bank of Italy. In Milan, prosecutors seized assets from four banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG in April and requested they stand trial for alleged fraud. Hearings started this month.

Continued here

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-03/italy-seizes-bank-of-america-dexia-assets-in-derivatives-probe.html
Deontos, on February 3, 2010 at 10:45 am said:

Unemployment Rate Growth From June 07 to Nov 09
marcus, on February 3, 2010 at 8:20 am said:

No Help in Sight, More Homeowners Walk Away

By DAVID STREITFELD
NY Times

In 2006, Benjamin Koellmann bought a condominium in Miami Beach. By his calculation, it will be about the year 2025 before he can sell his modest home for what he paid. Or maybe 2040.
“People like me are beginning to feel like suckers,” Mr. Koellmann said. “Why not let it go in default and rent a better place for less?”

After three years of plunging real estate values, after the bailouts of the bankers and the revival of their million-dollar bonuses, after the Obama administration’s loan modification plan raised the expectations of many but satisfied only a few, a large group of distressed homeowners is wondering the same thing.

New research suggests that when a home’s value falls below 75 percent of the amount owed on the mortgage, the owner starts to think hard about walking away, even if he or she has the money to keep paying.

In a situation without precedent in the modern era, millions of Americans are in this bleak position. Whether, or how, to help them is one of the biggest questions the Obama administration confronts as it seeks a housing policy that would contribute to the economic recovery.

“We haven’t yet found a way of dealing with this that would, we think, be practical on a large scale,” the assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability, Herbert M. Allison Jr., said in a recent briefing.

The number of Americans who owed more than their homes were worth was virtually nil when the real estate collapse began in mid-2006, but by the third quarter of 2009, an estimated 4.5 million homeowners had reached the critical threshold, with their home’s value dropping below 75 percent of the mortgage balance.

They are stretched, aggrieved and restless. With figures released last week showing that the real estate market was stalling again, their numbers are now projected to climb to a peak of 5.1 million by June — about 10 percent of all Americans with mortgages.

“We’re now at the point of maximum vulnerability,” said Sam Khater, a senior economist with First American CoreLogic, the firm that conducted the recent research. “People’s emotional attachment to their property is melting into the air.”

Suggestions that people would be wise to renege on their home loans are at least a couple of years old, but they are turning into a full-throated barrage. Bloggers were quick to note recently that landlords of an 11,000-unit residential complex in Manhattan showed no hesitation, or shame, in walking away from their deeply underwater investment.

“Since the beginning of December, I’ve advised 60 people to walk away,” said Steve Walsh, a mortgage broker in Scottsdale, Ariz. “Everyone has lost hope. They don’t qualify for modifications, and being on the hamster wheel of paying for a property that is not worth it gets so old.”

x_http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/03walk.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
L.Fitzgerald, on February 3, 2010 at 7:06 am said:

Attention Florida homeowners : Please your protest letter to the Florida Legislature asap!

You can copy/paste my letter and customize it.and email / fax/ to your Representative /Senator

Please don’t fall asleep while the fox is circling your hen house.

———————————————————————–

To : Florida State Legislature

From : A Florida Resident of Orlando Fl. 32828

Ref: The Florida Bankers Association 400-member bankers association

Proposal to change the foreclosure laws in the state of Florida into a non-judicial

State.
__________________________________________

It seems the Bankers Association is trying to push legislation that only benefits the

Bankers..“ The Florida Bankers Association would prefer that foreclosures skip the

auction process and the courts entirely”.

It would become a much easier transaction , and a fast-tact tactic for the “ Banks or

Lenders “to continue committing fraud against helpless and un-represented

homeowners who can’t afford the cost of attorney fees.

These “ Bankers or Lenders “ and their “ Foreclosure Mills” have foreclosed on

thousands of homes ..with out the proper documentation , or with fabricated

paperwork.

It is a known fact that all these mortgage loans have been paid off by the wall street

credit default swaps , A.I.G., AMBAC insurance policies , Hedge funds ,and the

American Taxpayer/ Federal Govt. funds with those trillion dollar “ Bail outs.”

These Banks have been paid many times over for the mortgage loan that defaulted , yet

they want it all. The money that they already received , and the house. for a massive

windfall in their favor. These mortgage loans were financed by the investors, who are the

real lenders. These Banks were middle men that facilitated the loan transactions.

They have no real interest in these loans . They have made billions in profit with the

“ Wall Street Securitization scam “ and are stealing again from both the

homeowners and the investors.

We are reading in the newspaper’s , in the internet legal websites .and internet

“Attorney and Legal “ Blogs. of the many courts rulings that are finding that fraud is

running amuck in the Circuit Court foreclosing proceedings .

If a Florida Legislator joins the Banks with their intensions of transforming the state of

Florida into a non- judicial state and votes in favor for this unjust law , we will all know

that the Legislator was bought and sold to the “ Wall Street Bankers & Lenders”

Soon this massive fraud and grand theft of the homeowners of America , by these “Wall

Street Bankers” will be know to the general public.

The Outcry will be heard from coast to coast , and the lawmakers will be considered

accomplices, and facilitators’ of this massive fraud.

L.FitzGerald
Foreclosed Homeowner
msoliman, on February 3, 2010 at 2:43 am said:

By AMIR EFRATI
In a ruling that backs borrowers . . . who inflated their income to get a loan don’t have to pay back a bank because the lender should have noticed a “red flag” about the deceit.
———————————————————————
Amir

First, I love this case and remember the day the article broke. I was working for a law firm downtown and could not believe what I read.

However, Its a bankruptcy court and 2nd mortgage which is by all accounts, nothing really huge.
Predatory arguments are all but lost to defendants now. (maybe – I don’t believe so from a section 32 perspective.)

But, nothing here I can see of any significant merit, really. Survey say’s No cigar!

MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
msoliman, on February 3, 2010 at 2:21 am said:

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT / DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES / BANK OF NY VS SANDERS

I am in court to TESTIFY as a witness a few weeks back and Bank of NY has a very good and locally known UD attorney showing up. This dude is good people in Los Angeles…good at getting you out!

He says to the defendant, in the hallway, okay, now what do you want with the house you lost? He continues, why are we talking? It’s my house?

I say settle down my hyper active friend, simmer down here cowboy! Its my house he continues. Counsel say’s who are you, an attorney?

I say – no insults please, let’s be cordial. Then he says to the defendant, I want you out immediately and will forgo the accrued per deim expenses my client seeks to collect when we regain occupation.

I said, you got a problem here counsel, I will testify more than one problem exists here and show a laundry list of problematic issues which will circumvent your claims.

He said, yeah, you think so? I said I am engaged soley as an expert; I am not going to answer anymore questions as counsel to the clinet . Please address her.

He asks me the same thing again. So I say to him – “off the record, I don’t think you have a chance”. He laughs and tells me that the court won’t hear the defendants arguments, even if they had merit.

And I said I agree and the same holds true for you as I believe the defendent should seek to have the matter thrown out and dismissed for the same jurisidcitional issues .

ISSUES: Pursuant to the complaint B of NY filed , the attorney in the pleading was outsuide the jurisidction issue for the court. I am referring to rferences of ownership and about “duly perfected”, “lawful sale”, “trustee lawfully performed” …etc. I was confident the defendant could get the Judge to see this from an equitable standard for application of court rules, the law and as for juridistiction.

So I tell the lawyer – I am afraid your outside this courts limited jurisdiction and she should be able to get the court to dismiss your case. Folks, this guy is raging against the machine and by now has a legal back up with him. He lets out this sinister roar and say’s Fine , lets take it to trial. I never lose understand, never!

I said I am not an attorney and cannot represent this client here today pro per. But I can testify , and after looking at the client, she agreed. So we both said – “lets do it!”

Counsel say’s great, excellent , its your mistake! Now lets get inside! (this cat needed a chill pill and wow)

So we return to court and the lawyer is already up in front of the judge. His chief side kick ask’s the defendant to speak – alone and I said OF COURSE.

He tried to sweeten the offer with a little extra sizzle and incentives but not much. Client comes back in and siad “pass”. A few minutes later we are informed by the court as follows:

The Plaintiff – Bk of NY would like additional time to prepare and asked to reschedule the trial. Next month we are back in court.

Stay posted!

Msoliman
expert.witness@live.com

(IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Always consider a licensed attorney before you make any decsions affecting your finances, legal rights and your rights in a debt collection affecting real property. Beware that only a licensed pratitioner can inform you of your rights and islicensed to practice law).
msoliman, on February 3, 2010 at 12:39 am said:

You sued to stop the non-judicial foreclosure and lost (or in bankruptcy the judge granted the motion for relief from stay).
**Of course. The lender has no standing and should never have been brought into the bankruptcy

The judge would not allow violations of the law to stop the sale.
** Wrong court, wrong matter and wrong jurisdiction. In the right court he would hand them a sentence there on the spot (LOL)

The parties involved in the foreclosure sale did in fact violate the law to your detriment, but the judge decided that in equity, the “lender” gets your house.
**Not true. We prevailed over the lender today with the judge denying summary judgment. Major fraud in the recording instruments and we were moved to trial after we were granted a 45 day stay and to set calendar.

What claims would somebody have after they lost their house – assuming they are not trying to recover the house, just damages suffered by the unlawful acts of others?
**tortuous interference by a trustee caused by a unlawful act’s) by parties impersonating the lender, slander of title, dis joinder of parties, conspiracy to perpetrate fraud, fraud against a county recorder, estoppels, estoppels by deed, latches , and estoppels by deed,

Court are obligated to carefully scrutinize all filings and pleadings in Foreclosure actions, since the unique nature of real property requires contracts and
transactions concerning real property to be in writing.

The law holds that when a mortgage is assigned, moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording requirements. Before an entity assigned an interest in Real property, is entitled to receive a distribution from the sale of the property, their interest therein must have been recorded in accordance with the law.”

The bias in a UD hearing is for the defendant in my opinion. (tough call folks I known I am stepping out here). The premise for enforceability in a holdover matter is for a claim free of fraud and any deceptiveness in executing the recovery. The law is clear where the deed cannot suffer from any reasonable claims of a defect or efforts to defraud. If the deed is defect the sale must fail.

You ** cannot ** transfer ** title ** to **real property ** if the deed is defect.

I assume that in some instances you could recover actual damages. In my opinion that could include the full value of the house (not sure which value), moving costs, etc. Don’t forget that in ca (possibly other states also) that using your personally identifiable information for any unlawful act is a felony.

** Stop you did not lose your home – yet. Motion to set aside and get the matter heard subject to new evidence (see your attorney) dismissed in the current department and compel the court to determine the diversity issues and multi jurisdictional and need to bring this in a judicial action.

Hint: regarding the notice of default declaration (in CA) – the law says this must be under oath and for many it is not. In my opinion, this is also a violation of California penal code 530.5 (identity theft) because this document makes use of your personally identifiable information unlawfully.
The assignment will often not bear any evidence that it was an authorized agent of lender or lender authorized anyone to execute the assignment in question. Nor will the assignment bear any authentication in the form of a corporate seal or stamp indicating that anyone with authority.

COMMENT’S: Look, let the fraud go for now!
1) The Deed is defect
2) Lender has no standing
3) Read the deed of sale again – Property was purchased? Purchased at sale? Granted by the Trust? And sold to the trust?

What is up with that?

Dan, Its Maher remember? We use to talk and don’t know what happened here to me on this site. It seems every time I bring another success to this site I am attacked for spam or web sites go up and of course the Whack off report.

Still I am grateful to Garfield for this chance to share information. But we are prevailing Dan and I’ll be back in court on Thursday. We had a Trustee rescind a foreclosure today after a sale date was set last November. I also met with a County Assessor to show him what you’re talking about – more on that later.

You’re confusing the courts jurisdiction here. Also you’re arguing in the wrong jurisdiction. You also let the plaintiff off the hook where the limited jurisdiction works FOR YOU and against the plaintiff. Did your attorney (whatever) do a trial brief? Did you depose anyone leading up to trial? Did you demurrer the UD complaint?

Did you let them off the hook for allowing a nominee to act on behalf of a beneficiary without compelling them to identify who is the true holder in due course? Did you notice the property sold from to the Trust to the Trust on a credit bid?

We all forget the merits of your case and defense and for arguing great affirmative defenses. And read the pleading for the unlawful determiner. In California its states almost every time (e.g. Cause of Action VI. Plaintiff is the lawful owner (wrong Jurisdiction) Plaintiff duly took title to (wrong Jurisdiction) Trustee lawfully conducted its sale . . . all wrong Jurisdiction

No way Dan! The Judge cannot hear the matter and it must be dismissed or consolidated due to the matter s multi diversity and juridication limitations. . .regroup here brother . . . regroup!

M.Soliman
Expert.wintess@live.com
Deontos, on February 2, 2010 at 5:51 pm said:

Kaptur CHEWS Up Tiny Tim GOLDMAN And Spits Him Out
Deontos, on February 2, 2010 at 10:55 am said:

SOMETIME OLD NEWS IS GOOD NEWS….. a rehash from 2008
——————————

MAY 31, 2008

Borrowers Free to Lie?

Lender Held Responsible for Vetting Data on Home Loan

By AMIR EFRATI

In a ruling that backs borrowers even when they have lied on loan applications, a federal bankruptcy judge held that borrowers who inflated their income to get a loan don’t have to pay back a bank because the lender should have noticed a “red flag” about the deceit.

The case, which the Oakland, Calif., judge called “a poster child for some of the practices that have led to the current crisis in our housing market,” places responsibility on the lender for vetting information in loan applications.

Inaccuracies in loan documents have emerged as a factor behind the current wave of foreclosure and bankruptcy actions. Mortgage experts say some applications were riddled with inflated credit and income scores that allowed borrowers to qualify for loans that should have been out of their reach.

The Oakland case highlights a debate that has emerged over whether responsibility for homeowners’ woes should fall to lenders or borrowers. In the May 23 ruling following a trial, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Leslie J. Tchaikovsky said that Cleveland-based National City Bank couldn’t recover debt from a Pinole, Calif., couple who emerged from bankruptcy because the lender, which had funded the couple’s home-equity line of credit, ignored a “red flag” in their loan application.

The borrowers “made a material false representation concerning their financial condition … with knowledge of its falsity and the intent to deceive the bank,” the court found. But the bank’s reliance on those figures wasn’t reasonable, the judge wrote. National City declined to comment.

One of the borrowers, Cecelia Hill, said in an interview: “I take full blame for living a lifestyle that we couldn’t afford.” Her family last year gave up the home, she says, which they had purchased some 20 years ago. They found themselves unable to make payments after having taken out additional debt, from National City, against the property. The lender that held the primary mortgage bought the home in a foreclosure sale.

“Under no circumstances did we intend to defraud anyone,” she said. “And we signed a paper authorizing [National City] to call our employers and access our bank accounts, and they never did.”

Mrs. Hill and her husband, Norman Hill, both 54 years old, work as a delivery driver and an employee for an auto-parts distributor, respectively. They signed two loan applications in 2006 incorrectly stating they earned about a combined $146,000 and, six months later, about $191,000 annually.

They claimed that their independent broker and the bank put the income figures into the applications without their knowledge and that they didn’t read them before signing.

The judge, who said she didn’t find the borrowers’ argument to be credible, said even if they hadn’t read the loan application, by signing it “they effectively made the representation” to the bank.

But the judge said that the income figures “would alert the reasonably prudent lender of the possibility that the information was inaccurate” and that the bank didn’t follow its own guidelines, which required that it “evaluate the reasonableness of the stated income based on job type, tenure, and geographical location among other things.”

Philip Stone, a Worcester, Mass., consumer-bankruptcy lawyer, said the nature of the case was unusual. Lenders typically don’t try to collect debt from borrowers whose collateral has been sold. Still, he said “the ruling is significant because the judge is saying the lender has a responsibility to carry out an investigation of borrowers’ financial condition.” The couple represented themselves in defending the case, Mrs. Hill noted, saying she couldn’t afford a lawyer.
Dan Edstrom, on February 2, 2010 at 8:32 am said:

Do you think you are the obligor on your alleged “loan”? Is a payment really due? At what point? The following quote is in regards to an auto loan securitization deal, however, the same issues apply to other types of asset backed securities – including mortgage backed securities. When push comes to shove, all avenues are exhausted, and as a last resort, the certificateholders (the true lenders) will have to rely on borrower payments, proceeds of repossession sales AND net payments from the Swap Counterparty to make payments on the Notes.

Wachovia Auto Owner Trust 2008-A Prospectus Supplement (To Prospectus dated June 11, 2008):

“If the various protections provided to the Noteholders by the subordination of the Class B Notes and the Reserve Fund are insufficient, the Issuing Entity will have to rely solely upon payments by obligors under the Receivables and the proceeds from the repossession and sale of Financed Vehicles that secure Defaulted Receivables and net payments from the Swap Counterparty to make payments on the Notes.”

Even as a last resort, the alleged borrower is not the only obligor on the loan.

So when does all the “magic” of financial engineering run out and the borrowers payments actually become due again? The answer would typically be “discovery” but you could probably just analyze the monthly certificateholder statements to determine if a payment is currently due.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational and informational purposes only.

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ed, on February 2, 2010 at 5:12 am said:

Another ruling against MERS . This time in Vermont.

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/
Dan Edstrom, on February 1, 2010 at 2:42 pm said:

So here are some questions (and statements). You sued to stop the non-judicial foreclosure and lost (or in bankruptcy the judge granted the motion for relief from stay). The judge would not allow violations of the law to stop the sale. The parties involved in the foreclosure sale did in fact violate the law to your detriment, but the judge decided that in equity, the “lender” gets your house. What claims would somebody have AFTER they lost their house – assuming they are not trying to recover the house, just damages suffered by the unlawful acts of others?

I assume that in some instances you could recover actual damages. In my opinion that could include the full value of the house (not sure which value), moving costs, etc. Don’t forget that in CA (possibly other states also) that using your personally identifiable information for ANY unlawful act is a felony. HINT: regarding the Notice of Default Declaration (in CA) – the law says this must be under oath and for many it is not. In my opinion, this is also a violation of California Penal Code 530.5 (identity theft) because this document makes use of your personally identifiable information unlawfully. I do not know what the statute of limitations is for this specific issue. There are many other issues similar to this also.

Is the Trustee liable for KNOWING that these laws were violated and proceeding with the foreclosure without fixing these issues?

Does (or did) your lawsuit ask for specific damages for these issues or just to stop the foreclosure? If you bring up an issue in a lawsuit and ask to stop the foreclosure and you lose, are you BARRED from asking for damages on the same issue in a subsequent lawsuit?

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational and informational purposes only.

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on February 1, 2010 at 11:50 am said:

Maher,
It sure seems to me that the “beneficiary” setup by the grantor was a mistake (fraud) and what the grantor does he can undo. This “beneficiary” was setup fraudulently in order to conceal the true terms of the transaction and to conceal the true parties to the transaction. The grantor has access to self help just as the other parties do. There should be a way to “correct” this “mistake” (fraud).

The grantor also setup the “Trustee” on the original deed of trust. The trust, created by the grantor, is for the benefit of the “beneficiary” (see above paragraph). It seems to me that the alleged successor trustee (who was probably appointed by a fraudulent “beneficiary”), has the following problems (among other things):

1. the successor trustee is incapable of executing, and neglects to perform, the duties of trustee (they are not following the provisions set forth in the SEC filings or the Deed of Trust itself);

2. the successor trustee wastes the estate (the trustee let’s the servicers expend a large amount of wasted resources driving the value of the assets as far down as possible while at the same time failing to allow for the highest anticipated recovery value on a net present value basis);

3. the successor trustee failed to register as a Professional Fiduciary with the State of California (this is required in CA and may be required in other states – note that banks that are National Associations are probably exempt but that in foreclosure a new entity is appointed who is NOT exempt);

4. removal of the successor trustee best serves the [real] beneficiaries’ interests (and the grantor’s interest) because of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the successor trustee to administer the trust effectively;

Again, as in the first paragraph, this should be corrected by the grantor. This is especially true (in my opinion) because the true beneficiaries voice is not heard because MERS was setup as a [sham] beneficiary when the substance of the transaction clearly shows that they are NOT a beneficiary at all. Note that the intermediary parties failed to disclose, concealed and misrepresented to the homeowners AND to the “certificateholders” the true nature of MERS and why they were actually named as the “beneficiary”. This was material information, that if given to the homeowners and to the investors, neither would have entered into the transaction.

As Deutsche Bank has so clearly stated to the press – we are the Trustee for the certificateholders and they are not responsible for the lawsuits in their name against homeowners. This shows that the Trustee’s in securitization are NOT the Trustee’s (or successor Trustee’s) on the borrowers Deed of Trust (or mortgage?). Or to put it another way, they are incapable of and/or are neglecting to perform their duties as a Trustee. In foreclosure a new Trustee is substituted in by an unauthorized party. This party is also incapable AND neglects to perform the real duties as a Trustee and only serves one purpose. To fulfill an undisclosed party’s desire to foreclosure.

The lender in my case was not a lender at all. I was duped into believing they were lending me their own capital at risk of loss, but of course that was not true. There should also be a way to correct this on your Deed of Trust.

In my opinion the Grantor should use self help to correct these mistakes immediately – probably with the help of counsel.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational and informational purposes only.

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
mortgagelies, on February 1, 2010 at 11:06 am said:

Early in 2007 our firm laid claim to the fact that MERS MAY IN FACT HAVE STANDING as a nominee for the beneficiary. Should MERS be made to join the borrowers quest for relief from foreclosure?

We believe given the definition of a Nominee MERS can perhaps succeed and demonstrate its authority as granted by the “trustor” (borrower) at settlement and imposed upon the successors and assigns.

Caution here with recent District Court decisions which leave tremendous room for speculation in the latest Boyko landmark verdict in Bankruptcy. Look for the matter to be fought by other than “eviction attorneys” who may have been caught off guard by the Judges questions, the case, multi-diversity and unlimited jurisdiction.

With MERS , first look at the definition of a Nominee folks…Please! Its appropriate (maybe).

MERS is operating within the framework of that definition as a nominee should for a fractional interest in the security. people. It may not be that MERS is entirely lost to the parties right to enforce the interests of the shareholders who rely on the underlying borrower obligation in a pass through. The parties are none the less subject to the transfer and possess the rights to the successor.

The Trustor , not the beneficiary nominated MERS you will recall. So we question under what circumstances versus what authority is MERS allowed to execute. We may concede it be allowed to enforce its rights inherited by understanding of the parties but what about its obligation to perform upon adverse claims made by the successors whereupon the original beneficiary is an assignor and the assignees is a fractional interest.

An presumption for a proper judicial transfer is not necessarily going to void a recovery claim by the successor’s nominee where a court may rule it can neither stop or compel MERS to act for the benefit of the parties as solely a nominee. It may benefit or may not benefit the remaining parties to the obligation that are indispensable to the transaction. So MERS is holding the right to succeed upon a transfer of assets and or consideration and on behalf of the paper or the parties? Thats the question we have explored and can challange if called to.

Herein the collective beneficial interest as the sum is greater than the parts. That collective interest remaining will constitute the successor beneficiary subject to a court determining what that interest maybe. Fortunately, that beneficial interest appears to have been liquidated and if sold to hedge funds as is the case for many of these trusts the introduction of yet another transfer will test the MERS further.

We know this much, the original parties cause the controlling interest in the borrower obligation to be long gone and removed from the party often foreclosing behind MERS.

The collateral for the original loan may be long gone to the lender and original assignor. But do the assignees live in tandem with the outstanding obligation? Careful here folks as we need to look at this one carefully!

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Abby in CA, on January 31, 2010 at 6:37 pm said:

ALL New Century and Home123 Victims—
some of us are working to try to get the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (where New Century is in Chpt. 11) to extend the time to file a late Proof of Claim.

So, if you have not done so yet—get one filed right away.

This does not mean that you have to file any lawsuit up there yet. FYI–you can file an adversary proceeding or AP, which is lawsuit within a bankruptcy.

Filing the Proof of Claim will preserve your rights.

To find the POC form, go here
http://www.deb.uscourts.gov/

Fill it out, make copies, send it certifed, return receipt mail to the Clerk at the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.

David D. Bird, Clerk of Court
824 North Market Street
3rd Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
302-252-2900

The New Century (and all its entities) bankruptcy court case # is 07-10416-KJC

Get a PACER account and look it up.

Keep in mind the bkr trustee has two lawsuits against KPMG, which was New Century’s auditor. The lawsuits are seeking billions!! not millions…but billions.

I am not an attorney nor offering any legal services.
Abby in CA, on January 31, 2010 at 6:28 pm said:

INVESTOR REVIEW KICKS
Here is what the Kicks looked like in that deal for JPMAC2006-NC1

Appraisal Kicks loan ct = 98 $20,628,725.00
Credit Kicks loan ct = 173 $41,851,180.00
80/20 Combo Kicks loan ct =0
Other Kicks loan ct = 12 $1,785,548.00

I think it was Chase doing the kicking as it was way before any of the loans started to go belly up.

So, I’m surmising that the above Kicks were then to be re-purchased by New Century. I think I saw something in an agreement with Chase where they were oblibed to do so. I also thinks all the repurchases tied into New Century’s quick demise as I believe they did not have money to fund all the repos.

Now–what is a WAC and a WAM? I think it has to do with pricing adjustments of the offering of the certificates.

I guess some would consider these to be small numbers compared to the Total Execution without the New Century Fallout = $939,890,833.10
msoliman, on January 31, 2010 at 5:42 pm said:

How about the AIG bail out being diverted to Morgan Stanley to the tune of Billions in exchange for advance notice of claims.

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
msoliman, on January 31, 2010 at 5:30 pm said:

Loans submitted and delivered are specified by product in the Trust as subject to the trustee rejecting the loans.
————————————————————————–
Kick’s: When one or more loans or product are rejected and trigger a “deleted” status. It is a cause for “repo” or replacement by a lender.

Repo: To classify a deleted loan and compel a repurchase.

Deleted Loan: Loan removed and demand for repurchase.

But Abby, what is interesting is the Trustee was never given authority to “kick” loans based on product types and credit quality. The “kicks” were solely for deficient documentation. It could be perhaps the secondary was kicking classes of product due to higher rates of performance failure.

Good question
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Abby in CA, on January 31, 2010 at 1:18 pm said:

Maher
will do later today

for JPMAC2006-NC1 ABS, on the settlement date between New Century and Chase, there were wire instructions for wiring to BofA this amount
$191,028,003.00

The settlement date was 2/24/2006.

Other entities who were wired money were Barclays, UBS, Bear, Morgan Stanley, CSFB, IXIS, Salomon and New Century itself (they got over 29 million, I guess for just finding victims to give loans to)

This particular mortgage pool was sold only to Chase and had over 4200 loans in it and nearly valued at just under 1 billion dollars.

Maher–can you explain what these mean (Investor Review Kicks)

Appraisal Kicks
Credit Kicks
80/20 Combo Kicks

Or anyone else??
Mr. D, on January 30, 2010 at 5:19 pm said:

The postings on this blog have become much more sophisticated.

From the early TILA/RESPA claims to securitization, credit default swaps, SEC filings galore, & now expert witness services.

I know he gets alot of flack from people, but thank you to M. Soliman. People are now talking about and delving into what you were talking about in June of last year.

I am now educating my attorney about my case whereas last year I would have jumped at a fraudulent loan modification with an entity that has no standing to be even speaking with me.

Thank you for sharing.
Luis, on January 30, 2010 at 5:15 pm said:

Has anybody heard of any assignments being blocked/voided becasue the bank doing the assignment is foreclosing claiming that the note is lost or destroyed and have not proved that they really own the note?
MSoliman, on January 29, 2010 at 11:06 am said:

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) expressed its approval of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s (FDIC) reported plan to securitize around $36 billion of failed bank assets. …reports that the FDIC is working on a plan to package these assets.

Why are you all still referring to banksters. This article (by Abby) is proof this is an FDIC play and Governement pre-emption.

FDIC I claimed always always held the note/collateral whatever. – OTS FDIC Come on . . .The press has been duped for the last two years. You people are trying to analyze defunct and dead securities pools with trust departments that are likley a lame duck . Party ending boys and you have to move …now !

The new of the securitization tells me this “party” is heading to a climax. All loans in a America will soon be Fannie Mae (before you challenge me – remember I dont publish what I have not seen or heard with a verification of sources) .

msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman, on January 29, 2010 at 10:52 am said:

Abby, could you contact me with your email regarding new century mortgage, I need little help and Dan told me to ask you for some help. (?)
—————————————————————————Abby- Do you have capital markets and secondary trading experience? I did not know and am sincere – just asking?

Remember …its not public knowledge but speculation is B OF A was a “clandestine “investment arm of New Century. I was an analyst at Gerhson Lehman New York when this broke. As more information develops you will find the relationship they shared was in fact purely for credit quality enhancing the value of BofA deliveries to the Street.

The marriage targeted an offset to the volume of paper B of A was marketing in a higher credit by offering higher CLTV advances and other bells and whistles like “flow” and “pool” incentives to aggregators” pushing cash out and no down jumbos product mix in the adjustable and fixed product.

To set the stage BofA offered debtors higher coupon ARMs using teasers capped at 1:20 that it lured away from their own “A” product and GSE platforms that it provided Fannie and Freddie.

Countrywide (now B OF A) is an example where they steered away volumes of GSE origination into sub prime product and solely to meet lucrative forwards quarterly. The objective was to maximize each pools characteristics and product profile by credit class offset by a higher WAC /WAM NewCen brought to the table.

Overall Higher Pool Valuation Mark.
Concentrations of “AA” and “A” F/L/S was a worst case delivery scene for Cap Markets selling receivables into insitutional private label strucutred finance and who continually acted as if it were product starved.

Operating under the radar a “Penthouse to outhouse” relationship formed in collaboration with New Cen is great from a secondary perspective and scary from a view or the Grand Jury. But remember that aggregators like NewCen were prized and highly held in esteem for one simple reason. They offset the “A” product and blended well with high concentration of otherwise “AAA” score and low rate product mix.

MORE AVAILABLE ON VARIOUS SECONDARY TRADING – LET ME KNOW

msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on January 29, 2010 at 5:40 am said:

ALERT – Florida Banksters Move to Dramatically Speed Up the Foreclosure Process by Changing FL to a NON JUDICIAL STATE

4closureFraud
Deontos, on January 28, 2010 at 10:01 pm said:

from the blog: I’M JUST SAYIN

PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE HIS FIRST STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS WEDNESDAY NIGHT.

Here’s my take on what he had to say and I’m going to make it short.

Where is the leadership and the bold vision he promised?

Once again, IMO he was too focused on bipartisanship. He seemed to have something for everyone. Announcing only piddily initiatives with attempts to appease the middle class. Health care reform seems to have slipped way down on the priority list and deficit reduction will now come in the form of a spending freeze (except….we’re not going to freeze the $250 BILLION we spend every year on the 2 senseless wars we’re fighting). What effect will a spending freeze have on our multi-trillion dollar deficit, you ask? Well I’ll tell you. Very little!

Maybe it sounds good till you really put it in perspective. How about enacting some major legislation to really help Americans get back on course. Something similar to the huge bail outs you gave Wall Street. There didn’t seem to be a problem with passing big bold legislation to rescue Wall Street. Those thankless pigs took our money and then reduced lending. They took our money and then recorded record profits. They took our money and then paid lobbyists to help derail health care. They took our money and then paid out GIANORMOUS bonuses.

Yeah, I’ll Have What They’re Having.

I’M JUST SAYIN

me: I apologize this is not on point? Then again maybe ….
Robert Morse, on January 27, 2010 at 7:48 pm said:

Does this “produce the note” defense also work on 2nd mtgs which are Home Equity loans?
Abby in CA, on January 26, 2010 at 2:42 pm said:

From StructuredFinanceNews.com:

SIFMA Okays FDIC’s Attempt to Restart Securitization

January 26, 2010

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) expressed its approval of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s (FDIC) reported plan to securitize around $36 billion of failed bank assets. This is in an effort to support the restart of the securitization industry.

Today the SIFMA released the following statement from its President and CEO Tim Ryan regarding reports that the FDIC is working on a plan to package these assets.

“The FDIC’s move to package and sell loans through securitization is a positive step for the securitization markets and our economy,” Ryan said. “These deals will provide a model for future private market issuances, could help kick-start nonconforming loan securitizations and secondary markets, tighten pricing for securities and strengthen the interests of real money investors. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDIC to ensure vibrant and stable securitization markets that help expand credit and lending to businesses and families during America’s economic recovery.”
Deontos, on January 26, 2010 at 12:48 pm said:

FROM: Foreclosure Industry

Another Reason to Move Your Money
by christine

If you bank anywhere you owe money, especially at one of the big banks, you should be aware that they are taking money from customer accounts of people who owe them money on other accounts.

Let’s say you’ve fallen behind on your mortgage or credit cards. The banks, especially Bank of America, are taking the money from accounts on people who fall behind on mortgages or credit cards. This just happened to a friend of mine, and a couple of bankruptcy attorneys have mentioned that this happens to clients all the time.

So, be aware that this is happening, and plan accordingly. In my opinion, we should all be moving our money out of the big banks that received bailout money anyway. Local community banks and credit unions are at least keeping our dollars in the local economy, and it looks as if they will be in a position to lend money long before the big banks are.

http://www.foreclosureindustry.com/2010/01/another-reason-to-move-your-money/
Abby in CA, on January 23, 2010 at 5:50 am said:

Don in CA
this is a cut n paste from a Chase PSA
it is only one small section in the document and these documents are several hundred pages long—this is just an example…..there is much more verbage on the closing date or cut-off date:

(i) the Depositor shall be deemed to have granted and does hereby grant to the Trustee, for the benefit of the Certificateholders, as of the Closing Date a perfected, first priority security interest in the entire right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Mortgage Loans and all other property conveyed to the Trust Fund pursuant to this Section 2.01 and all proceeds thereof, substitutions therefor and accessions thereto, and (ii) this Agreement shall constitute a security agreement under applicable law.
In connection with such transfer and assignment, the Depositor does hereby deliver to, and deposit with the Custodian a copy of the related Mortgage Loan Schedule in an electronic, machine readable medium, and the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so transferred and assigned (each, a “Mortgage File”):
(i)
the original Mortgage Note, endorsed in blank or in the following form: “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee under the applicable agreement, without recourse,” with all prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the Person so endorsing to the Trustee or a copy of such original Mortgage Note with an accompanying lost note affidavit executed by the Seller;
(ii)
the original Mortgage with evidence of recording thereon, and a copy, certified by the appropriate recording office, of the recorded power of attorney, if the Mortgage was executed pursuant to a power of attorney, with evidence of recording thereon;
(iii)
an original Assignment of the Mortgage in blank;
(iv)
the original recorded Assignment or Assignments of the Mortgage showing a complete chain of assignment from the originator to the Person assigning the Mortgage to the Trustee or in blank;
(v)
the original or copies of each assumption, modification, written assurance or substitution agreement, if any; and
Abby in CA, on January 23, 2010 at 5:42 am said:

Every blogger on here take note.

Opposing Counsels and their employees are also scouring the various blogs to see what they can learn from people who are fighting in court. They are especially seeking to determine what we know and also possibly learn what our strategy will be.

Be careful with your postings and if you place your email on here…..they can contact you and pose as a
another homeowner who needs help….to ferret out your information.

Be very careful with blogging and any particulars about your case.
Abby in CA, on January 23, 2010 at 5:37 am said:

Don in CA
each PSA and prospectus is written differently. you should be able to find the ‘cut off’ date and/or the ‘closing date’ interspersed throughout the
documents.

You have to approach the prospectus as what is published to any potential investor or investor.

The PSA is a Pooling and Servicing Agreement—-terms of the agreement must be met.

The following is what an attorney told me about the cut-off or closing date:
An assignment after that date is invalid. The prospectus also sets forth the exact method that must be followed for an assignment.

This is why it is so very important to find the securities trust or trusts your loan is in and to get certified copies of your recorded docs.

Another document you want to obtain from your originator is something either called an MLSA (mortgage loan sale and servicing agreement) or any similar agreement. Mine was done between my originator and the big bank which bought an entire pool from them. It also stipulates how and when all the mortgage related docs (deed, blue ink promissory note, closing papers etc.) are to be transferred.

Once you find the PSA, you can also see which entitiy is the Document Custodian….who is supposed to have all the docs related to your mortgage. Whether they do or not is to be determined AND if they had them, WHEN did they have them.
Don-CA, on January 23, 2010 at 2:49 am said:

“This usually contains the date of closing, which is important as usually all the assignments need to be completed by that date!!!”

Can you elaborate on what statute/civil code/case law where you see this requirement? Or where in the PSA does it say this?

So if the assignments ARE NOT completed by the closing date, does that mean that they are invalid as all the assignments I have seen are done after the foreclosure is initiated (3 years later in my case)

Thanks,

Don
Abby in CA, on January 22, 2010 at 6:32 pm said:

Here is the link from my prior post

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25598297/POAs-or-Power-of-Attorneys-Samples-of-how-Securities-Trustees-of-MBS-ABS-assign-POA-to-loan-servicer-or-sub-servicer
Abby in CA, on January 22, 2010 at 6:30 pm said:

Here is a sample POA filed at a county recorder that goes from US Bank, NA (securitiest trustee) to the servicer or sub-servicer.

These usually list the securities trust which your loan is in.

Note: these are typically not indexed to your name or property address so when you search at county recorder….you’d have to search POA or Power of Attorney for the entities, such as U.S. Bank and your servicer or sub-servicer, such as Chase Home LLC.

You may actually have to go down to the recorder’s office to faciliate your search.

Since you know the timeframe around which you got your loan or refi….you can limit by date …when you search.

Once you have your securities trust name then you can go search at the SEC website to find other documents filed. Especially look for any PSAs or FWPs. PSA means Pooling and Servicing Agreement. This usually contains the date of closing, which is important as usually all the assignments need to be completed by that date!!!
Abby in CA, on January 22, 2010 at 4:55 pm said:

Feds Mitigate Impact of Consolidating Securitizations

By National Mortgage News Online

January 22, 2010

Federal regulators have finalized a transition rule to cushion banks from the capital impact of consolidating mortgage securitizations on their balance sheets.

The final rule provides a one-year transition period for the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards 166 and 167 which went into effect Jan. 1.

“It provides an optional phase-in for four quarters,” federal banking regulators said. Banks can exclude consolidated assets from risk-based capital calculations during the first two quarters of 2010. Over the third and fourth quarters, banks only have to count 50% of the consolidated assets for RBC purposes.

Institutions that participated in the issuance of private-label RMBS and CMBS will be most affected by the FAS 166 and 167.

On Jan. 1, Wells Fargo consolidated $10 billion in securitized assets on its balance sheet, including $5 billion in nonconforming residential mortgages. The company said it resulted in a 4 basis point decline in its total capital ratio.
Abby in CA, on January 22, 2010 at 4:01 pm said:

Florida people
especially victims of New Century or Home123 be sure to find out about assignment recordings and
the number of ‘witnesses’ required since almost all the new century and home123 recordings were done by California Notaries (Orange County) and the notaries attached a ‘California All-Purpose Acknowledgement’ notarial form to the recordings.

In some cases I see one witness, sometimes two witnesses and sometimes three witnesses.

Often the witnesses are the same notaries who notarized on other Florida recordings.

Here is list of most notaries New Century and Home123 used and they are all Calif. notaries:

Andres Rojas
Erika Reyes
Marisa G. Carrasco
Azin Rahmanpanah
Michelle Flores
Victor Perez

We may have to get some discovery to determine if any of the notaries worked for New Century or Home123 which I believe is illegal in California (I have to double check). It seems like they all might have been located in the same facility in order to be notary or witness.

I did a quick study of 20 recorded mortgage assignments in Ca and Fl and only 3 of them did not have Steve L Nagy’s signature.

NOTE: since the notaries are California notaries they did not have to have ‘witnesses’ for anything recorded in California.

Also Florida folks you might want to validate that the Assignment of Mortgage recorded document is in the proper legal format for Florida—-I’m guessing the California notaries who did all this work for New Century or Home123 were NOT legal eagles.

keep in mind they were doing thousands upon thousands of these assignments.

Gosh–in one pool alone which New Century sold to Chase were over 4200 loans—-and New Century stated on my loan docs that it sold 100% of the the loans they made.
mary, on January 22, 2010 at 2:44 pm said:

Gator Bradshaw should know legal effect. He has blogged on this site and is an attorney.

Gator if your reading, help us out here.

Victims of New Century.
vickieb, on January 22, 2010 at 1:56 pm said:

whWhat is the difference between a judgement for a mortgage and a foreclosure? Aren’t they basically the same thing?
at is
Abby in CA, on January 22, 2010 at 12:59 pm said:

Anybody know a Florida notary or who can answer this for me? The answers might help some new century victims who have recorded docs in Florida which were notarized by Calif. notaries.

This is what I need answered:

1. are stamped signatures on recorded property docs (like an assignment of mortgage) legal in Florida

2. and would that still hold true if the notary who notarized those Florida docs was a Calif. notary
(almost all the new century and home123 assignments of mortgages recorded in Florida were done by California notaries)

Thanks
mary, on January 18, 2010 at 2:51 pm said:

Abby, Could you contact me with your email regarding New Century Mortgage, I need alittle help and Dan told me to ask you for some help.

Xbrooklynite21@yahoo.com
Deontos, on January 17, 2010 at 2:31 pm said:

Steve,
(steve sinacola)

From one unwashed to another I agree. The “Demopublicans” are clearly culpable! For that matter the Judicial is also compromised in many places. It’s a real clu$#@king mess. We need to press in ALL forums available for Truth and Justice. Why? Because there are players in all these institutions in my “unwashed” and perhaps naive opinion who “get it” and honestly are working for “WE THE PEOPLE”. I do agree Steve, there are many hypocritical “unclean” hands in this MESS.
Deontos, on January 17, 2010 at 2:17 pm said:

CALIFORNIA BUMPS UP HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION PROTECTION FOR HOMEOWNERS AGAINST FORCED SALE BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS

from: The Home Equity Theft Reporter by Home Equity Theft Reporter

In California, the Sierra Sun reports on, among others, the following change in California law:Assembly Bill 1046 [Section 2] increases homestead exemptions for homeowners across the board by $25,000 each, so the exemption for a single person is now $75,000, for a married couple it is $100,000 and for the disabled and the elderly, it is $175,000. That is the amount of equity in your home you can protect from creditors.
steve sinacola, on January 16, 2010 at 9:37 pm said:

demontos

Consider these questions from one of the unwashed.
Who created the federal reserve?…politicians…Who repealed Glass Steagal?…politicians…Who confiscated all the peoples gold?…politicians…Who repealed usury laws?…politicians….Who allowed an increase of allowable leverage a bank could have?…politicians….Who allowed securitization of mortgages?…politicians. Who gave away the future money of the treasury to the banks?…politicians

Now then, this huffpo article suggest to find a solution in the courts? I find that notion, beside pathetic, laughable. Would this be the same courts that allow illegal foreclosure? The same courts that ignore existing banking laws? Those courts?

The problem is political..likewise the solution.
hilary g, on January 16, 2010 at 1:35 pm said:

Allan H.
Ty for your response, I waited awhile because i knew you had to be busy and also because I knew you were looking at it on a “complimentary ” basis and I did not want to bother you. I must have missed the message and i totally understand that you cannot be calling over and over for soemone who is not responsive. I will call you on monday…Thank you again.
Deontos, on January 16, 2010 at 9:59 am said:

RIGHT RHETORIC! BUT WE NEED RESULTS. REAL RELIEF FOR Main Street, IN ADDITION TO **PROSECUTING** Wall Street .

From: Mike Lux at the Huffington Post:

I have complained many times about how frustrating it is to see Obama not wanting to go with a populist message, especially in regards to going after Wall Street.

Yesterday, in a proposal to impose a major new surtax on the biggest banks, HE REALLY WENT FOR IT:

Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities.

And this:

My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people — folks who have not been made whole, and who continue to face real hardship in this recession.

WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK, AND WE’RE GOING TO GET IT. And that’s why I’m proposing a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be imposed on major financial firms until the American people are fully compensated for the extraordinary assistance they provided to Wall Street. If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers.

We cannot go back to business as usual. And when we see reports of firms once again engaging in risky bets to reap quick rewards, when we see a return to compensation practices that seem not to reflect what the country has been through, all that looks like business as usual to me. The financial industry has even launched a massive lobbying campaign, locking arms with the opposition party, to stand in the way of reforms to prevent another crisis. That, too, unfortunately, is business as usual. And we’re already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair — that by some twisted logic it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the costs of the bailout, rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses.

Ultimately, it is by taking responsibility — on Wall Street, here in Washington, all the way to Main Street — that we’re going to move past this period of turmoil.

I know, I know, I can hear the protests rising already: Obama still isn’t doing enough and Geithner and Summers are still out there messing things up. I’m with you. But going after the big banks with new taxes, and smacking them down with this kind of language is still a very good thing. SO LET’S GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: IF YOU NEVER PRAISE A POLITICIAN EVEN WHEN THEY TAKE A STEP IN YOUR DIRECTION, THEY WON’T HAVE ANY INCENTIVE TO DO SO.

There are two things I find especially encouraging about this:

• The first is that when Bob Rubin worked in the Clinton White House, he had a huge impact not only on the policy but also on the rhetoric. He was always urging the President away from any hint of populist rhetoric, saying it would scare or anger the business community. And Clinton usually gave in. I don’t know how much Geithner or Summers care about the rhetoric, but I would guess they have given similar counsel, and in this case they also lost big. DON’T DISCOUNT THE IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL RHETORIC FROM A PRESIDENT, EITHER. IT MAKES IT HARDER TO BACK AWAY POLICY-WISE IN THE FUTURE, AND IT EMBOLDENS THOSE WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS WHO DO WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING (who are always in battle with the Geithner/Summers team who doesn’t) in playing hardball with Wall Street.

• The second reason this is good is that it means some decision has been made, at least for now, that the White House is willing to forgo some of the money that can be raised from Wall Street. In my experience, the biggest single reason for Democrats avoiding populist rhetoric is worrying about the political donations you would lose as a result. Giving speeches like that is going to mean several million dollars less in Wall Street money for Democratic Party committees and candidates, and I think that is well worth the price. As I have been writing, democrats cannot win in the 2010 elections without going after the big banks, and that means they will have to give up a lot of money. The tradeoff is certainly worth it in terms of extra votes they will get.

As I wrote yesterday, there is far more to be done, including breaking up the banks, prosecuting **bank executives**, a tax on financial transactions.

<<>>
steve sinacola, on January 15, 2010 at 9:47 pm said:

From a blogger on zero hedge named discussing the Chrismas gift of unlimited bailout to freddie and fannie

When the ultimate too big to fails (F/F) got sponsored last week by the Fed and were given carte blanche on their potential debt on Chistmas Eve, it became apparent that the Fed/Treasury were going to use the GSEs as a sieve that will not only eventually store all the toxic waste but also provide a financial mechanism that will keep money flowing in the economy.

Here is how it may work: the Fed takes bad paper from the big banks, and returns Treasury Certificates at par; free money for the banks. The Fed then places all of the Mortgage-backed BS into a special untouchable account or trust in the GSEs, thus inoculating the economy from the bad debt and removing it completely from circulation (no market for it as the Fed has it cornered…). Banks, with zero percent money backed by T-bills, can lend again and will.

Then one of three things will happen to the toxic waste: a) the mortgages get caught up and paid up, thanks to ever-low interest rates and easy money that is now easier to lend, b) the mortgages are completed in contract, as many of the underwritten properties will have been sold and the turnover of the mortgages will partially cleanse the system, or c) many more mortgages default into foreclosure (in this instance a short-sale has the same effect…) and are sold by the GSEs as REO under some special program to, you guessed it, to get everyone who deserves one a home. (Encourage more rapid turnover…)

Either way, in a matter of a few years, the M BS are dissolved in some way, shape or form and the Fed is off the hook for essentially trillions of real dollars (un-deflated hard assets such as residential and commercial real estate…).

Problem solved. Pretty ingenious, actually. But I am sure someone will point out the obvious flaws in this idea.
steve sinacola, on January 15, 2010 at 9:15 pm said:

the latest mortgage fraud……….short sale fraud

here
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34877347
TNL, on January 15, 2010 at 8:56 pm said:

AIG probe widens to include Paulson, Friedman

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100116/ap_on_bi_ge/us_aig_probe_paulson

By DANIEL WAGNER, AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner, Ap Business Writer – 2 hrs 28 mins ago
WASHINGTON – A House committee is broadening its probe of secretive bank bailouts to include former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and former Federal Reserve Bank of New York Chairman Stephen Friedman.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has invited Paulson and Friedman to testify about their roles in the bailout of American International Group Inc., according to Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y.

Lawmakers want to know more about deals that funneled billions from AIG to banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Friedman is a Goldman director who resigned from the New York Fed after concerns he had conflicts of interest.

California Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee’s top Republican, also said he wants Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to answer questions about the bailout, which he helped lead.

A Towns spokeswoman said he is “making decisions daily about witnesses and testimony.” A Fed spokesman would not comment.

An earlier watchdog report said the bailouts might have cost taxpayers billions more than necessary because officials did not demand concessions from the banks. The money went to satisfy massive financial obligations that AIG was unable to meet without a government rescue.

The bailouts were managed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner has defended the deals and will testify on Jan. 27.

California Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee’s top Republican, called earlier Friday for Paulson to testify. He asked for the hearing last week after uncovering e-mails in which New York Fed lawyers told AIG to keep some details secret.

Issa also wanted the committee to demand documents from the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve by issuing subpoenas. He said lawmakers should question Bernanke.

Towns heeded Issa’s earlier call to subpoena the New York Fed for documents including Geithner’s e-mails and phone records. A Towns spokeswoman said he is “making decisions daily about witnesses and testimony.”

In inviting Paulson, Towns addressed accusations by Democrats that the hearing was motivated by partisan attacks on Geithner.

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Thursday that Bush appointees Paulson and Bernanke “outranked” Geithner. Frank said his committee also “will be looking at” the AIG deals.

Issa insisted the investigation “is not and has never been about Tim Geithner.” Its goal “is to learn the truth about the apparent waste of billions of taxpayer dollars and the government’s efforts to conceal this waste from the American people,” he said in a statement Friday.

Towns said Friday the hearing also will include testimony from Neil Barofsky, the bailout watchdog who prepared a report criticizing the deals; New York Fed general counsel Thomas Baxter; and Elias Habayeb, the chief financial officer of the division that brought down AIG.

Treasury and the Federal Reserve refused to say which banks benefited from the “backdoor bailouts” or how much money they got until after it was disclosed in news reports. Banks including Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale benefited from the deals.

AIG had been negotiating the values of banks’ contracts before the government took it over in September 2008, according to published reports. Geithner considered reducing the payments for two days before paying the banks off in full.

The oversight committee is investigating why the banks were paid in full and why officials including Geithner refused to name them.

The probe will give a fuller picture of the largest bailout of the financial crisis. The government’s rescue of AIG — eventually totaling $180 billion — sparked public outrage and contributed to calls for financial reform. The government also received a nearly 80 percent stake in AIG in return for the support.

Representatives for Paulson and Friedman would not comment. A Treasury spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.
Abby in CA, on January 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm said:

Typically Chase bought the mortgages in large pools from originators such as New Century (NC1) on the list I just provided.

Those endings on the name of each trust pretty much equates to which enitity Chase bought the mortgage pool from.
Abby in CA, on January 15, 2010 at 4:29 pm said:

That federal case number for the investors suing Chase for those securities trust is 08-01713.

Set up a PACER account and use the case number to read it.
Abby in CA, on January 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm said:

If your mortgage loan in in one of the following Chase mortgage securities trusts (or mortgage pools), Mr. Rosenfeld is the attorney representing the investors in those securities trust. They bought our mortgage loans which were securitized in these trusts.

You can find details about the trusts by searching at the SEC website using the name of the trust.

Attorney Representing the Investors in the following Mortgage Securities Trust formed by Chase:
(the investors are who bought into the mortgage pools in which our mortgages are in)

David A. Rosenfeld
Coghlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman and Robbins
58 So. Service Rd.
Ste. 200
Melville, NY 11747
CASE # 08-01713 Federal Court Filed 4/25/2008

J.P. Morgan Acquisition Trust 2006-A7

J.P. Morgan Acquisition Trust 2006-S2

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A3

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A4

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A5

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A6

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A7

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S1

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S2

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S3

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S4

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A4

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A5

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A6

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-ACC1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-CH2

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-HE2

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-HE3

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-NC1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-RM1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WF1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC2

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC3

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC4

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-A1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-A2

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH2

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-S1
Abby in CA, on January 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm said:

Suggestion–if you know the name of the securities trust which your mortgage loan is in and you can find any investor lawsuits which name that securities trust and bank responsible as defendants, I would certainly not hesitate to write a letter to the investor’s attorney and explain the fraud, predatory lending, forgeries or whatever your facts are to them.

Tell them the fraudster banks are middlemen and not only you, the borrower, but the other side–the investors have been defrauded!

If the investors are suing on one side and we are suing on the other side, at some point the middle is gonna get it.
Deontos, on January 15, 2010 at 1:22 pm said:

oh happy day ….. MAYBE

Waggling tongues without results is well just a bunch of
WAGGLERS.

—————————————————————–

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EYES POSSIBLE FRAUD ON WALL STREET
Greg Gordon | McClatchy Washington BureauMcClatchy Newspapers
last updated: January 14, 2010 09:01:31 PM

WASHINGTON — Turning its scrutiny to bigger fish in the subprime mortgage scandal, the Justice Department is investigating whether lenders or Wall Street firms defrauded investors in the sale of risky mortgage securities, its Criminal Division chief disclosed Thursday.

“We absolutely are looking at the conduct of the securitizers themselves, and what did they say to those who purchased the (securities),” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer told a commission created by Congress to investigate causes of the nation’s economic collapse.

“Candidly, (we) have been looking at that for awhile and are looking at that right now in a very key matter.”

Breuer didn’t identify any company under scrutiny, but Wall Street’s biggest investment banks bought many of the $2 trillion in home mortgages issued to shaky borrowers, converted them to high-yield bonds and sold the bonds to investors including pension funds, insurers and foreign banks. Many of the securities have since defaulted, and investors have lost billions of dollars.

Attorney General Eric Holder, who also appeared before the commission, said the economic crisis has brought concern about financial fraud “to the forefront.” Holder, who recently announced the creation of a financial fraud task force, said that the Justice Department “is using every tool at our disposal, including new resources, advanced technologies and communications capabilities” to catch perpetrators.

According to Breuer, the FBI received upwards of 70,000 “suspicious activity reports” relating to possible mortgage fraud in 2009 and has 2,800 investigations under way nationwide.

The Justice Department disclosures came on the second day of Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearings, as federal and state enforcement officials laid bare the regulatory holes, blunders and lack of foresight that enabled the subprime mortgage industry to churn out millions of ill-fated loans that sank the economy.

THOSE LAPSES INCLUDED:

_ Failing to rein in what Chairwoman Sheila Bair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. called a “shadow banking system” in which major banks ramped up their risks by making hundreds of billions of dollars in exotic, off-the-books bets.

_ Deciding to scale back the FBI’s resources for tracking white-collar crime after Sept. 11, and assigning scant personnel at the Securities and Exchange Commission to monitor major investment banks after they were given new freedom in 2004 to take on added risks.

_ Adopting rules in 2004 that restricted state regulators from policing predatory lending and other mortgage abuses, prompting some major lenders to seek federal charters to avoid tough scrutiny.

_ Relying too much on the credit ratings of Wall Street agencies, which had financial incentives to bestow high ratings on dubious mortgage-backed securities.

_ Failing to monitor major banks’ compensation arrangements that gave bonuses for completing mortgage securities sales, regardless of the risks of default.

_ Ignoring a warning to Congress by the FBI’s investigation chief in 2004 that widespread subprime-related mortgage fraud would lead to a financial crisis.

“I mean, everybody missed everything,” said the panel’s vice chairman, Bill Thomas, a retired Republican congressman from California.

Bair and SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro described a series of fixes under way, including some to address the widespread losses incurred by investors around the world in subprime-related mortgage securities.

Schapiro said her agency is conducting a “broad review” of the regulation of these securities backed by bundles of mortgages and consumer loans. The SEC is looking at Wall Street firms’ disclosures in offering circulars, their public reporting and “considering several proposed changes designed to enhance investor protection in this market.”

Schapiro and Bair described multiple ways in which they propose to narrow the roles of major Wall Street credit ratings agencies: Moody’s Investors Service, McGraw Hill-owned Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings.

While the ratings agencies have to date been shielded from liability, largely via the First Amendment’s protections of free speech, the SEC is weighing the idea of making them subject to experts’ legal exposure, just as are lawyers and accountants, Schapiro said.

That approach, she said, “might impose some additional discipline on how they conduct their business and . . . be an effective check on their enthusiasm for highly rating everything.”

Bair said she sees “major advantages” to tying the rating agencies’ compensation to the longer-term performance of securities that they give triple-A ratings, the highest investment grade, parceling out their fees over time.

Both women urged creation of a systemic risk council in which financial regulatory agencies would share information so they could identify major risks across the financial system.

Also testifying were four state regulators, including attorneys general Lisa Madigan of Illinois and John Suthers of Colorado. Madigan said that, years before the subprime market exploded, state investigators uncovered “a pattern of predatory lending practices that would eventually permeate and destroy much of the mortgage industry and our economy,” including higher payments to mortgage brokers for loans with the most punishing terms for borrowers.

Federal regulators, she said, showed little interest and pushed to curtail state authority, while lenders shifted to federal charters. A major lesson, she said, is that federal charters “must not be mistakenly viewed as giving lenders a blanket exemption” from state laws.
Allan Hennessey, on January 15, 2010 at 9:00 am said:

Hello Folks!

Deontos, thanks for explaining how busy things are getting right now as many of you can imagine…

Hilary G… I do remember a fax from you… but no other follow up or communication after a message I left for you. I apologize, I do not have the time to follow up more than once per person… especially when I am performing a “complimentary” review.

If you would like to call me… I have some results for you.

As far as this Trustor and Grantor talk… Folks this is exactly what I have been heralding for some time now.

The Deed of Trust / Mortgage is YOUR Document. If it is incorrect, or there was fraud involved… you have the EXCLUSIVE right to modify or correct that public record. We have the tools to do this.

The best part: IT WORKS! Forever discharging the other parties, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

I have invested an incredible amount of time lately with folks to educate them on these proven successful techniques, so that my organization can be more effective at communicating this to the 10 million plus at risk homeowners.

If anyone out there is having difficulties in getting in touch with me, please try again… many times I get multiple calls at the same time that can cause some to go straight to voice mail.

I do care… and it is never my intention to leave anyone behind.

Allan Hennessey
Forever the Owner of My Home
800-552-9313 Ext 111
Nil Debet, on January 15, 2010 at 8:35 am said:

Ira-
Trustor (legal definition) – Webster’s New World Law Dictionary:

The person who created the trust, also known as the donor or the grantor.

“What you create you can uncreate … as you would a WILL”.
Ira, on January 15, 2010 at 7:58 am said:

Any thoughts about an Assignment of Note that states “borrower is the Trustor”? Does the term Trustor have any meaning and offer to the issuer/borrower any remedy?
angry & and not taking it, on January 14, 2010 at 7:25 pm said:

i urge you all to read these and all the way thru …some of the best legal info re-comsumer mortgage defenses with case law I have found to date..
we may still be in the game.

http://www.lakelaw.com/files/2009ASBL_FINAL_03_Leibowitz.pdf
http://www.lakelaw.com/files/Residential-Mortgage-Issues.pdf
http://www.lakelaw.com/resources-articles.php
angry & and not taking it, on January 14, 2010 at 7:22 pm said:

i urge you all to read this…some of the best legal info re- mortgage defenses
cases I have found to date..

http://www.lakelaw.com/files/2009ASBL_FINAL_03_Leibowitz.pdf
http://www.lakelaw.com/files/Residential-Mortgage-Issues.pdf
http://www.lakelaw.com/resources-articles.php
L.Fitzgerald, on January 14, 2010 at 6:21 pm said:

Hi Mary ,

thanks for your opinion ..

I guess we all have noticed that the foreclosure mills run the whole circuit court show. Almost all the court papers are originated by the mills.In my case Florida Default Legal Group.

They can digitize and copy the Judges stamp signature and paste it on any document they want . Its a criminal act , to use forgery and in my opinion ..the FDLG will use every dirty trick they can get away with.

I have digitized black signatures into blue color signatures with a photo shop type program paint brush. So we all must be extra vigilant..with blue color signatures .

LF.
Mad as Hell
mary, on January 14, 2010 at 4:37 pm said:

Probably setting a trend, so that the stamped endorsements made by these foreclosure mills can pass through.

I believe no stamped endorsements should be allowed, not on anything. Original ink only.

Just my opinion.
Deontos, on January 14, 2010 at 1:38 pm said:

hilary g,

I have spoken with Allan by phone
and also corresponded by email
regarding his approach to
foreclosure actions.

I never sent him any paperwork
though. He said his house was
obtained free and clear as the
result of a Bankruptcy filing.

He also said that is not the strategy
he is currently employing to help others.

My contact with him has been irregular.
I have sent him additional emails which
took awhile to get answers back from
or he has not responded at all.

My conclusion from those contacts is
that if he is as successful with his strategy
as he anticipates …….. HE is probably
quite BUSY.
hilary g, on January 14, 2010 at 1:10 pm said:

Hi everyone,
Hey has anyone had contact with Allan Hennessey? I called him and faxed him my forensic audit and never heard from him again. Has anyone had positive dealings with him? ty for any response.
L.Fitzgerald, on January 14, 2010 at 11:17 am said:

Hello ,

I have many documents signed by the Judge.in my foreclosure case . He has always signed in his own handwriting
These last two times …He used a stamp signature to authorize his court order .Is that a new trend ?
I am very suspicious of a certain Foreclosure Mill ….
If anyone has seen this form of stamp signature in their case documents , please let me know.
Thanks ,
L.F.

mad as hell ….getting even madder at the foreclosure mills .
Don-CA, on January 14, 2010 at 1:48 am said:

When mortgages are securitized, we need to look at the basics of accounting. With GAAP and general ledger accounting there is an opportunity, not fraud, but apparent opportunity advanced by Wall Street and now the FDIC to take our homes since they are up for grabs.

The definition of Adverse Possession: a concept in law which concerns title of a real property. In common law, adverse possession is the process by which title to another’s real property is acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner’s rights for a specified period.

Circumstances of the adverse possession determine the type of title acquired by the party making the claim (servicer)

It is a deceptive transformation of a beneficiary interest into fee simple title, at the expense of us: the homeowners.

Adverse possession is a general ledger sucker’s play. The general ledger, sometimes known as the nominal ledger, is the main accounting record of a business which uses double-entry bookkeeping. It will usually include accounts for such items as current assets, fixed assets, liabilities, revenue and expense items, gains and losses.

When you compare basic general ledger accounting with a solid foundation to a lawyer’s arguments, the attorney’s argument is absent and fails to miss these valid elements of accounting.

It’s unfortunate and plaguing the American home owner allowing the FDIC an entry into an REO market that it is not entitled to.
Thomas S., on January 13, 2010 at 2:14 pm said:

Bank CEOs: Sorry for risky behavior, bad decisions
Wall Street executives apologize for risky behavior, poor decisions in 2008 financial crisis

Companies:Bank Of America CorporationJpmorgan Chase Co.Morgan Stanley.
By Daniel Wagner and Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writers , On Wednesday January 13, 2010, 4:00 pm
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wall Street executives said Wednesday they underestimated the severity of the 2008 financial crisis and apologized for risky behavior and poor decisions. They also defended their bonus and compensation practices to a skeptical commission investigating what caused the collapse.

Americans are furious and “have a right to be” about the hefty bonuses banks paid out after getting billions of dollars in federal help, the commission’s chairman told chief executives of four major banks, all survivors of the deepest and longest recession since the Depression.

As the hearings opened before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, chairman Phil Angelides pledged “a full and fair inquiry into what brought our financial system to its knees.”

The panel began its yearlong inquiry amid rising public fury over bailouts and bankers’ pay.

“We understand the anger felt by many citizens,” said Brian Moynihan, chief executive and president of Bank of America. “We are grateful for the taxpayer assistance we have received.”

“Over the course of the crisis, we as an industry caused a lot of damage,” Moynihan said.

With Bank of America having repaid its bailout money, he said “the vast majority of our employees played no role in the economic crisis” and do not deserve to be penalized with lower compensation. Moynihan said compensation levels will be higher next year than they were in 2008 — but not at levels reached before the financial meltdown.

Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., said most of his employees took “significant cuts in compensation” in 2008. He said his company would continue to pay people in a “responsible and disciplined manner” to attract and retain top talent.

Still, Dimon said, “We did make mistakes and there were things we could have done better.”

John Mack, chairman of Morgan Stanley, said the crisis was “a powerful wake-up call for this firm.” He said he didn’t take a bonus in 2009 and that his bank has overhauled its compensation practices to discourage “excessive risk-taking.”

The other executives also said their companies had tightened bonus policies, including provisions to “claw back” some of the money when performance faltered.

Angelides, a former Democratic state treasurer of California, questioned Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein about packaging soured assets into bond-like securities and selling them to investors — even as Goldman Sachs was “shorting” the same securities, or making inside bets they would fail. These included risky mortgages that were extended to borrowers with poor credit records and helped cause the home-loan bust.

“It sounds like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy” on the driver, Angelides said in an animated exchange with the Goldman Sachs executive.

Responded Blankfein: “I do think the behavior is improper. We regret the consequence that people have lost money in it.”

Like the other witnesses, Blankfein acknowledged lapses in judgment in some practices leading up to the crisis.

“Whatever we did, it didn’t work out well,” he said. “We were going to bed every night with more risk than any responsible manager would want to have.”

The four bankers represent institutions that collectively received more than $90 billion in direct government assistance from the $700 billion federal bank bailout and availed themselves of billions from the Federal Reserve. Goldman Sachs received an additional $12.9 billion in bailout money that had gone to AIG.

Angelides suggested that blame for the crisis was widespread among the nation’s largest financial institutions. “Maybe this is like `Murder on the Orient Express’ — Everybody did it,” he said, referring to the Agatha Christie murder mystery. The four bankers appeared before the panel for just over three hours before it turned to other witnesses.

At the White House, presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama on Thursday will outline his plan to make sure taxpayers are able to recoup the money they are owed in the bailouts. The president is expected to announce a new fee on the country’s biggest financial firms to recover up to $120 billion.

Of the bankers’ testimony, Gibbs said, “It would seem to me that apology would be the least of what anybody could expect.” He said Wall Street officials need to show common sense.

The witnesses said they supported tighter oversight, but warned against going too far. Congress is considering limiting the size of financial companies or breaking up companies whose failure could collapse the whole financial system.

“The solution is not to cap the size of financial firms. … We need a regulatory system that provides for even the biggest banks to be allowed to fail, but in a way that does not put taxpayers or the broader economy at risk,” Dimon said.

The commission’s vice chairman, former Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said the inquiry would try “to get to the bottom of what happened and explain it in a way that the American people can understand.”

Thomas, a former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said one important question is, “If you knew then what you do now, what would you have done differently?”

Dimon said a crucial blunder was “how we just missed that housing prices don’t go up forever.” Added Mack: “We did eat our cooking and we choked on it.”

The bipartisan, 10-member commission was handed the job of writing the official narrative of what went wrong before the financial system nearly collapsed in the fall of 2008.

The commission is modeled on the panel that examined the causes of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the prototype could be the Pecora Commission, the Senate committee that investigated Wall Street abuses in 1933-34. It was named after Ferdinand Pecora, the committee’s chief lawyer.

Congress has instructed the current commission to explore 22 issues, from the effect of monetary policy on terms of credit to bank compensation structures.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: http://www.fcic.gov
Abby in CA, on January 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm said:

BY PLACING OUR LOAN ACCOUNT NUMBERS IN SEC FILINGS AND IN ANY DOCUMENTS WHICH AN INVESTOR MAY SEE, THE SECURITIZERS MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE GLBA. WE NEVER AGREED TO HAVE OUR PRIVATE DATA POSTED ON THE INTERNET AT THE SEC WEBSITE!!

(from NBA…national banking act …OCC website),,,,

As a general rule, GLBA prohibits the disclosure of account numbers to nonaffiliated third parties for use in marketing. This prohibition remains effective after the customer has accepted the offer to buy the product being sold. OCC Interpretive Letter No. 910 (May 25, 2001).

THIS MAY APPLY IF ANY INSURERS< SUCH AS AIG< HAVE SEEN OUR LOAN ACCOUNT NUMBERS

Disclosure of Customer Account Number to Insurance Marketer. Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) privacy rules, financial institutions may not disclose customer account numbers to a marketer of insurance products, even if the customer has consented to such disclosure.
Abby in CA, on January 13, 2010 at 10:33 am said:

OK–doesn’t MERS fit the #1 and # 3 criteria below!!

Criteria #2 – certainly we only have to prove out the word ‘criminal’!!

I think if you go to the Secret Service’s website you will see that they can & should investigate all this.

The Secret Service’s Electronic Crimes Task Force and Electronic Crimes Working Group Initiatives seek to prioritize investigative cases that involve some form of electronic crime. These initiatives provide needed support and resources with field investigations that have any one of the following criteria:

1. Significant economic or community impact

2. Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations

3. Use of schemes involving new technology

The task force/working group model brings together state and local law enforcement, prosecutors, private sector interests and academia in an effort to prevent cyber-crime and identity theft.
floridadefenseteam, on January 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm said:

Luis,

This is not legal advice – but if you set the hearing on your MTD, just cancel it, otherwise ask the court for a continuance.
Luis, on January 12, 2010 at 3:47 pm said:

Help! I have a hearing the day after tomorrow and I just received from plaintiff a motion to substitute party plaintiff along with an assignment of mortgage. The envelope is stamped 01/11. I do not want this motion heard as I opposse the assignment in the grounds that it is being questioned right now whether plaintiff owns the mortgage. I feel that I have not been given enough notice. How much notice should i have had by law?

Also, are there any cases where the assignment is blocked because plaintiff has not produced any documents?

The hearing tomorrow is for a dismissal because plaintiff has not produce the documents compeled by a court order and they are trying to get out of it by giving the mortgage to somebody else.
matt, on January 12, 2010 at 11:58 am said:

I am looking for an attorney in Palm Beach Florida.
Someone who gets it.

The list of lawyers does not come up on this site.

Thanks!
mary, on January 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm said:

Hello again: Well Plaintiff bank did not answer or produce court order. Two vague answers and the rest was objected to as overly broad, burdensome, etc. This has been 6 months of extensions and then nothing.

Can someone advise me what to do next, I am in between attorneys and I am due to answer their interrogatories.

Ps. Assignment of mortgage, dot, was assigned by Litton Loan Servicng, llp, as VP Mers, no POA, resolution, no pooling & servicing agreement, nothing. New Century Mortgage Corp., was my originator.

Help
mary, on January 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm said:

Can anyone explain why Plaintiff would file a participant change form?
Abby in CA, on January 9, 2010 at 3:33 pm said:

Good, clear discussion on Void Deeds versus Voidable and some case citations.

There is an important difference between a void deed and one that is voidable. A void deed is a nullity, invalid ab initio, or from the beginning, for any purpose. It does not, and cannot, convey title, even if recorded. Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Coldren, 51 Colo. 115, 121, 117 P. 1005, 1007 (1911). The interest of a good faith purchaser under a void deed is not protected. See Upson v. Goodland State Bank & Trust Co., 823 P.2d 704, 706 (Colo. 1992).

In contrast, a voidable deed conveys property and creates legal title unless, and until, it is set aside by the court. 23 Am. Jur. 2d Deeds § 162 (Mar. 2008); see Loque v. Von Almen, 379 Ill. 208, 224, 40 N.E.2d 73, 81-82 (1941); Dent v. Calhoun, 326 So. 2d 320, 321-22 (Miss. 1976).

The interest of a good faith purchaser who asserts ownership under a voidable deed will be protected. “[T]he distinction between void and voidable deeds becomes highly important in its consequences to third persons, ‘because nothing can be founded
upon a deed that is absolutely void, whereas from those which are only voidable, fair titles may flow.’” Medlin v. Buford, 115 N.C. 260, 20 S.E. 463, 463 (1894)(quoting Somes v. Brewer, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) 184, 203 (1824)).

Courts have developed rules to determine what sorts of defects render a deed void or voidable, and which defects have no effect.

For example, a forged deed is void. Upson, 823 P.2d at 705-06.
Generally, deeds obtained by fraud are voidable. Svanidze v. Kirkendall, 169 P.3d 262, 266 (Colo. App. 2007). Thus, the interest of a good faith purchaser in a deed voidable because of fraud will be protected.

A deed obtained as a result of fraud committed against the grantor or by use of undue influence by the grantee may be rescinded by the grantor. If a grantor is aware that the instrument he is executing is a deed and that it will convey his title, but is induced to sign and deliver by fraudulent misrepresentations or undue influence, the deed is voidable and can be relied upon and enforced by a bona fide purchaser.
Fallon v. Triangle Management Services, Inc., 169 Cal. App. 3d 1103, 1106, 215 Cal. Rptr. 748, 749-50 (1985) (citation omitted).

However, a deed procured by a particular kind of fraud, called fraud in the factum, is void.

If a person has been fraudulently deceived about the nature of a document, so that he or she is excusably ignorant about what has been signed, courts recognize “fraud in the factum.” Unlike other types of fraud, fraud in the factum yields an instrument that is void, and not merely voidable.
Svanidze, 169 P.3d at 266 (citation omitted); see also Upson, 823 P.2d at 706; Dan B. Dobbs, Handbook on the Law of Remedies § 9.6, at 645-46 (2d ed. 1993).
Mary T pro se Florida, on January 8, 2010 at 8:15 am said:

RE: Melissa Bell

To the other Mary… email me, we can exhange copies of the assignment to compare.

Mary T Pro Se Hillsborough Cty, Fl
waterlilys @aol.com
Mary T pro se Florida, on January 8, 2010 at 8:13 am said:

Melissa Bell notary Texas

I too am suspicious of my Mortgage Assignment to the Plaintiff. There is no corp seal or a resolution.Its supposed to be signed by a V.P., it is not. It post dates the Lis Pendens.

Original Lender: Counrtywide Home Loans
Mers nominee for Countrywide
Assignment to Bank of New York Mellon TRUSTEE(Cert. Holders Countrywide Warehouse Lending (CWL)asset backed…)

MERS
name of officer: Denise Bailey*
title of officer: Asst Secretary

Witness Melissa Bell, Norman Francisco
County: Harris
State: Texas

Notary: Brenda McKinzy

*Note:
Denise Bailey is a VP for Litton Loan Servicing (LinkedIn)

Melissa Bell is also a Notary, has done so on Litton documents… question is, does she work for Litton, or Mers… and if its Litton I thought the Notary is supposed to be a noninterested party.???
Abby in CA, on January 8, 2010 at 3:52 am said:

Mary–hi…if you go back and read thru some of my prior posts you will see that I have been dealing with New Century and Steve Nagy’s forged signature (that stamp signature is very different than the squiggle which is on my Corp Deed of Assignment). By the way,
who is the notary on the Steve Nagy doc?

Why don’t you email me at carra2009@gmail.com

If you can scan your Nagy doc, that would help.

I also can tell you about how I am fighting New Century up in their Delaware Bankruptcy case.

It is important for you to note the date of any deed assignments on your doc, esp the one signed by Nagy.

If it was signed/notarized after NCM declared bankruptcy on 4/2/2007….then they probably were forged and have the same issue as I am presenting to the judge.

Try to go back and read some of my earlier posts.

I might have a lead on a Florida attorney for you.
Lisa E., on January 7, 2010 at 10:00 pm said:

Attn: Mary!

OH NO! Not Steve Nagy! AGAIN? Mr. Nagy, really, Shame on you!

Mary, I draw your attention to the most revealing ForeclosureFraud Guide , in which you will find about 2/3rds of the way through some interesting comparisons of the illustrious Mr. Nagy’s signature.

Good luck to us all.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
mary, on January 7, 2010 at 9:10 pm said:

Does anyone have any information on Marti Noriega of Litton Loan servicing, signing as VP for Mers on assignment of Mortgage, DOT?? Note rubber stamped with Steve Nagy, blank (totally)

What about Melissa Bell, a notary from Texas, on assignment, whom has backround employment with Bank Of America, SVP payment processing, NC Commercial Bank and CBass ???

I believe my docs have been fabricated, to put in mildly and want to know if anyone has dealt with these people.

My refi was done in January 2007 was predatory from the jump and BOA, as Trustee is trying to foreclose. They have not produced or answered discovery, have been ordered, due in a few days. If New Century Mortgage Corp., was shut down and filed for Bankruptcy in April 2007, how can they assign mortgage without permission from the bankruptcy trustee?? Maybe they left out assets? Could my loan be illegal from the start? I need a lawyer that gets it in Central Florida.

But would love answers from anyone on the above questions or input.

Thanks so much.
Mary
vickieb, on January 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm said:

They are hard nosed because that is the way they have been since the very beginning, The agent said they wanted the house two weeks after the sale. I guess they can do that. I don’t know. Everything is getting a lot more difficult. Everyone says there is stuff you can do but honestly it seems I’m the one that keeps hitting the brick wall of everyone hardnosed. No one has any interest. Yes – I will admit I was stupid and dumb. Perhaps I could have done something sooner. So it is all my fault. But no matter who I asked for help no one would,. And that’s the truth. So anyway, thank you all for letting me vent and unload. I feel a little better and have a clearer head. I am emailing and faxing my hands off in between doing the job I actually get paid to do. It’s difficult to keep my head held high and a smile on my face. I’m trying but it really isn’t working towards that positive attitude thing. I’m trying — I really am. I am praying for a miracle as well.
Abby in CA, on January 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm said:

VickieB-one more idea. If you have any realtor friends, ask them to call up the Realtor (cash for keys guy) and pose as the realtor for an interested buyer. Your realtor friend may be able to get some update on what is up and if your house has already been sold to somebody else.

It may turn out that yes, you may have to move and maybe the house has already been sold to somebody else.

Maybe no lawyers will take your case.

You can always file a lawsuit after you move and represent yourself, although I do not know the implications since you signed cash for keys.

But, if your refi’s etc. involved fraud, predatory lending, TILA violations etc…you may have a case.

I am not an attorney, nor offering legal services. The above is my opinion.
Abby in CA, on January 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm said:

Vickieb–this is summary of PA foreclosure process–

I do not know at which point you were at when you did the cash for keys. Cash for keys must be a contract so I am surmising that it abrupts the foreclosure process, but I could be wrong.

Did you house get to the auction point? Was it already auctioned? Have you gone to county recorder to see if there is any recording on Trustee’s Deed (sale)?

Foreclosure Laws in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania foreclosure laws require that all foreclosure proceedings are carried out through judicial means. All in all, the entire Pennsylvania foreclosure process takes roughly 10 months to complete. This does not include the pre-foreclosure period.
Before a foreclosure can even begin a homeowner must be at least 60 days late on their payments. Generally, lenders are required to send the homeowner two notices of default informing them of the amount they owe and of the fact that if they do not pay, a foreclosure will be imminent. Sometimes these notices will also carry information on a homeowner’s options for avoiding a foreclosure. After this point, the homeowner has anywhere from 2 to 4 months to find a solution and pay off their debt.

If this period passes without payment of the default amount, then the lender can file a suit against the homeowner for the amount owed. Once this occurs, the homeowner must be notified, either in person or by mail or other contact. Once the homeowner has been notified, they have one month to address the situation with the lender or settle the debt, After that point, the court will issue an order for the homeowner’s property to be sold as a means of collecting the debt owed the lender.
The borrower still has the power to avoid a foreclosure by paying off the full amount owed on the loan up until one hour before the sale takes place.
In order to correctly advertise the Notice of Sale, the county Sheriff will post a Notice of Sale on the property in question at least 30 days before the sale is scheduled to take place. The Sheriff must also issue the homeowner a copy of the Notice of Sale. The Notice of Sale must also be published at least once a week for 3 consecutive weeks leading up to the sale in a general public newspaper, as well as a local legal newspaper.
The foreclosure sale is conducted as a public auction where anyone, including the lender, may bid on the property. The auction takes place anywhere from 1-2 months after the court order has been issued, and is presided over by the county Sheriff. The property is awarded to the highest bidder, and the Sheriff is then responsible for transferring ownership to the high bidder through requisite paperwork. The sale may be postponed for up to 100 days, but any further postponements must be approved by the court.

The original homeowner receives no right to redemption period after the auction takes place.
Abby in CA, on January 7, 2010 at 4:13 pm said:

VickieB–

There is always something you can do. Don’t be disheartened. Not second guessing, but since you signed cash for keys, that was probably the point you should have negotiated longer stay for rent.

I cannot imagine why they are being so hard nosed and not allowing you to rent a bit longer.

Did you call the opposing attorney?
vickieb, on January 7, 2010 at 1:41 pm said:

Thanks for the advice — signed up pending approval. I just wanted to say I have never and will never say that my husband and I are blameless in this situation. But I have consistently begged for help for so long that I just can’t believe no one really cares. WOW what a worldly eye opening. What if they already have the house sold and my son won’t be able to get it. That would stink. This whole situation is so hopeless and the attorney really doesn’t understand why we are still trying to work it out. My home for 22 years. Yes, I screwed up but they took a 2000 arreage and made it into 55,0000. Every bankruptcy, every forebearance was all done to keep my house. I knew the amounts were ridiculous but I kept hoping I would find someone honest enough to refinance me. No one would touch us once they found out Ocwen was our servicer. We are honest and work hard. I remember an earlier post where the woman committed suicide. I can really relate to that.

Thanks for letting me vent.
Joe, on January 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm said:

Jan. 7, 2010, 1:52 p.m. EST

N.Y. Fed told AIG to limit details of payments to banks
By Alistair Barr, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The Federal Reserve Bank of New York told American International Group to withhold details from the public about more than $62 billion the insurer paid to banks at the height of the 2008 financial crisis, according to e-mails disclosed Thursday by congressman Darrell Issa.

AIG (NYSE:AIG) said in a draft of a regulatory filing that it paid banks including Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) and Societe Generale (PARIS:FR:GLE) 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from the insurer’s derivatives unit AIG Financial Products.

AM Report: Seeking a housing recoveryGains in home sales have been driven by government stimulus, leading some to wonder if the nascent housing recovery needs federal assistance to sustain, Nick Timiraos reports.
The swaps were sold as protection against defaults on complex mortgage-related vehicles known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs. As the housing meltdown grew into a full-blown financial crisis, AIG was forced to post billions of dollars in collateral on these contracts, pushing it to the brink of collapse.

The insurer was saved by the government, which committed more than $100 billion in taxpayer money to the bailout. A lot of that money was quickly transferred to major banks that were counterparties on the CDO-linked derivatives. The bailout has been among the most controversial of the financial crisis because the banks were paid 100 cents on the dollar during a period when many similar obligations were being settled at large discounts.

The e-mails disclosed Thursday suggest that the New York Fed, then led by current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was concerned that the decision to pay 100 cents on the dollar would be controversial.

“The AIGFP counterparties received 100 percent of the par value of the Multi-Sector CDOs sold and the related CDS have been terminated,” AIG wrote in a December draft of a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The New York Fed crossed out the reference, according to e-mails disclosed Thursday by Rep. Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“The outstanding question is why the FRBNY didn’t fight for a better deal for the American taxpayer,” Issa said in a statement Thursday. “Clearly, the New York Fed wanted to suppress details and limit disclosure of the counterparty deal from the American people — the only question is why?”

“If AIG’s securities lawyers determine that AIG is legally obligated to make a particular filing or disclosure, then that is what AIG must do,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York General Counsel Thomas Baxter said in a statement.

It was “appropriate” for the New York Fed to weigh in on AIG’s disclosures because Maiden Lane III, a New York Fed entity, was an integral part of the transactions that settled the insurer’s CDS obligations, Baxter added.

Still, “the final decision rested with AIG’s securities counsel,” Baxter said.

AIG spokeswoman Christina Pretto declined to comment.

Other major AIG counterparties that got big payments include Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC) , Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE:DB) . Read about who got what.
Foreclosure Fraud, on January 7, 2010 at 1:14 pm said:

vickieb,

Are you a member of Lisa’s site Foreclosure Hamlet? Either way, head over there and join in the chat and we will see what we can figure out as group to help you. Members pop in and out all day. Hope to see you there. We have been accomplishing amazing things by working as a team.

4closureFraud
vickieb, on January 7, 2010 at 12:30 pm said:

Well, my son is pre-approved for a mortgage but I can’t get the people who foreclosed (rendered judgement according to attorney) to give us even until the end of this month. I know I signed a cash for keys (under duress now because of the holidays). The real estate rep said they wanted us out in two weeks. I didn’t think they could do that. I thought the process took 90 days from beginning to end — we live in PA. I know we don’t have a leg to stand on but why they want us out so fast amazes me unless there was a deal in the making all along. Sorry I am just upset. I have exhausted all options. We have more snow coming and with the past snow and the blizzard and the house we were going to rent the owner’s father passed away during the holidays and he’s not prepared. They just don’t care — I want to drive my car off a cliff. My son is so close and I am really afraid to tip my hand. Attorneys move so slow. What to do????? No one wants the case and says we don’t have a case. I know — everyone has problems. But to the individual the problems they have are the worst. Sorry again. If I play the game and a sheriff shows up I don’t think I can handle it. Is there any hope left or is the only hope leaving this world?
Arpad, on January 7, 2010 at 12:18 pm said:

Hi Everyone!
I have a question, the fact that Freddie Mac is the owner of my mortgage, but Aurora loan service( claiming to be a holder of the note, that they lost) is suing me advantages for me in my defense?
Abby in CA, on January 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm said:

Florida Folks–one has to begin to wonder if the retirement offerings for your judges included investments in MBS etc.

Somebody in another state learned that multiple MBS offerings had been invested in by judges!!

Could be a backlash against the homeowners—the judges may see their retirements dwindling and are blaming us when they should be recusing themselves.

You all should poke around to see what you can find out.
Abby in CA, on January 5, 2010 at 11:45 pm said:

On THE BRINK

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/05/2010 19:37 -0500

Debt Ceiling TARP

On December 24, the Senate passed a vote by a razor thin margin (with not a vote to spare) to raise the Federal debt ceiling from $12,104 billion to $12,394 billion. The actual debt ceiling increase took effect on December 28. And as the chart below shows, the Treasury’s cash flow projections were spot on: 3 days later, and the debt subject to limit surged to $12,254, a jump of over $200 billion in 2 days, and a whopping $150 billion over the old debt ceiling. Three days is all the buffer the administration’s reckless spending spree has afforded this country to avoid bankruptcy. Had one more Democratic vote dissented from the stopgap measure, the US would now be in technical default. There is just $140 billion left before the revised debt ceiling is breached. We hope for the country’s sake that Bill refunding in January is massive, because as we already pointed out, on January 7th we expect another ~$130 of new Treasuries to be announced for auction by January 15th. And then there are two more weeks in January… Which is why the Treasury better be using that TARP money to pay down all it can, because if the general population understands how close this nation was to the fiscal brink, many more answers may be demanded out of the ruling party as to how it could allow things to get so out of hand.
Jeff, on January 5, 2010 at 11:23 pm said:

NY Judge does it again “FAT CAT BANKERS”

Judge Slashes ‘Fat Cat’ Bank’s Bill for Subpoenaed Documents
Mark Fass

New York Law Journal

December 28, 2009

del.icio.us DiggRedditFacebookGoogle BookmarksNewsvineLinkedInMixxStumbleuponTwitter
PrintShareEmailReprints & PermissionsPost a Comment A Brooklyn judge has rejected a bank’s request for $9,112 in costs for producing subpoenaed documents, calling the claim an example of the excess and greed among “fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

JPMorgan Chase, a non-party in an action to confirm an arbitration award, sought 25 cents per page and $25 per hour for producing 18,248 pages of subpoenaed documents demanded by the petitioner.

In a blistering 11-page decision, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur Schack granted JPMorgan Chase only $1,250.27, or about one-seventh of the amount the bank requested.

The judge quoted a recent interview of President Barack Obama on “60 Minutes” in which the president suggested that the greed of “fat cat bankers” played a role in the present recession.

“Clearly, Chase’s arbitrary $25.00 per hour … fee for the unsubstantiated 182 hours of research by person or persons unknown only helps to unjustly enrich ‘a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,’” Justice Schack wrote in Matter of Arbitration of Klein v. Persaud, 8007/09. “This Court is not a collection vehicle to further enrich already rich bankers.”

Schack called the bank’s CEO, James S. Dimon, the “fattest cat” at JPMorgan Chase, citing Dimon’s compensation of nearly $20 million in 2008.

Petitioner Abraham Klein initiated the underlying action to confirm a multimillion-dollar arbitration award against Christine Persaud and Caring Home Care Agency.

In July, Schack asked non-party JPMorgan Chase to submit an affirmation regarding its production expenses.

The bank claimed it provided Klein 18,248 pages of documents and requested $9,112 — $4,550 for locating and retrieving the documents and $4,562 for printing them.

In opposing JPMorgan Chase’s request, Klein called the bank’s demand “flawed and disingenuous.” He argued that the bank sought to be “rewarded for ignoring court orders” and reimbursed for pages it never produced. Klein also claimed that JPMorgan Chase flooded his attorneys with “thousands” of documents they never requested.

JPMorgan Chase denied those allegations.

“Chase produced approximately 12,000 pages by [the] deadline set by the Court … The 12,000 pages are responsive to petitioner’s unequivocal and explicit demand for all documents for that account,” the bank contended in court papers. “Chase has also produced more than 6,000 pages of documents for the other four accounts listed in the June 12th subpoena.”

Schack sided with Klein.

First, the judge reduced the bank’s hourly fee from $25 to $6.55 — the minimum wage in Indiana, where the judge believed the work may have been done, at the time the documents were produced.

“[T]he Court … is guided by the principal that ‘[o]rdinarily, the retrieval and evaluation of documents should be done by the lowest-level person consistent with accurate and reliable identification of the material called for,’” Schack wrote.

The 182 hours worked by JPMorgan Chase employees therefore came to $1,192, not $4,562, the judge concluded.

In order to determine the compensation rate per page the bank copied, the judge “examined” the Web sites of “three major stationary suppliers” and determined that a case of Hammermill Copy Plus Paper, containing 10 reams (i.e., 5,000 sheets) lists for $44.99, or a little less than a penny per page.

Schack therefore awarded JPMorgan Chase one cent per page for paper, plus an additional two cents for “toner, copier maintenance and electricity.”

The judge also noted that of the 18,248 pages that JPMorgan Chase produced, the bank placed 16,317 pages online, as opposed to printing them. For those pages, the bank only deserved compensation for labor and not supplies, the judge wrote, calling the bank’s claim “disingenuous.”

At three cents per page for only 1,939 pages, instead of 25 cents per page for 18,248, the bank deserved $58.17, not $4,562, Schack concluded.

The judge ordered Klein to pay JPMorgan Chase a total of $1,250.27.

Michelle E. Tarson of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg represented Chase. The firm did not return calls for comment.

Paulino J. Salazar and Mendel Zilberberg of Mendel Zilberberg & Associates in Brooklyn represented Klein.
Abby in CA, on January 5, 2010 at 10:20 pm said:

Mary pro se in Florida–always remember to say to those judges …I am entitled to my due process……

those words…’due process’….also, my due process rights are being violated….
Lisa E., on January 5, 2010 at 9:31 pm said:

Ah Mary,

It’s good to see your update. I’ve been searching frantically for your email address all day!

I see this same dismissive attitude almost every week. We can be 100% right and still lose (the motion, the house, the case).

Judicial fatigue, inertia, disinterest, burn-out, lethargy, and perhaps some other motivating factors to maintain the status quo are challenges to be accepted realistically and met head on.

Non-judicial states have seemingly insurmountable hurdles too.

Mary, you are right about Judge Silver. I have an interesting ruling by him that I’ll have to revisit now that you reminded me. I’m happy to send it to you.

I ask everyone here, what is the legal meaning of a Judge’s “Boilerplate” eructations?

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Mary pro se Florida, on January 5, 2010 at 7:30 pm said:

My day in court.

I did my homework, I knew the background of the judge, how he was a stickler on the law… good!… that was the basis of my argument!

The bailiff told us “Judge Silver, nice man, you’ll like him.”(yeah!)

We’re in the hearing room, another case went first. Judge was just like I expected a stickler on the law, and even read their motion already!

Now its our turn. “Sorry, this case is not on my docket, some mistake has been made.” UGH!!! (13th district has a vacancy as one of the judges has gone to appellate court) So we were rushed to another division, told we were considered a “no show”, but they found a judge to work us in.

New hearing room, (not a courtroom but the judges desk and a perpendicular table) and an unknown to us – Judge Padgett. A real Florida good ole boy. I started my statement to argue Motion to Dismiss, halfway thru he interrupts and says:

“BOILERPLATE.”

‘”I have 80 foreclosure cases on Thursday, my 19 yr old son can do them.”

He asked the Plaintiff something and after that response Judge says:

“Boilerplate.”

I asked if I could continue my comments, he gave me a look like “why?”

He said “this is a case about a contract, a broken contract, its as simple as that”

I said “Well, I can simplify my argument to one sentence, the Plaintiff did not own the title or mortgage when this Lis Pendens was filed, which is against Fl case law”

His body language conveyed “so what” … but what he said was:

“BOILERPLATE”

Again! at this point I was boiling! I said “Well, if we’re going to ignore the case law, I guess I don’t need to continue”

“Motion Denied.”

He left the room shaking his head. I guess I totally wasted his time.

If you are in Hillsborough Cnty Fl, avoid this judge at all costs, he is one of those Rocket Docket Judges we have in Fl.

Actually from the kind assistance of Florida Defense Team, I knew going in not to expect much from a Motion to Dismiss. So I wasn’t surprised, I just never thought the judge wouldn’t even consider my arguments. Thing is, I felt I had a smidgen of a chance with Judge Silver. Ah well….

The Plaintiffs Atty did tell me to expect another motion, with us having to answer that, … so all is not lost. Another day another motion to work with!

I wish I could have afforded a court reporter as was suggested.

… and thank you Lisa for your support, it was greatly appreciated.
marcus, on January 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm said:

S. Fla. foreclosures up 29% in 2009
Source:South Florida Business Journal

Foreclosure activity in South Florida was up 29 percent, year-over-year, in 2009 – to 97,000 actions taken, according to brokerage and real estate research firm Condo Vultures.

In 2008, there were 76,000 foreclosure actions taken, more than double the 32,000 foreclosure filings for 2007.

Peter Zalewski, managing principal of Bal Harbour-based Condo Vultures, said foreclosure activity tapered off toward the end of the year because banks were more willing to work with mortgage holders to find alternatives to foreclosure.

“The newfound willingness of lenders to suddenly work with borrowers to modify mortgages or approve short sales has undoubtedly had an effect on the number of foreclosure filings in South Florida,” he said.

President Barack Obama’s $75 billion Making Home Affordable program has been criticized because it has only been able to help a small fraction of homeowners most vulnerable to foreclosure. Many homeowners trying to participate in the program have complained about the slow vetting of applications, constantly changing rules and bank reticence to granting modifications. The program also falls short because, even if a modification is achieved, the principal on the mortgage remains unchanged, which potentially keeps mortgage holders in homes with debt much greater than the home’s market value.

How the next year will play out in terms of policy and impact is unclear, but banks are more inclined these days to shrink inventory, Zalewski said.

“It’s easier and less expensive to move the product in a short sale than to go through the foreclosure process,” he said.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Ace, on January 5, 2010 at 1:29 pm said:

VickieB,

Do not get confused. You should go and/or call the registry and ask as many questions as you can. The people are there for us and mostly are very helpful. Build your case.

Abby I do not trust these clerks to do anything for us. But to get the rental thing going forward I have to agree. After that, continue calling “THEM” if you wish but learn how to write QWR’s and send them to all the required parties. Use ‘Certified Return Receipt Requested’ from USPS for all of your correspondence. Create a chain of these letters, every month regardless of whether they respond or not. Nothing “someone says” can be used for a case. It will be considered hearsay I believe? I haven’t received one response in 15 months. Isn’t it amazing that they don’t even follow their own rules?

Go backwards on LLies and review as much as all your family can handle. There is a lot of information that can help you here. Again, print the important material. Have these copies separate from everything.

Consider folders for,
1 – All Existing Mortgage Documents, (separate by company to remove any possible confusion if you have that many of them)
2 – All New Written Correspondence (from you to them)
2a- Co. ABC, 2b- Co. XYZ…
3 – All New Written Correspondence (from them to you)
3a- same as above, 3b…
4 – All Registry of Deeds Files
5 – Find a Legal Coach (Att’y Gen’l?) look on PA Gov’t. website
6 – All your important LLies documents
7 – Go to the bookstore and find the law shelves. NOLO is for Pro Se, Pro per. $40

Tomorrow, keep your head held high, you need not to worry. Bury yourself in your work.

“Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand” Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
floridadefensteam, on January 5, 2010 at 9:42 am said:

TRUSTS + NON RESIDENT COST BOND = BIG PROBLEM FOR MILLS

Is Mortgage Held in a trust? Pin them down in Discovery to answer if they’re complying with State Law. Compel if need be. Admission will be damning. Avoidance will be telling. A Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Non Resident Cost Bond (FS 57.011) gives them 20 days to do so. Plaintiffs attorneys no doubt will become a surety on behalf of there client. Sun Tzu says not so fast. Obtain a copy of the cost bond and file motion for sanctions: Under Florida law an attorney cannot become a surety on any bond of his client in any judicial proceeding. Section 454.20, Florida Statutes; Rule 2.060(f), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. For good measure here is the Florida Bar ethics opinion:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:sJHq5U0Gm_sJ:www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBETOpin.nsf/ca2dcdaa853ef7b885256728004f87db/e6c63e9c1307ff3285256b2f006cb926%3FOpenDocument+non+resident+cost+bond+florida+57.011&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Here is the State Law (Florida) on Trusts:
(State law requires trust companies to register, maintain notice of offices and officers, pay registration fees and make deposits of funds in proportion to the volume of trust business in the state.

Link: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:HJ_e1CQpeF4J:mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/%3Fp%3D221+foreclosure+florida+trust+registration+register&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Linda, on January 5, 2010 at 8:03 am said:

Mary pro se–be –TAKE A COURT REPORTER to the hearing.
Mary pro se Florida, on January 5, 2010 at 7:07 am said:

This is what we plan to say to the judge in the hearing today along with my points in the Motion to Dismiss:

Your Honor, if I understand correctly, this hearing, in this location is a bit less formal than a courtroom. Would the court allow remarks before I start my arguments, of less than 2 min? I timed it.

In recent years people in our situation, those taken advantage by predatory lenders, are ridiculed for being stupid, and reckless. And because the sub-prime mortgage foreclosures have become so widespread, people like us are blamed for the terrible economic crisis the country is in. I feel the need to counter that assumption, at another time maybe the court might allow a statement about how we were made victim of a list of predatory tactics that brought us here today.

Aside from that I wanted to say, when I was growing up, my dad was Asst. Clerk of the Court, 14th Circuit Court in Connecticut. Even as a child of 10, I used to go in court at first just to see what my father did, then later just to listen to what happened in the courtroom. I became fascinated and awed by the power of the court, the lawyers but mostly the law. I never thought I would be a defendant in a situation such as this.

In preparing for this hearing, I’ve come a cross, more than once, comments on foreclosure suits in Florida expressing the same sentiment:

Circuit Court Judges favor the plaintiff

but I also found this quote by a Circuit Court Judge which said in essence:

“I believe in the sacred obligation of the court to do what’s fair and right to enforce our laws and to do justice always”

I am here today not to test this, nor am saying this to curry favor. On the contrary, I am here today because I have faith in the system. All I expect is fairness in enforcing our laws. Which is the basis for my arguments today.

My arguments for Motion to Dismiss are based on these basic facts that I want to point out:

1. In regard to the Notice of Lis Pendens, it was dated Dec.1st, 2008
(witnessed and sealed by the court Dec. 8, 2008).

2. Assignment of Mortgage to the Plaintiff notarized Dec.11th, 2008.
The filing of in court was not until Mar 2009.

The Lis pendens predates any Assignment to these Plaintiffs who therefore were not the party of interest, have not been shown to be authorized in this action, did not own, nor hold the mortgage and note when this suit was filed. Standing requires prosecuting party to have sufficient stake in the outcome and the real party of interest be recognized in the law to bring claim. The plaintiffs have not meet any of these criteria.

When exhibits are inconsistent with allegations of material fact as to who is the real party of interest is, such allegations cancel each other out.

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. Subject matter jurisdiction has never been established on the record. If I understand correctly the jurisdictional question can be raised at any time and can never be time-barred.

As the Plaintiffs attys “The law offices of Daniel C Consuegra” are one of the “Foreclosure Mills” mentioned in the Tampa Tribune, they filed 43 foreclosure suits in one month alone, Feb 2008 which is well before the peak currently burdening the circuit court. Therefore I suggest they cant claim it was a mistake or a misstep. It would seem to be, if I may be so bold, as to be an affront on the court not to follow basic law regarding filing of lis pendens and may even constitute fraud upon the court.

Judge Olsen in Fort Lauderdale in Oct 2008 said that foreclosure mills “have engaged in a systemic process of churning out unrefined and unexamined forms pleadings instead of filing carefully considered legal papers.”

When is conduct sufficiently egregious to distinguish it from arguable forgetfulness or misconduct? How much bad conduct is enough? Does one evidence of misconduct in reference to a fact central to the case suffice? What about a lack of chain of title evidence which makes it difficult for the opposing party to ferret out the true facts but in the end, fail to succeed only because of the diligence and perseverance of the opposing litigant or because the offending council despite being willful was inept?

The court may ask, “do you owe money on your mortgage”. my answer would be “I may owe money to someone but who?” My main concern is that another entity, ie Litton Loan Servicing is making belligerent frightening phone calls to our home threatening foreclosure. I am afraid if the Plaintiff is able to proceed without proving chain of evidence as to who owns the note/mortgage and judgment is made against us, we may be pray to yet another foreclosure suit.

Without having a judicial determination of who actually is entitled to title of proceeds of sale, the homeowner can be left without the security and still be liable for claims on the obligation. This isnt just merely a procedural error, it has greater consequence.

Wherefore: Defendants ask that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter, jurisdiction, and we ask dismissal with prejudice.
_______________
Wish me luck
steve sinacola, on January 5, 2010 at 1:00 am said:

Any thoughts on the Florida Poison Pill Motion?? Seems to be based on the SPV not being registered in the State of Florida…..it runs contrary to the “no silver bullet” notion, I have no idea what the required registraton the SPV does not have, but would like to know if the same would apply in Michigan.

x_http://documentaryclearinghouse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=19
Ken Dost, on January 4, 2010 at 6:19 pm said:

QUICK QUESTION……I HOPE A FAIRLY EASY ONE.

We were in foreclosure for several consecutive months 10/08-3/09. From that time on we have not been in default even though technically we are. We have received no statements or anything.

The new Oregon laws pertaining to foreclosure requires them to send a new default notice out and we begin the process again….

My question though is that the beneficiary was labeled as Ownit Mortgage, and they have long since been out of business…..How can I use this to my advantage? Can I sue them and ask for summary judgment based on the false assignment, or can I use it as a prima facia?

What is the best way to proceed.

thanks
vickieb, on January 4, 2010 at 5:25 pm said:

So I went to an attorney today. This is what they said. It wasn’t a foreclosure it was a juidgement. When I asked if I could see the note the attorney said it doesn’t matter . When I asked to have an audit of my mortgage he said he wouldn’t matter. He said if I asked to open the sheriff sale he said the judge would know I was just trying to buy time. However, he did agree to call the other attorney and see what he could do. He also said he would talk to the real estate agent. The only thing good he did was not charge us. So I’m no further ahead then I was before.
Lisa E, on January 4, 2010 at 3:01 pm said:

Mary Pro Se Florida.

Hello. I will keep you in my thoughts tonight as you do the last preparations for your hearing. Did you contact FLdefenseTeam? They may be able to help even at this late hour.

Good luck Mary. We are all behind you.

Lisa
Deontos, on January 4, 2010 at 9:19 am said:

THE NEWS THAT NEEDS TO BE KNOWN IS NOT ALWAYS UPBEAT.

“Life is a Journey” so the expression goes. Each experience
has lessons of great value even if steeped in adversity.
Economic misfortunes are inherently DEPRESSING.
I think the greatest salve to our common distress is
knowing, “We Are Not Alone”, and that there are others
here that will instantly reach out with a helping hand
or at least a momentary kind ear.

We should count ourselves more fortunate than the MANY
who never find this refuge in the midst of their adversities.

————————————-

FORECLOSURE NOTICE LEADS TO SUICIDE OF ‘NICE LADY’
By Frank Juliano, Staff Writer
Sunday, January 3, 2010

MILFORD — A lot of people say “Over my dead body.” Vincenza Garcia meant it.

Rather than comply with a foreclosure notice and allow a marshal to evict her from the home she loved at 55 Earle St., Garcia took her own life on Oct. 1. And, in the eyes of her attorney, her story is emblematic of the devastation the foreclosure epidemic has inflicted on so many once-proud homeowners.

Garcia, who had won the city’s Freedom Lawn contest last summer for her beautifully landscaped yard, loved the small house near Point Beach she had owned since 1996.

She was “a nice lady who was always working on her garden,” said neighbor Phil Vetro. “Every time I’d see her, she’d be out there working.”

But when the introductory “teaser” rate on her newly refinanced mortgage expired, Garcia, who lived alone and was by all accounts a private person, fell hopelessly behind. There were opportunities to dig out from under, or to at least delay, foreclosure as 2009 wore on, but she represented herself and failed to navigate the complex system.

And so, aware that the marshal and a moving crew would be at the tidy gray ranch house before 8 a.m., the 56 year-old woman made her final preparations.

According to an 18-page incident report by the Milford police department, Garcia wrote e-mails to her sister and to her lawyer at 2 a.m., telling them to expect a call in the morning.

She wrote several letters to family and friends, including one in which she enclosed 37 Lotto tickets and wrote “Have fun!” on the envelope.

These were left on the kitchen table, along with a list of her family members and her lawyer, with their phone numbers and a Federal Express package that was found to contain an old black and white photo and two invitations to President George W. Bush’s inauguration.

Garcia then filled the first 11 pages of a notebook with messages of love for her family and her last wishes and left that on the nightstand in her bedroom.

The woman put her four cats in the bathroom and closed the door, taping to it a list of their names and her veterinarian’s phone number.

And then, according to the police report, she apparently put some music on her stereo, laid down on her bed and fired a single .22-caliber bullet into her head.

When Marshal Neil Longobardi arrived at about 7:30 a.m. he found the sliding door to the deck unlocked, and a note taped to it with names and phone numbers. Eerie “Halloween” music was playing, the marshal said, and there were letters and the package on the table. He called police.

Garcia’s brother, who is the executor of her estate and lives on Long Island, did not return phone calls for this story.

West Haven attorney Stephen Small said that Garcia ought to be the human face of the foreclosure crisis. The Milford woman finally hired Small in late August, after the foreclosure had been filed. His appearance notice is the last entry in her thick file in New Haven Superior Court.

“I’ve seen many, many desperate people in her situation,” Small said. Vincenza Garcia is someone “who didn’t reach out,” her lawyer said, and failed to understand the predatory nature of the loan she agreed to.

Across the country there are tales of how job losses and home foreclosures have driven some to take their lives.

“For the first time in all the years I’ve done this, I’m hearing things mentioned like, `He lost his job. She lost her house. We’re in foreclosure,’ ” veteran Minnesota medical examiner Dr. Janis Amatuzio told The Star Tribune in December.

In Gaithersburg, Md., four clients of the nonprofit Family Services Inc., which counsels people going through foreclosures, attempted to commit suicide this year, according to The Gazette, a local newspaper.

Experts say that it’s always hard to draw explicit conclusions in cases that are likely to involve a host of complex facts. Nonetheless, in Connecticut, suicides were up in 2009 from the year before, according to statistics from the state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Garcia’s was one of 320 self-inflicted deaths this year, compared to 282 in 2008.

The biggest jump was among her age group, 51 to 60 year olds. They accounted for 71 of the suicides reported in Connecticut this year, compared to 52 in 2008, state figures show.

In Garcia’s case, she had no idea of the vulnerable situation she was putting herself into when she agreed to her refinance her home with a sizable, variable-rate mortgage in 2006.

The New York native, divorced since the 1970s, took out a $281,000 mortgage in June, 2006, from Sand Canyon Corp., which had formerly been known as Option One Mortgage Co.

The loan was packaged by Merrill Lynch Corp. as part of its “Investors’ Trust Asset-Backed Certificates,” but when that company fell on hard times, LaSalle Bank, of West Hartford, was made the trustee of the loan.

When the 6.99 initial interest rate — nearly 2 points higher than was available from other lenders — rose to 9.1 percent in June, 2008, Garcia missed a $2,300 monthly payment, and with late fees, liens and other charges, and never caught up.

“It’s a machine,” Small said of the mortgage refinancing industry. “These people appraise your house for what they need, and the goal is to get the commission. They are kids in boiler rooms all over the country, who send a notary to your house with the papers.

“They’ll tell you not to pay your mortgage that month because the new loan will be in effect by the end of it,” Small said. “But these people are not your friends and they are not there to explain the paperwork.

“They are there to get you to sign, and by the time you realize that it is a variable rate you have no choice but to sign because you’re already behind,” he said.

The workout sheet in Garcia’s court file shows that the fair market value of her home was $285,000 but her unpaid debt had climbed to $299,570. She had a negative equity of $14,000 in the property.

But Garcia made mistakes too, the biggest of which was not having someone review the loan during the three days she had to pull out of it, Small said.

Then she represented herself at two court mediation hearings, in February and March, at which, according to the file, Garcia admitted that she was in default without offering a modification plan.
Foreclosure Fraud, on January 4, 2010 at 7:16 am said:

4closureFraud Featured on the Market Ticker! again!!

This is the second time Karl has featured me in one of his posts. Last time it was the Foreclosure Fraud Guide which hit the net like wildfire.

Now it is my post on HAFA – Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives

He has a TON of readers so it is going to be an interesting day!

You can read the post here…
“HAFA” – Foreclosure Warning Dead Ahead!
4closureFraud
vickieb, on January 3, 2010 at 1:52 pm said:

What is theWhat is the difference between a loan modification and a forebearance. What we signed was a loan modification — or so I thought. But on the last statement they said it was a forebearance. Maybe I’m pulling at straws here but ….. They are not the same are they?
fference b
angry & and not taking it, on January 3, 2010 at 12:52 pm said:

Mary pro se Florida

i have the same ..Signed by” Denise Baily Asst Secretary/Title officer ”
fremont2mers assign of dot- 2008
Denise Baily Asst Secretary signing for – litton loan -as agent for mers
email me freak4u at comcast dot net
Ace, on January 3, 2010 at 10:34 am said:

VickieB,

Do not get confused. You should go and/or call the registry and ask as many questions as you can. The people are there for us and mostly are very helpful. Build your case.

Abby I do not trust these clerks to do anything for us. But to get the rental thing going forward I have to agree. After that, continue calling “THEM” if you wish but learn how to write QWR’s and send them to all the required parties. Use ‘Certified Return Receipt Requested’ from USPS for all of your correspondence. Create a chain of these letters, every month regardless of whether they respond or not. Nothing “someone says” can be used for a case. It will be considered hearsay I believe? I haven’t received one response in 15 months. Isn’t it amazing that they don’t even follow their own rules?

Go backwards on LLies and review as much as all your family can handle. There is a lot of information that can help you here. Again, print the important material. Have these copies separate from everything.

Consider folders for,
1 – All Existing Mortgage Documents, (separate by company to remove any possible confusion if you have that many of them)
2 – All New Written Correspondence (from you to them)
2a- Co. ABC, 2b- Co. XYZ…
3 – All New Written Correspondence (from them to you)
3a- same as above, 3b…
4 – All Registry of Deeds Files
5 – Find a Legal Coach (Att’y Gen’l?) look on PA Gov’t. website they may have a hotline number.
6 – All your important LLies documents
7 – Go to the bookstore and find the law shelves. NOLO is for Pro Se, Pro per. $40

Tomorrow, all of us, keep your head held high, you need not to worry. Bury yourself in your work.

“Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand” Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
Thomas S., on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 am said:

Law firm gorges on home defaults

Staff file photo by JAY NOLAN
Florida Default and Wells Fargo “have engaged in the systematic process of churning out unrefined and unexamined form pleadings, instead of producing and filing carefully considered legal papers,” a bankruptcy judge wrote.

By MICHAEL SASSO

msasso@tampatrib.com

Published: January 3, 2010

Related Links

Florida Default Law Group
TAMPA – If there’s one industry that’s not feeling the economy’s sting these days, it’s the business of filing foreclosure lawsuits.

Recently, mortgage servicing companies have been filing about 2,000 initial foreclosure documents every month in Hillsborough County Circuit Court. To handle the overwhelming caseload, an army of lawyers, paralegals and clerks at big foreclosure law firms have streamlined the art of separating homeowners from their homes.

Few are as large or as efficient as Tampa-based Florida Default Law Group, which processes at least 300 new foreclosure suits a month in Hillsborough County, court documents show.

By forging relationships with mortgage companies and focusing on volume, Florida Default Law Group offers to foreclose on a home at the bare-bones price of $1,200, about half the typical cost.

In the streamlining, distressed homeowners such as 75-year-old Janice Winemiller of Sarasota sometimes get hurt. Florida Default Law Group charged her more than $4,000 for delivery of legal documents, according to her nonprofit legal aid lawyer. The firm couldn’t substantiate the fees.

Dubbed foreclosure mills by some in the industry, these companies have turned the job into a factorylike process. Speed is the key to their success.

“The only way their business model works is if they don’t lay eyes on the lawsuit,” said Jim Kowalski, a Jacksonville lawyer who has litigated against Florida Default Law Group.

Four firms, 1,049 filings

Few areas of the legal field are so dominated by a handful of players as foreclosure law. Florida Default Law Group is one of four foreclosure mills operating in Florida that appear to be winning the lion’s share of business from lenders or their representatives. Along with Florida Default, other big firms include the law offices of David J. Stern in Plantation, the law offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale and Shapiro & Fishman in Boca Raton.

The Tribune looked at 1,994 initial foreclosure documents filed in October to see which firms were handling the most foreclosures.

Combined, those four industry heavyweights filed 1,049 foreclosure cases in October, or 53 percent of all new foreclosures filed in Hillsborough County that month. Florida Default filed 323 new foreclosure cases in October, second only to the 352 cases filed by David J. Stern. Florida Default operates in Florida’s 66 other counties, the firm’s managing partner testified in a court deposition.

To handle the workload, foreclosure mills have developed a common model: use lower-paid paralegals and support staff for much of the routine legwork, and hire young lawyers to sign off on the lawsuits and handle complications.

It’s unclear how big Florida Default has gotten. Founder Michael Echevarria, 52, did not return several calls and e-mails from the Tribune.

According to Martindale-Hubbell, an information service for lawyers, Florida Default Law Group has at least 32 lawyers. Its offices take up the bulk of a three-story building in an office park near the Veterans Expressway and Anderson Road, and it has an office in Miami.

Jeffery Hakanson was a lawyer at Echevarria’s former law firm in the late 1990s, then known as Echevarria and Associates. It wasn’t as large as Florida Default Law Group, but even then it was using an assembly-line model to handle foreclosures.

Generally, there were six to 10 paralegals and support staff for every lawyer. One group handled the title documents, another group prepared the foreclosure lawsuit, another was responsible for the delivery of legal documents to the affected parties and so on, he said.

Its clients aren’t banks, which long ago pooled their mortgages into securities and sold them to investors. Instead, Florida Default’s clients are the mortgage servicing companies that collect monthly mortgage payments from homeowners and, when necessary, foreclose on them. Often, major banks own the mortgage servicers.

Why these companies like dealing with mills is simple: With their efficient structures, they can underbid other law firms on foreclosures, which otherwise might cost thousands of dollars apiece.

“It’s machinery,” said Hakanson, who practices real estate and bankruptcy law with a different firm in the Bay area. “We thought it was huge (in the 1990s) when we got 200 files a month, and now these firms are doing 1,000 or 1,500 a month.”

On the back burner

The foreclosure factory begins to sputter, though, when foreclosure cases break from the routine, critics say.

Attorneys who defend homeowners against foreclosures say they have trouble contacting Florida Default lawyers.

“They’re just extremely nonresponsive in the bankruptcy arena,” said Patrick Smith, a Tampa bankruptcy lawyer who occasionally deals with Florida Default. “I don’t think they’re structured to put too much time into any one case.”

In Sarasota County, Lee Haworth, chief judge in the state’s 12th Judicial Circuit, got fed up when his fellow judges had to wait weeks for a returned call from a foreclosure firm, he said.

Haworth started noticing a trend: Foreclosure law firms would start a foreclosure lawsuit against a homeowner but push it to the back burner if complications arose. Meanwhile, the stalled cases began to languish in Sarasota and Bradenton courts. Foreclosure mills seemed to think pursuing such cases was too much trouble for the $1,200 fee, he said.

Haworth is trying to clear up the backlog. Florida Default is one of the major players in Sarasota County, but the judge would not speak about specific foreclosure mills.

John Olson, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in Fort Lauderdale, had no problem taking Florida Default and a big client, Wells Fargo, to task. After the firm made errors in up to 50 cases in court, Olson called out the firm in October 2008 in a strongly worded opinion.

Florida Default made the errors when an employee pulled information from the wrong computer screen, according to court documents.

Florida Default and Wells Fargo “have engaged in the systematic process of churning out unrefined and unexamined form pleadings, instead of producing and filing carefully considered legal papers,” Olson wrote.

Winemiller, the Sarasota retiree, faced foreclosure this year when she fell behind on her mortgage payments. She was negotiating to pay off her mortgage with Wells Fargo with a reverse mortgage, but the process got delayed. Wells Fargo filed for foreclosure in April.

What upset her was Florida Default’s $4,004 charge for process service. Her case required the delivery of numerous documents to her family and the family of a friend with whom she owned the house. But when pressed to explain the fees, Florida Default could substantiate about $3,200 in charges, said her lawyer, Elizabeth Boyle of Gulfcoast Legal Services.

“It took setting a court hearing and getting to the eve of the hearing to get (Florida Default) to address the request for an accounting,” Boyle said.

Florida Default eventually refunded Winemiller about $1,500, Winemiller said.

Despite the critics, Hakanson, who formerly worked at Echevarria and Associates, called Echevarria a shrewd businessman who built relationships with mortgage servicing companies years before the mortgage crisis. Now his firm is a leader in a booming business.

And despite drawing the scorn of homeowners’ attorneys and some judges, Hakanson insisted Echevarria is a humble, giving person, rather than a diehard capitalist.

He chalks up some of the criticism of Florida Default to the overwhelming caseload facing foreclosure lawyers and the impersonal nature of the work. When you’re dealing with so many distressed homeowners, it’s sometimes easier to avoid picking up the phone when one of them calls, he said.

“It’s a reality of real estate lending in America,” Hakanson said. “It’s a natural culmination of the lending practices.”

Reporter Michael Sasso can be reached at (813) 259-7865
Linda, on January 3, 2010 at 7:54 am said:

Any ideas on insurance fraud against the servicers?–I received a letter that a new company would be the servicer on our mortgage, then the insurance policy was changed and that new servicer is listed as mortgagee on our insurance policy –we are still paying the insurance–(BTW, this house is in foreclosure with another servicer listed on the complaint)–and closing papers have a different mortgagee listed than the one on our papers and the servicer asked to backdate a different servicer for mortgagee. I know, confusing, and makes me wonder if that wouldn’t be insurance fraud–they don’t own the house, but listed as mortgagees on insurance policies. Thanks, just wondering is this might be an avenue to pursue.
expert.witness, on January 3, 2010 at 7:02 am said:

CAUSES OF ACTION
# 1 WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL
Unethical and Deceptive practices employing delays with enforcing the Beneficiaries rights!

Obvious avoidance is evident from long delays where the rights of the parties are seen to benefit one over the other by employing timing. Borrowers allowed to miss six or more payments due lender remain hopeful under an implied understanding. Avoidance turns to acceleration and surprise borrowers at time of sale (of their property) and entitles Counsel to establish a claim of bad faith business practices.

I don’t need to go to law school to tell you the who, what, when, where and why for determining “bad faith” business practices. Read the courts comments and see for yourself why judges scoff and won’t let stand the claims of typos and sad faith business practices.

Where good faith is circumvented, a legal practitioner must should evidence the point in time any delays by a lender imply forbearance and the offer will outweigh the immediate benefits for enforcing ones rights.

One concern is where the alleged security holder establishes a condition precedent for a more favorable subsequent outcome brought in part by unfair timing. Not by any means a coincidence with third party shared opportunities and delays required for satisfaction for lender claims by counter parties.

The timing of foreclosure can often occur after a prolonged lender absence.

YOU ALWAYS TALLWAYS ENFORCE YOUR RIGHT AS AN OBLIGATION UNDER A BLUE SKY OR SHELVE. That versus resume your rights in a foreclosure sale.

Here we look at a condition subsequent to emerge as more favorable to a condition precedent.

Secretary of the Treasury commences with the enforcement of the Economic Assets Recovery Act which mandates a favorable approach towards endorsement of the pretender lender in a recovery.

Recovery delays last year suddenly accelerated with passage of pro lender legislation creating obstacles for a legal right to counsel and for fees earned for affirmative defenses in California.

WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL cause a lost note to the parties to become of greater consequence when it reappears late in the game. Lost is something misunderstood to a layperson and unemployed clients who emerge as an “expert witness”.

The time delays and lost note become more compelling to a practitioner. The note becomes lost while the recording of assignment evidencing a lawful transfer establishes a breach according to the indenture.

The assignment must record for valuable consideration and it does not – till time of a proposed reversion or trustee sale.

The delayed sales we see are not a trustee or sheriff’s sale conveyance but a credit bid from an amount outstanding due by the obligor for lines of credit in default. Now I am convinced (as I was in 2007) it’s the FDIC that mandates this lender bad boy effort to steal a meal and home.

YOUR FORECLOSURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BORROWERS OBLIGATION (versus the obligees debt owed the government) AND UNDER FAS 140 PERMIT A HOME TO BE STOLEN IN FORCLOSURE. NO WAY SAN JOSE!

Aside from the fact the beneficial interest is not misplaced or destroyed is the reality supporting the timeliness of filing which lender use to benefit their interest lost to the seller by timing the recovery?

DELAYS ARE CALCULATED FOR PREFERENTIAL JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION AND BRING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LENDER ITS UNINTELIGIABLE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE RIGHTS OF THE ORGINAL ASSET.

This deceptive and clandestine method work solely in coordination with other interested parties.

As for delays, the lack of action is saying one thing but does another,” intending to gain advantage of timing and favor of the court. Plaintiff should be held by to what was first said or expressed as a remedy enforceable by law.

M.Soliman
Expert.Witness
Mail to: Expert.Witness @live.com
Abby in CA, on January 2, 2010 at 12:06 pm said:

When quite a bit of our personal data or information shows up in documents filed at the SEC by the financial firms involved in the securitization of our mortgage loans, one has to wonder if we have any causes of actions from the GLBA. I know my credit score is posted out there, along with LTV, zip code, loan number etc.

I don’t think the originator even complied with giving me opt-in or opt-out!!

Financial Privacy

The Gramm-Leach Bliley Act

The Financial Modernization Act of 1999, also known as the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” or GLB Act, includes provisions to protect consumers’ personal financial information held by financial institutions. There are three principal parts to the privacy requirements: the Financial Privacy Rule, Safeguards Rule and pretexting provisions.

The GLB Act gives authority to eight federal agencies and the states to administer and enforce the Financial Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule. These two regulations apply to “financial institutions,” which include not only banks, securities firms, and insurance companies, but also companies providing many other types of financial products and services to consumers. Among these services are lending, brokering or servicing any type of consumer loan, transferring or safeguarding money, preparing individual tax returns, providing financial advice or credit counseling, providing residential real estate settlement services, collecting consumer debts and an array of other activities. Such non-traditional “financial institutions” are regulated by the FTC. For more information on the types of financial activities covered, click here.

The Financial Privacy Rule governs the collection and disclosure of customers’ personal financial information by financial institutions. It also applies to companies, whether or not they are financial institutions, who receive such information. For a summary overview of the Financial Privacy Rule, see In Brief: The Financial Privacy Requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

The Safeguards Rule requires all financial institutions to design, implement and maintain safeguards to protect customer information. The Safeguards Rule applies not only to financial institutions that collect information from their own customers, but also to financial institutions “such as credit reporting agencies” that receive customer information from other financial institutions.

The Pretexting provisions of the GLB Act protect consumers from individuals and companies that obtain their personal financial information under false pretenses, a practice known as “pretexting.”
Abby in CA, on January 2, 2010 at 10:35 am said:

vickieb
don’t waste time…get certified copies of all those recordings. probaby 2 or 3 sets would not hurt. you may need them for court or attorney.

also….work it…contact the REAgent again….say you really want to work something out and pay rent a couple more months.

contact Ocwen by phone….ask to speak to a supervisor if you get no place with initial person

pin one or the other down on ability to rent a few more months

also, and I cannot recall all your details….I think you should also contact the opposing attorney who did the case to evict you….they may be able to help facilitate the extension to rent

Once you get your recordings..study them. More than likely the names you see on them are involved with the securities trusts set up for the investors who bought into the pool of mortgages yours was contained in.

If you see any names that say things like….as trustee for asset backed blah blah…that probably is the name of the trust.

read my prior or other posts on here to find out how to look up at the SEC website (Securities and Exchange Commission) the information on those securities trusts….but DO THIS ONLY after you have your rent extension done…..

again—-you are not alone and should not feel sad—-millions of people are going through this with more to come

many go to work every single day with this foreclosure situation blazing in their brains….

stay focused on getting your house back…not on the sadness or perceived failure….get MAD…

Disclaimer-I am not an attorney OR a therapist and I am NOT offering legal advice or professional services
The post is my opinion
vickieb, on January 2, 2010 at 9:05 am said:

Okay so I did as suggested. The real estate agent got back to me and said this was not his decision but Ocwen’s. On Thursday I received a letter from Ocwen saying that I need to contact the real estate agent with any questions. Who is who here?

My son had a meeting with a real estate attorney that I am hoping my husband and I can go to on Monday. I looked up everything on the county registry to get a chain of who had my mortgage when. I am so confused. There are companies there that I never knew had my mortgage. And looking at my payment history on line (at least from the time Ocwen got my mortgage) there are late fees listed for the same dates and suspense accounts and I’m not sure what else.

Understand, we are not saying we are not wrong in this also. But they took something that was being worked out (although not in writing — lesson learned) that was 3 months behind and created a massive arrearage with no hope of ever catching up. Reading about them online it’s amazing that they are allowed to still be in business. Anyway thank for the advice and support. I’m frightened because they have beaten me and I’m not so sure any of this is going to work.

I have no desire to not pay what I owe. I just want to start fresh with a clean credit report. Is there any way my son could find a way to purchase this place? In their letter they said that if wanted my son and I could. But with a foreclosure on my credit report who would do that? We have about 60,0000+ income with both our salaries,. I don’t count my husband because his business is up and down. Any advice?

Thanks again guys — if I may ask please keep the supportive emails coming. I am trying not to cry and trying really hard not to get severely depressed. It’s really hard. And then I have to go to my job on Monday and act like my life is perfect. Too difficult
Dan Edstrom, on January 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm said:

Sherri,
Shoot me an email.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Sherri Hill, on January 1, 2010 at 7:28 pm said:

Sherri Hill, on January 1st, 2010 at 7:26 pm Said:
Hi,
Let me add one more thing, The NOD recorded on 06/03/08, Old Republic as Trustee. They were not
executed as trustee until July 15th, 2008 and were
not effected (recorded) until 01/08/09. Placer Title
was trustee of record at the time. Old Republic filed
the NOD 42 days before they were in the capacity to
do so. More to that as we mailed a QWR to the original
lender NC, The indenture trustee DB, The servicer
who purchased the rights from NC in bankruptcy
Carrington, The letter to the closing claiming their
stake Banker’s Trust, and all the other defendants
and does. rescinding the loan before sale. NC
said Carringtonowned the note, Carrington said DB,
owned the note, but respectfully declined to accept
the rescission (not timely) DB never said a thing, we
only heard from them for the foreclosure and UD.
Attorney of record for Deutsche Bank who purports
their ownership decared Carrington as the NEW
OWNER when he mailed the 3/60 day notice to quit,
at that time he was attorney for the other owner
one attempted mortgage assignment out of all these
owners.
Thanks again sherri
Sherri Hill, on January 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm said:

Hi Everyone,
Can anyone point me in the direction of where to
find fictitious business registration publications for the
(theif) National Banks, and do they have to file a statement of compliance when they file for a UD?
This would be Deutsche Bank National Tust Company
Indenture Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan
Trust Series 2006-2. And since we have newly discovered evidence, can we still file an emergency motion to vacate on the grounds of fraud, fraud upon the court by an adverse attorney, who also maintains Fast Eviction Services and is on probation with the state bar, (I’m sure you can probably guess the type of case) and forgery of the assignment since we have uncovered Hazelle Weissinger who assigned the mortgage as VP for NC and on the same day also signed a substitution of trustee as VP for DB. Hazelle is VP of Old Republic Default Management, the substituted trustee that conducted the foreclosure.
Thats one better than Judge Schack, !! We have already filed one motion to vacate but did not know these facts at that time. Anybody,?? can Iwe do another motion? We already have an unlimited filed for nine causes of action, but were only at case management stage. DB did a credit bid of 90,000 less than owed. The judge is one that don’t get it or gets more than we know! Your guess is as good as mine, he does have the court file in front of him every hearing, he won’t hear our side and pretty much don’t give a damn what DB does. ?? POS forged, New REO managers for DB have emerged, only the fabricated new reo manager is employed by DB’ s attorney, process server who purportedly served the summons and complaint is not a PS and the declaration of due diligence stated he attempted service 3 times in three days and is about 7 or 8 hours away from me. For $60.00 he stayed here three days to serve a person not of our nationality and well known in the 23 years of living there ,on a street that contains six houses, not much happens here without everyone knowing, and this bullshit declaration was not signed. Under penalty of perjury I declare, NO, wait a minute I don’t guess I do. [$*_?#”!(^% (and more of that to them). Were mad as hell living in a motel just a few blocks away where our house that sits empty.
Thanks Sherri
steve sinacola, on January 1, 2010 at 5:25 pm said:

Let me correct myself. I am suggesting to file a formal complaint, or some sort of whistleblower action, with the tax authorities.. As for myself, I am going to start blowin this whistle as soon as them revenuers get back Monday morning.

I’ll use the link Dan posted and discover the means to make the whistle as shrill as possible.
steve sinacola, on January 1, 2010 at 4:55 pm said:

Dan

thanks for the link. I am suggesting we send it to the Treasury Tax collectors. Its kinda evident the “state leaders” with few exceptions, are clueless, on multiple levels. The tax collectors already have the authority to start an investigation, or better yet, collections.
Dan Edstrom, on January 1, 2010 at 3:00 pm said:

Steve,
See the following:

This was originally on livinglies but I cannot seem to locate it:

X_http://mariokenny.wordpress.com/category/an-open-letter-to-dean-martin-arizona-state-treasurer/

(many of us, myself included, have sent a modified copy of the above to our state leaders)

X_http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/states-commence-the-inevitable-tobacco-litigation-against-banks-arizona-leading/

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
steve sinacola, on January 1, 2010 at 2:37 pm said:

It occurs to me that in a securitized loan the mortgage is sold, or transferred, at least 2 times in order to create a “bankruptcy remote” security. That fact in beyond dispute. It also occurs to me that most states have a Transfer Tax, that is due when real property title changes hands. That fact is also beyond dispute. It seems that a compliant, or something similiar, can be filed in each states respective treasury in this regard. Considering most State Treasuries are empty, this idea should appeal to a tax collector.

I think “the movement” of ours needs to start a battle on another front.

Any thoughts???
floridadefenseteam, on January 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm said:

Mary Pro Se, (Florida)

Email us at floridadefenseteam@comcast.net.
Mary pro se Florida, on January 1, 2010 at 10:46 am said:

Please some could some leagle eagle read this, I am pro se going to court on Tues Jan 5th hearing for my Motion to Dismiss.

Any thoughts here? The so called Assignment of Mortg:

1. genterated on local Fl atty’s letterhead
2. MERS as nominee for Countrywide (Orig lender) assignment to the Bank of New York Mellon (Plaintif in my Lis Pendens and trustee for asset backed etc)
3. Signatures and Notary took place in Texas… my mortgage is for property in Hillsborough Cnty, Florida.
4.Signed by Denise Baily Asst Secretary/Title officer (of what? not mentioned) … Bank of NY? MERS? Countrywide?
5.Found Denise Baily of Litton Loan Services as defendants there on the docket of another forclosure court case in Maryland.
6. Litton is my servicer, who is ALSO threatening me about foreclosure.
7. Date signed and notarized Dec 11, 2008**
8. Lis Pendens Summons sealed in court Dec 8, 2008, dated by Plaintiff lawfirm Dec 1, 2008.

Questions
Shouldnt the person signing be from Bank of New York (trustee/Plaintff) and not Litton the Servicer ?

Should the signing take place in Hillsborough County Fl where the property is, not in Tx where Countrywide is?

Dont the dates prove the Lis Pendens invalid DEC 1, took place before the so called assignment Dec 11?

please help
zurenarrh, on December 31, 2009 at 11:17 pm said:

Deontos,
Your post re: UPDATE ON JANE’S STORY is my situation exactly, especially this part of your post:

“The crooks trying to take your home, in this case Bank of America, MERS and their attorneys are using fraud and sleight of hand by recording an assignment of your mortgage shortly before they file a lawsuit against your or notice up a trustee’s sale.”

That’s exactly what MERS did–they filed and recorded an assignment to BAC Home Loans Servicing 36 days before the scheduled sale. However, Fannie Mae says THEY own the note–I knew this from the Fannie Mae Online Loan Lookup Tool. Thanks primarily to Living Lies, I knew that situation was a Charlie Foxtrot.

Since I’m in the non-judicial state of Mississippi, I sued them. I was granted a 10-day restraining order, which covered the date of the sale, so there was no foreclosure.

BAC has moved to have the case tried in federal court; we moved to have it remanded to state court. Currently, the case is stayed while the federal judge decides what to do. The case will have been with the federal court for 3 months as of the beginning of January; I’m told this is an unusually long period of time to wait for a decision on a remand.

Meanwhile, I haven’t been getting a monthly bill from BAC, and it’s clear from their motions that they know they don’t have a case. They try to make issues out of things which aren’t issues we raised, for one thing, and for another, they always simply say that our argument has no merit without providing any case law to explain why. However, when they try to argue issues we’re not challenging them on, they have all kinds of citations to case law. At one point, they even said “If we’re not the real party in interest, then this whole matter should be dismissed!” No joke!

We’ll see what happens in 2010, but rest assured, we’re not backing down.
Ace, on December 31, 2009 at 5:58 pm said:

I am wondering if “THEY” have “Breached a Written Contract” through securitization with my mortgage? How to prove this?

I am still reading my law book and came across that phrase.

My case up til now was simply “Cloud of Title”. Has that just changed?

Any comments? TY all
Ace, on December 31, 2009 at 5:36 pm said:

VickieB,

I do not know PA law but, you may want to look at your local registry of deeds to see who is on file with any mortgage related documents. Get copies of all these documents. If you find a COMPLAINT, (Again MA law not PA) listed there, then that is the party who is/has foreclosed. Prove that Ocwen/whoever is listed there for yourself.

Second, I have been reading for enjoyment for the first time in my life. And a very good book to read is “How to Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life” by Dale Carnegie. 15 million copies can’t be bad reading. It’s been around for 66 years. I am still trying to finish it myself and it has done wonders. I can sleep better now knowing I have educated myself to fight this fight, In a Court of law not on a battlefield.

I have been in my home for 15 years, and fighting for 1.25 now. Stand tall and educate yourself. There is power in knowledge. Re-read my 1st post and just don’t give up.

Have faith in all your convictions and do not give up this fight. People have called me crazy, won’t talk to me about this subject and some even laughed. My dad was one non-believer and he now believes in me and you know that means the world to me. Took a year to get there but THEY will see one day that you were right too. We will all help you as best we can but, you must help yourself 1st.

PSsssssst – Spread the word to anyone who will listen. Try to get back and/or keep your home. Tell anyone who will listen to go to LLies.
H Gosh, on December 31, 2009 at 1:16 pm said:

Vickieb: OK, now you are starting to get help. Abby has given you good solid advice. Here are some other issues you need to address: Have you ever requested an accounting of your loan? If not, DO IT NOW!! If you are not sure what to ask for, post back. Second, educate yourself about OCWEN – they are what is know as a “predatory loan servicer”. Then, post back with questions. You can also educate yourself about “mortgage servicing fraud”. One of my heroes on this topic is Nye Lavelle, who posts here frequently. Since Mortgage Servicing Fraud is different (although the prime vehicle through which the pretender lenders operate) than what is posted here, I suggest you google “Mortgage Servicing Fraud” and visit the site that pops up, and read everything there – it goes back to 2003, so there is a lot of reading to do. Good luck, keep up the fight, you are not wrong, and remember you have friends who will help you.
Abby in CA, on December 31, 2009 at 12:58 pm said:

vickieb

do not feel less or that somebody might think you are ‘trash’…..you are definately NOT ….

millions of millions of homeowners are going through this foreclosure mess and most do not even know they can fight it, in many cases.

everyone from therapists, police officers, lawyer (yes them too), executives etc….are going through this or will soon be going through this all

most people just do not know what to do, especially when the mods don’t work

it seems, and I have absolutely no in depth knowledge of your situation, that once you signed cash for keys…that is the deal to be.

consider this–that after the move you might want to look into a lawsuit against Ocwen et. al. for whatever facts apply to your situation, such as fraud.
you might want to talk to your local legal aide society to see if there is any legal help for you.

Our sheriff out here says that he sees people move back into their homes even after being evicted.
In some cases the ‘Ocwen’s of the world have to pay for all the moving expenses.

If you have a local law school, call up there and see if any law students might help with writing legal complaint and other legal docs.

Be sure to let our President know via a letter about what happened to you.

One more idea—-call that realtor—ask if you pay him ‘rent’ can you stay in house for 2-3 more months??? They might take the deal…cause it is guaranteed income to them…..and house may indeed stand empty for months!!

If you can get couple more months…might get you time to file lawsuit…..you have to hussle now….don’t just sit there ticking down days to Jan. 13th.

1. negotiate with realtor guy (2-3 more months if you pay some rent)
2. contact local legal aide society (ask any pro bono lawyers or other legal assistance)
3. contact nearby law school
4. keep your chin up and head held high!!
5 consider filing lawsuit yourself if you find no legal resources. in america, you can represent yourself in court as a pro se.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and not offering legal advice or legal services, only my opinion and support

22 years is a long time to own your home & it is worth fighting for

If you are negotiating with that realtor–do not mention any of your potential plans, such as filing a lawsuit etc…just stick to the topic of negotiating rent and 2-3 more months…

Good Luck
vickieb, on December 31, 2009 at 8:09 am said:

As a footnote — the ironic thing is that the house is only worth about 120,000. It won’t make them rich. It’s not in that kind of area. So the house will stand empty. Makes sense to me – Not.
As a footnote The iron
vickieb, on December 31, 2009 at 7:22 am said:

In answer to H Goshen

the house In response to H Goshen. The house is in Bucks County and yes, the sale was held on Nov. 13th. The person who showed up was a real estate agent who said he was asked to act on behalf of Ocwen. He offered me a cash for keys which we took after they gave us an additional 30 days to get out. Instead of Dec. 13 they extended it to Jan. 13. I had a brief glimmer of hope when I read that the Sheriff actually has to come to your house. I asked an attorney, they read the form and said sorry “you’re screwed”. The company dotted their “I’s” and crossed their “T’s”. I was on the phone with a mortgage broker and my son spoke with him as well. The gentleman recommended a blitz compaign of representatives senators news agencies etc. I did that just cause I have nothing to lose. This company took a 2,000 arrearage back 13 years ago and made it into a debt of over 60,000. I have declared so many Chap 13’s and signed so many forebearance agreements. Most of which were in the amounts of 1900 up to 2800 a month. All lbecause they would not honor the prior mortgage companies agreement. I was stupid and still am because I did not get it in writing. So now we’re screwed. My son’s financee thinks we’re retards her parents probably think we are trash. No one believes me. I am not under any circumstances saying we are not to blame also. But every plan they gave us set us up to fail. I just want to die. I am so ashamed of letting my family down and everyone I know. We have lived here for 22 years and I have fought for this house for so long I can’t believe their words to me have finally come to pass “We WILL get your house and we will succeed. “ Well, they did. It them 13 years but they finally got it. No one will help and no one cares. Thanks for letting me unload and HAPPY NEW YEAR>
Lisa E., on December 31, 2009 at 4:18 am said:

Anyone having worsening issues with posting to this site?

It’s frustrating to repeatedly work on a post, trying to communicate, and to watch all efforts go up in smoke. Maybe it’s just the increased traffic? That would be a good thing! Bring ‘em on!

Lesson Learned: ALWAYS COPY your posts before clicking “Submit Comment”.

Oh, well. I guess you all are going to have to imagine in your heads the beautifully constructed post I just created only to watch it evaporate.

WAAAA WAAAA

Lisa E
ALLAN (proposing Obama fire the generals and replace them with these five WOMEN) CLICK HERE....CLICK HERE TO VIEW UTube, on December 30, 2009 at 10:59 pm said:

JOE COSTELLO

Roosevelt Institute Braintruster,

NewDeal2.0

Posted: December 30, 2009 01:50 PM

FEMINOMICS: TOP FIVE HEROES OF FINANCIAL REFORM

From an economic standpoint, will 2010 be the year of the woman? As part of the Roosevelt Institute’s ongoing ‘Feminomics’ series, running on the New Deal 2.0 blog, I was asked to reflect on women’s changing roles in the economy. Here’s my take on how the New Deal advanced the cause of women’s equality.

In case you haven’t heard, WOMEN ARE LEADING THE CHARGE ON FINANCIAL REFORM. In the spirit of celebrating their contributions, I’ve put together a list of the top five heroes of 2009, in the hopes that their work will inspire us in the coming year. So, channeling my best Wayne Newton (and I could pull this off if I shaved my goatee and took off the top 3/4 of my mustache), “This one’s for the ladies: ”

1) First, I’ll start with YVES SMITH, who I came across end of last summer. She has 25 years in financial services, worked for, amongst others, Goldman, McKinsey, and Sumitomo, and is also a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Business School. Her must-read blog is NAKED CAPITALISM. She has shown great knowledge and greater courage — and from my experience, these two traits are too rare together. Her writing is exceptional, and if you want a good overview of the financial mess and what’s gone on over the past year and half, I highly recommend paging through her blog’s archive. The president should replace Geithner with her. TIME WE HAD OUR FIRST WOMAN TREASURY SECRETARY.

2) Next, ELIZABETH WARREN. Either mistakenly, which I believe is the case, or purposefully, in which case I’d have to reevaluate my opinion of Harry Reid, Warren was appointed by Reid to head the Congressional Oversight Panel for all the money being handed to the banks. Warren is Professor of Law at Harvard and wrote the excellent book THE TWO-INCOME TRAP: WHY MIDDLE-CLASS MOTHERS AND FATHERS ARE GOING BROKE. So, she documented the great underbelly of WALL STREET’S DEBT BUBBLE – PARTICULARLY ITS DESTRUCTION OF A BIG CHUNK OF WORKING AMERICA. I don’t know if Reid thought he was getting some doddering academic when he appointed her, but instead he got a strong and energetic public advocate. There’s been a pretty hard effort to discredit Ms. Warren, and Yves Smith takes a look at the hatchet job done by NPR here. I’ve been nothing but impressed when I’ve heard her talk, and strongly second the motion by William Greider to GIVE HER SUBPOENA POWERS.

3) In October 2007, working for Oppenheimer, MEREDITH WHITNEY wrote a report calling Citi the pile junk it is. Amazingly, she was pretty much the only one in the whole industry to do so. Since then, Whitney has been straight at the big banks, holding nothing back on what bad shape they’re in. She’s the Anti-Geithner. In the middle of latest pop in the stock market, which has gotten the banks $50 billion in new capital over the past couple months, Whitney appeared on CNBC and called the banks’ profits “manufactured” by the government, and stated things would begin heading south again. She’s an eagle above the weasels scurrying below on Wall Street.

4) GRETCHEN MORGENSON writes for the NYT business section. In the last year and half, she has written far and away some of the BEST coverage of the financial crisis in the mainstream media. Most importantly, she put Mr. Blankfein at the meeting with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke when the bailout of AIG was decided to the advantage of Goldman for at least 14 billion. Again, if you want to read some good things on the last year and half, scroll through her articles in the Times’ archive (The Nation did an ok piece on her, but unfortunately, it suffers from the author’s “objective journalism” disease).

5) Finally, I’d throw in SHEILA BAIR, who was appointed head of the FDIC by none other than George W. Bush. Ms. Bair has frequently tangled with the boys in the government, taking on Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers. She’s stated repeatedly the banking crisis is not over, tried to slow the foreclosure tsunami, and most recently stated again CITI IS A PILE OF CRAP and needs to be placed into receivership.

THESE WOMEN ARE INSPIRING! Citizens all, helping to breathe life into this old republic.

This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Used to be said, “if you want something done, give it to a busy person.” It’s become patently clear that free-range women are those busy persons most likely to get things done,,,,,,and, no gender has better demonstrated they are keener stake-holders in the general welfare and vitality of community and commonwealth.

“I’ve reached the age where competence is a turn-on.” ~Billy Joel

“I would rather trust a woman’s instinct than a man’s reason.” ~Stanley Baldwin

“Do you not know I am a woman? when I think, I must speak.” ~William Shakespeare, As You Like It

To paraphrase Ralph Nader, “Only The Women Can Save Us.”

HAPPY NEW YEAR, ALL!!!

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
H Gosh, on December 30, 2009 at 8:43 pm said:

Vickieb: First take a deep breath. Now, more information is needed. In what County in PA is the home? Was there a court hearing where the Judge granted the foreclosure? Did you attend the hearing? Who was the “guy” that came to your house? What type of paper did you sign? Who told you the “paper you signed was legal”? Has the Sheriff conducted a sale of the property?

If you can provide these answers, people may be able to offer some information to you.
erlinda, on December 29, 2009 at 11:16 pm said:

neil,
can you answer my question or the bloggers of this website. i finally identified who the owner of my structured loan was in one of my properties. my questions is the trust of my securitized loan was made and entered on july 31, 2007, and my loan was closed on june 4, 2007, one month after acquiring my mortgages. the assignment and assumption agreement dated july 31, 2007 says that the assignor is DB Structured Product, Inc. and the assignee is ACE Securities Corp. but since i can’t find my loan number in the agreement, i assume the attorneys of secured creditor is insisting that the secured creditor is hsbc bank national trust as trustee for DALT ———— ? , but in reality the assignee is the Ace Securities Corp. or the depositor, then i could finally rebut that the investor who put up the money is Ace. since neil says that the assignment and assumption agreement was made out prior to original lender looking for their victims which in this case i will call it “wet funding” which the original lender get a wharehouse line of credit from the wall st investment banker then look for their next victims (the borrowers) then lenders will let the loan broker know about the loan parameter to meet the pooling agreement guidelines. but on my case, the trust was created after i closed my loan on june 4 2007. so, my opinion is even prior to or after the trust was created my loan is under ” dry funding” because it was bought after i closed my loan. ” dry funding ” is a loan made by the original lender using their own money and then sell it to the wall street banker investment. neil in other words before or after the loan were purchased, it is still a “fraud” because the deed of trust that were signed by borrowers were which original lender was the lender on record were slander by this wall street bankers investment with intent to purposely design this structures asset to fail. i understand what Neil said all loans that were securitized has been paid off by the wall street banker investment , and these banker investment underwrites a certificate to sell it to the investors with the AAA plus rating and divide it into classes or tranches/portion where the investors could buy a classes of certificate depending if the certificate the investors acquired are senior or lower tranches . this will defined how much investors get on their investment. for the meantime the CDO ( credit default obligation) were created by the issuing entity and sold it to unsuspecting investors promising a good return but the truth is the issuing entity will buy a credit default swap like an insurance kind that if the CDO will fail, they will get 100 % of the CDO asset amount. sample CDO is worth 100M, the will pay 10% premium amount of 100M which is 10M investment for the premium for three years, if the CDO fail within the 3 period, then the issuing entity will get 100M of the amount of insured asset , if they CDO asset did not collapse within the time period then the in suing entity will only lost the premium money of 10%. in other words i will insured my spouse for 100k and i will pay premium every month but there is provision that i will not get any thing if my spouse committed suicide within 3 year of his insured life, then if something happen after 3 year then i will collect the 100k from his life insurance. so simple , so the one one who bought the CDO lost and the winner is the one who sold the junk certificate because they bought a credit default swap. correct me if i am wrong this is just the way i understand it. any thought from you my friends?
marcus, on December 29, 2009 at 8:11 pm said:

Hello,
I would like to know if anyone has successfully revoked their power of attorney for their deed of trust. A lady named Karen Tappert is promoting the technique. I am trying to find case law supporting one right to revoke the POA of the deed of trust based on fraud.
Any info will be appreciated.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on December 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm said:

OK.This is a youtube video about an academic service that allows free access to **PRINTABLE** PACER files. Access is free now, but if you want to PRINT a copy it is 8 cents per page. (Hope video embeds correctly when posted.)
vickieb, on December 29, 2009 at 11:57 am said:

Can anyone give me help with Ocwen. I live in PA they foreclosed and evidently the paperwork I signed due to fear of being evicted on Christmas Day is legal even though I was told a Sheriff has to serve papers. They foreclosed on the 13th of Nov (fri) and the guy was at my house on the 16th of Nov (mon). Any chance someone can help me stay or find a way for me to repurchase my home with the help of my son?
steve sinacola, on December 28, 2009 at 8:25 pm said:

Anatomy of a Government-Abetted Fraud
from iamfacingforeclosure.com

OneWest Bank and its Sweetheart Deal

OneWest Bank was created on Mar 19, 2009 from the assets of Indymac Bank. It was created solely for the purpose of absorbing Indymac Bank. The principle owners of OneWest Bank include Michael Dell and George Soros. (George was a major supporter of Barack Obama and is also notorious for knocking the UK out of the Euro Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 by shorting the Pound).

When OneWest took over Indymac, the FDIC and OneWest executed a “Shared-Loss Agreement” covering the sale. This Agreement covered the terms of what the FDIC would reimburse OneWest for any losses from foreclosure on a property. It is at this point that the details get very confusing, so I shall try to simplify the terms. Some of the major details are:

OneWest would purchase all first mortgages at 70% of the current balance.
OneWest would purchase Line of Equity Loans at 58% of the current balance.
In the event of foreclosure, the FDIC would cover from 80%-95% of losses, using the original loan amount, and not the current balance.
How does this translate to the “Real World”? Let us take a hypothetical situation. A homeowner has just lost his home in default. OneWest sells the property. Here are the details of the transaction:

The original loan amount was $500,000. Missed payments and other foreclosure costs bring the amount up to $550,000. At 70%, OneWest bought the loan for $385,000
The home is located in Stockton, CA, so its current value is likely about $185,000 and OneWest sells the home for that amount. Total loss for OneWest is $200,000. But this is not how FDIC determines the loss.
‘FDIC takes the $500,000 and subtracts the $185,000 Purchase Price. Total loss according to the FDIC is $315,000. If the FDIC is covering “ONLY” 80% of the loss, then the FDIC would reimburse OneWest to the tune of $252,000.
Add the $252,000 to the Purchase Price of $185,000, and you have One West recovering $437,000 for an “investment” of $385,000. Therefore, OneWest makes $52,000 in additional income above the actual Purchase Price loan amount after the FDIC reimbursement.
At this point, it becomes readily apparent why OneWest Bank has no intention of conducting loan modifications. Any modification means that OneWest would lose out on all this additional profit.

Note: It is not readily apparent as to whether this agreement applies to loans that IndyMac made and Securitized but still Services today. However, I believe that the Agreement does apply to Securitized loans. In that event, OneWest would make even more money through foreclosure because OneWest would keep the “excess” and not pay it to the investor!

Pooling And Servicing Agreement
When OneWest has been asked about why loan modifications are not being done, they are responding that their Pooling and Servicing Agreements do not allow for loan modifications. Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC has also stated the same. This sounds like a plausible explanation, since few people understand the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. But…

Parties Involved
Here is the”dirty little secret” regarding Indymac and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The parties involved in the Agreement are:

The Sponsor for the Trust was…………Indymac
The Seller for the Trust was……………Indymac
The Depositor for the Trust was………..you guessed it………….Indymac
The Issuing Entity for the Trust was……………….(drumroll)……………….Indymac
The Master Servicer for the Trust was……..once again………Indymac
In other words, Indymac was the only party involved in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement other than the Ratings Agency who rated these loans as `AAA’ products.

To make matters worse, Indymac wrote the Agreement in order to protect itself from liability for these garbage loans. By creating separate Indymac Corporations — which the Depositor, Sponsor, and other entities were — Indymac created a bankruptcy-remote vehicle that could not come back to them in terms of liability. However, they did not count on certain MBS securities and portfolio loans coming back to bite them and force them under.

Now, the questions become:

If Indymac was responsible for Securitization at every step in the Process, and was responsible for writing the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, can they be held accountable for the loans that they are foreclosing on?
Since Indymac was the Issuing Entity, can they actually modify loans, but refuse to do so because they can make money for OneWest Bank by refusing to do so?
Does Indymac have to “buy back” the loan from the Indymac Trust in order to do a loan modification?
These are questions that I have no answer for. All I know is that at every step of the way, Indymac was involved in the process, and have taken steps to protect themselves from liability for loans that should never have been made.

Loan Modifications
As referred to earlier, the Agreement covers all aspects of the Securitization Process. With respect to Loan Modifications, the Agreement for Indymac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007 – AR5, states on Page S-67:

Certain Modifications and Refinancings

The Servicer may modify any Mortgage Loan at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the Servicer purchases the Mortgage Loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification.

Page S-12 states the same “policy”:

The servicer is permitted to modify any mortgage loan in lieu of refinancing at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the servicer purchases the mortgage loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification. In addition, under limited circumstances, the servicer will repurchase certain mortgage loans that experience an early payment default (default in the first three months following origination). See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans—Certain Modifications and Refinancings” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related To Newly Originated Mortgage Loans and Servicer’s Repurchase Obligation Related to Early Payment Default” in this prospectus supplement.

These sections would appear to suggest that the only way that OneWest could modify the loan would be as a result of buying the loan back from the Issuing Trust. However, there may be an out. Page S-12 also states:

Required Repurchases, Substitutions or Purchases of Mortgage Loans

The seller will make certain representations and warranties relating to the mortgage loans pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. If with respect to any mortgage loan any of the representations and warranties are breached in any material respect as of the date made, or an uncured material document defect exists, the seller will be obligated to repurchase or substitute for the mortgage loan as further described in this prospectus supplement under “Description of the Certificates—Representations and Warranties Relating to Mortgage Loans” and “—Delivery of Mortgage Loan Documents .”

The above section may be the key for litigating attorneys to fight Indymac. If fraud or other issues can be raised that will show a violation of the Representations and Warranties, then this could potentially force Indymac to modify the loan.

HAMP
At this point, it becomes important to note that Indymac/OneWest signed aboard with the HAMP program in August 2009. Even though they became a part of the program, they are still refusing to do most loan modifications. Instead, they persist in foreclosing on almost all properties. And even when they say that they are attempting to do loan modifications, they are fulfilling all necessary requirements so that they can foreclose the second that they “decide” the homeowner does not meet HAMP requirements, — which, since they can make more money by foreclosing on the property, meets the HAMP requirements for doing what is in the best interests of the “investor”.

Why did Indymac even sign up for HAMP, if they have no intention of executing loan modifications? Clearly, just for appearances.

One Final Question
It now becomes incumbent upon me to ask one final question. The Shared-Loss Agreement states the following:

2.1 Shared-Loss Arrangement.

(a) Loss Mitigation and Consideration of Alternatives. For each Shared-Loss Loan in default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Purchaser shall undertake, or shall use reasonable best efforts to cause third-party servicers to undertake, reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts in compliance with the Guidelines and Customary Servicing Procedures. The Purchaser shall document its consideration of foreclosure, loan restructuring (if available), charge-off and short-sale (if a short-sale is a viable option and is proposed to the Purchaser) alternatives and shall select the alternative that is reasonably estimated by the Purchaser to result in the least Loss. The Purchaser shall retain all analyses of the considered alternatives and servicing records and allow the Receiver to inspect them upon reasonable notice.

Such agreements are usually considered to be interpreted to the benefit of the homeowner, as with HAMP and other programs. In legalese, it is called “Intent”.

What was the “Intent” of the Shared-Loss Agreement? Was the intent to provide OneWest Bank solely with a profitable incentive to take over Indymac Bank? If so, then OneWest has been truly successful in every manner.

Or was the intent to offer to OneWest Bank a way to be compensated for losses for foreclosures, but with the primary goal to assist homeowners in trouble? If this was the intent, then OneWest has failed miserably in its actions. And if so, could OneWest be actionable by the Federal Government for fraud?

In fact the true “Intent” was to limit losses to the Treasury Department. Each and every loan modification done would save the Treasury, and the tax payer, from 80-95 cents on every dollar.

Since, technically, One West would get 5-20 cents of any savings, it should have been an incentive to use foreclosure alternatives. But the reality is that the quick turnaround on foreclosure seems to give OneWest a better return. As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).

So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.

Conclusion
I have presented the story of Indymac/OneWest and what is happening today. But the story does not end with OneWest. There are over 50 different lenders and servicers who have Shared-Loss Agreements executed with the FDIC. Each Agreement offers essentially the same terms. Though other Lenders do not appear to be acting as flagrantly as OneWest, they are all still engaging in the same actions.

What is the solution for this problem?

For homeowners individually, the most successes are being achieved by borrowers who are getting knowledgeable attorneys who will not just threaten litigation, but are also willing to act and file the necessary lawsuits. That tends to bring OneWest Bank to the table.
For the country as a whole, and homeowners in mass, the problem must be brought to the attention of your local Congress Critters. You must hold their feet to the fire. They must know that if they do not respond to what OneWest and other lenders are doing, then they are subject to being voted out of their nice and cushy Congressional Offices.
Will this be easy? No way. After all, the lenders have the money and the ears of Congress. But if we do not draw the line here, then in 10-15 years, the Banks will devise another plan to “loot” the economy, as they do every 10-15 years.
Dan Edstrom, on December 28, 2009 at 7:42 pm said:

Abby,
Yes I will tell you. All parties at closing had full knowledge that your loan would be securitized and that all of these fees would be paid. Except of course you and any other borrowers present at your closing. The parties created these “deals” every month or every couple of months. It was not a mistake or an oversight. It was FRAUD – knowing and with intent. It means the loans were completely fraudulent and you have massive amts of fees paid “outside” of closing. Find a way to get the trust thrown into receivership and have the profits and ALL assignments disgorged. The Trustee in your bankruptcy (for the originator) has the power to do this.

More to come.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on December 28, 2009 at 6:48 pm said:

regarding all those additional (hidden from borrower) fees (listed in the Pooling and Servicing Agreements for securitized loans), such as Trust Oversight Management Fee, Securties Trustee Fees, Servicier Fees, etc.——-they are typically pulled out of the borrower’s (homeowner) interest portion of the monthly payment. After everyone else has been paid their fees, then the residual money goes to the investor. Thus, any wonder why the borrower’s ended up paying such high interest on subprime, predatory lending mortgage loans? Any comments on what this might mean for TILA violations?

This from an attorney:

The PSA fees are not typically treated as finance charges, since they are not added to the homeowner’s payment, but paid from the homeowner’s interest payment (and interest is already included in the finance charge).
steve sinacola, on December 28, 2009 at 6:47 pm said:

Mortgage insurer may be “getting it”

By Andrew Frye

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — MGIC Investment Corp., the biggest U.S. mortgage insurer, dropped the most in almost two months after being sued by Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide unit in a dispute over claims.

MGIC fell 60 cents, or 9.4 percent, to $5.76 at 4:02 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based company, which disclosed the suit yesterday in a regulatory filing, has declined about 75 percent in the past two years as it posted nine straight quarterly losses.

Bank of America, the biggest U.S. lender, said in a Dec. 17 complaint that MGIC, led by Chief Executive Officer Curt Culver, denied millions of dollars of valid claims for defaulted mortgages by relying on an “unreasonable” interpretation of its policies. MGIC said it intends to defend itself against the bank’s allegations.
marcus, on December 28, 2009 at 2:50 pm said:

Link to Florida Supreme Court Order

x_http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/southflorida/pdf/Fla.%20S.C.%20report%20.pdf

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on December 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm said:

Fla. Supreme Court Requires Mediation in Foreclosures
Source:South Florida Business Journal
by Susan R. Miller

Plagued by an ever-increasing number of foreclosure cases, Florida judges now have guidance on how to deal with them through a statewide mediation program.

Florida’s Chief Justice Peggy Quince signed an order designed to alleviate the backlog.
It adopts recommendations by the court’s Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases that was created earlier this year.

Foreclosure filings in Florida trial courts are expected to hit 456,000 statewide by the close of the year.

“The crisis continues unabated,” the order notes.

Among the recommendations, foreclosures of a homeowner’s primary residence must be referred to mediation. It refers only to those actions filed after today’s order and there are some provisions for the homeowner to opt out.

Only mediators certified by the Florida Supreme Court will be referred cases. The task force developed training standards for mediators, which the state’s high court adopted.

The mediation has to be scheduled no sooner than two months and no later than four months after a foreclosure is filed and borrowers will be referred to a HUD-certified foreclosure counselor.

The task force noted that borrowers are less likely to default again if they’ve been through foreclosure counseling.

Florida’s CFO, Alex Sink praised the court’s order.

“Requiring a uniform mediation program is an important step to improve communication between homeowners and their lenders, something vitally important as we work to provide real relief to struggling residents,” she said in a news release.

Homeowners facing foreclosure will not have to pay for the cost of the program.

“Requiring borrowers to pay a portion of mediation up front would operate as a barrier to this court’s goal of efficiently managing these cases to avoid waste of judicial and party resources,” the court order states.

Those costs are paid for by the lender, but are recoverable in the final judgment of foreclosure. The court has determined that the total fee for mediation can’t exceed $750.

The order also directs that a reporting system to collect data on the number of foreclosure cases statewide be implemented to determine how many are settled, adjourned or end in impasse.

In August, Roy Oppenheim, a Weston attorney who handles foreclosures, said the task force’s recommendation for mediation will help many people who otherwise might lose their homes.

“In those counties where there is mediation, as much as 75 percent of foreclosures that go into mediation get settled and people end up not

losing their homes,” Oppenheim said in a video on YouTube. “Now you are not going to get goofy outcomes because one county has mediation and one county does not.”

He noted that mediation “forces banks to bring someone who has the ability to make a decision to the table.”

Another significant part of the order requires lenders to prove they hold the note.

“Plaintiff’s counsel is not permitted to respond to the certification with ‘unknown,’ ‘unsure,’ ‘not applicable,’ or similar nonresponsive statements,” the order states.

Oppenheim said in the video that the recommendation is significant because the task force found it to be a form of unfair practice.

“It’s what we call legal fiction. Legal fiction is a nice way of saying a lie,” he said.

Though Oppenheim is out of the country, Geoff Sherman, an associate with his firm, said they hope today’s order will allow the foreclosure process to move more efficiently.

“It’s a great idea and we are looking forward to assisting our clients in trying to get some sort of resolution toward these matters,” he said.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on December 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm said:

New Century or Home123 victims.

Hopefully you have obtained copies of your recorded documents from your respective county recorder’s office.

If your Mortgage Assignment or Corporate Deed of Assignment was signed (forged or not) by any VP or other representative of New Century or Home123 after their bankruptcy was filed in Delaware on April 2, 2007, then you should notify the Trustee of that Bankruptcy, Alan Jacobs, that you believe he has a duty to notify the appropriate US Attorney of matters which relate to the occurrence of any action which may constitute a crime.

Alan Jacobs
U.S. Trustee
United States Trustee
844 King Street, Room 2207
Lockbox #35
Wilmington, DE 19899-0035
302-573-6491 FAX 302-573-6497

Fundamentally, unless the bankruptcy trustee or the judge in their bankruptcy approved the transfer/sale of your property to another entity after their bankruptcy was filed, it could be a violation of law.

Here is some verbage to review and you can cut and paste into your letter to the BKR Trustee Jacobs. The fax number works.
Dear Mr. Jacobs:

You are duty bound to report a crime per:

United States Trustee, 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(F)
The United States Trustee has the duty of “notifying the appropriate United
States attorney of matters which relate to the occurrence of any action
which may constitute a crime under the laws of the United States and, on
the request of the United States attorney, assisting the United States
attorney in carrying out prosecutions based on such action.” It is
noteworthy that this section encompasses any crime, not just bankruptcy
crimes, and imposes a duty to assist, as well as to report evidence of
crimes.

And

Illegal “Financial Transactions,” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)
This section prohibits a person from conducting financial transactions with
either: (1) the intent to promote a “specified unlawful activity” (which
includes 18 U.S.C. § 152, but not the new § 157); or (2) the knowledge that
the transaction is designed (a) to conceal or disguise the nature, location,
source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of a specified unlawful
activity or (b) to avoid a federal or state reporting requirement.
Financial transactions are defined to include any use of interstate or foreign
commerce to move money or monetary instruments, or involves the transfer
of title of real property or vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or uses a financial
institution.
A defendant who, while in bankruptcy, files false schedules concealing real property and thereafter transfers that property to another would violate this law.

This refers to the New Century TRS Holdings Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (1-07-bk-10416 KJC).

I also faxed a copy of my Corp. Deed of Assignment to show how it was signed 49+ days after New Century and Home123 declared bankruptcy in Delaware.

Tell him you want an immediate investigation!

You can also send a copy to Eric Holder, US Attorney General in Washington DC.
ALLAN (introducing THE BOSTONIAN OF THE YEAR) ......CLICK HERE TO VIEW UTube, on December 28, 2009 at 12:48 am said:

BOSTONIAN OF THE YEAR

The Watchdog: Elizabeth Warren

It seemed as if the banks and other firms got a $700 billion bonanza and the American taxpayer got the shaft. But along came this straight-shooting Harvard professor to oversee the bailout, someone who pledged to look out for the middle class and brought a sense of sanity to the economic crisis. For this we give her our top honors this year.

By Charles P. Pierce | December 20, 2009 A.D.

There are many ways to become our Bostonian of the Year. You could be one of the nation’s preeminent bankruptcy scholars, and a tenured professor of law at Harvard University, and a talking head for Frontline specials and Michael Moore’s latest documentary, and a leading voice decrying the human cost of the current economic morass, and the chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the TARP that covers a multitude of financial sins. The panel keeps an eye on how the nation’s banks have spent the taxpayer money shoveled into them in the fall of 2008, as well as the destination of the rest of the $700 billion allocated by the government when the economy seemed on the verge of swallowing itself whole. This can set you at odds with secretaries of the Treasury, various ambitious legislators, and laissez-faire economic fundamentalists. Elizabeth Warren has done all that, and has done as much to earn the title Bostonian of the Year as has anyone who was born and raised in Oklahoma. But she has one even more essentially Bostonian accomplishment on her considerable resume — she once shut up basketball fans in Philadelphia.

One night about two decades ago, she and her husband, Bruce Mann, who also teaches at Harvard Law, were attending a game between the 76ers and Warren’s beloved Houston Rockets. (Warren taught at the University of Houston when Hakeem Olajuwon played for a Cougars team memorably dubbed “Phi Slama Jama” for its dunking prowess.) “So Elizabeth is up, cheering, yelling at the ref,” Mann recalls. “And the crowd around is getting kind of, well, restive. They’re saying, ‘Hey, lady, you’re not from around here, are you?’ ” Finally, one of the burlier gentlemen in Warren’s section inquired why she was so passionate about the Rockets. Warren explained her background in Houston. He then determined to quiz her on her bona fides.

Who was the coach of that team, he asked her.

Guy V. Lewis, she answered.

What was his trademark, he asked her.

He carried around a checkered towel, she answered.

(Warren was being kind here. Lewis’s most conspicuous trademark was his staggering incompetence in big games.)

Satisfied, the man sat down and Warren went back to being loud. Gradually, the crowd began to get audibly impatient with her again. Suddenly, the large gentleman stood up and addressed his colleagues.

“Leave the lady alone,” he told them. “She’s got history.”

You can understand that moment when Warren, 60, talks about the political heat inherent in the position she now holds. The great cause of her life has been defending middle-class Americans against what she calls the “tricks and traps” the nation’s financial institutions devise to separate those citizens from their money. She was talking about the dangers of the subprime mortgage binge long before the bubble finally popped. She is equally scornful of how the credit card companies bury their real brigandage under a blizzard of sub-paragraphs and dependent clauses. And ever since last November, when Senate majority leader Harry Reid persuaded her to take charge of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and even though she is aware that the panel does not have any real enforcement powers, Warren has become a burr under the saddle of official Washington — plain-spoken, invariably polite, intolerant of business-school persiflage (“That’s a word we don’t use enough!” she exclaims), and utterly contemptuous of conventional wisdom. These are not qualities that endear you to the courtier set inside the Beltway. Warren got in the face of then Treasury secretary Henry Paulson and stayed there to the point where Paulson’s staff began sniping at her in the newspapers. She gently — but relentlessly — prodded Paulson’s successor, Timothy Geithner, until Geithner dragged himself before the panel to testify.

“We are an experiment here,” she says. “The secretary of the Treasury raced in and said the economy’s on fire. Congress was in the position of having to react rapidly and without much specificity. At the same time, they didn’t want to write a blank check to Treasury, so they hooked oversight to it. The secretary of the Treasury has enormous discretion, but there will be a group appointed to keep evaluating what Treasury is doing, and that group will be required to put out a report every 30 days. We’re supposed to keep planting flags in the ground. You have to prove what you said. I don’t want happy-face conclusions. I want the truth.”

They also are not qualities guaranteed to make you friends among the Masters of the Universe in the financial services industry or among the legislators whom they may have sublet. Her advocacy of a financial product safety commission, a federal watchdog agency to regulate predatory lending, drew howls from small-government conservatives. “That agency is the game-changer,” she argues. “This is the chance to level the playing field between middle-class families and huge financial institutions by making those products work again, by making them as simple as toasters.”

In short, she has been accused of exceeding her mandate, mostly by people who would rather she not have a mandate at all. She has been called an ideologue — mostly, it should be said, by other ideologues. Warren, simply, could not care less. “They were tired of me before I started,” Warren says with a laugh. “I am not looking for jobs with these guys. My job is not to get out there and kowtow to these guys so they’ll be nice to me. I figure this is the one time I will have a true public-service job. I’m going to do everything I can to execute this job the way it ought to be done. If there’s some politician, Republican or Democrat, who has a problem with that, I just don’t care.

“I have no future in this, and I have lifetime tenure [at the Harvard Law School]. What are you going to do to me?”

Perhaps the most dissonant criticism leveled against Warren is that she simply is another Harvard elitist come down from the mount to lecture the rest of us on the way the country should be run. On the wall of her office, framed, is a Pennsylvania newspaper advertisement from August 23, 1882, announcing that Sheriff Joseph Frankenfield would be auctioning off a farm that day, a property owned by folks on whom the bank had foreclosed a mortgage. Gradually, almost imperceptibly, a gentle twang enters Warren’s voice when she talks about this ad. “If you don’t talk about families,” she says, “then it’s easy to disembody subprime mortgages and asset securitization and unemployment rates without remembering that every one of those numbers is a million families.” This is what the guy meant in the basketball arena some 20 years back. The lady has history.

In Norman, Oklahoma, it was the last house on the last road on the far edge of town. Behind it were wheat fields that extended to Texas, or to the Pacific, or to Oz, as best as you could tell from standing in the yard. Elizabeth Warren grew up there, a caboose of a child with three much older brothers. “One was huge and the other two were mean,” she recalls. “I was 30 before I realized, you know, that I probably was an accident. These things just suddenly hit you one day.” Eventually, her father wound up as a maintenance man in an apartment building and her mother did catalog sales for Sears.

Warren was something of a local prodigy, a state champion debater who graduated from high school at 16. One day, having saved up her baby-sitting money, she went to the local convenience store and took out money orders totaling $50 to apply to two colleges — George Washington University and Northwestern — to which she thought she was most likely to get a debate scholarship. She enrolled in the former but left after two years, when, at 19, she married Jim Warren, an engineer with NASA whom she’d been dating since she was 13. He was in Houston, working on the Apollo program, and Elizabeth transferred to the University of Houston to finish her degree. Eventually Jim’s work took them to New Jersey, where he was working on the country’s antiballistic missile program. Spurred by some of the people who had been on the debating team with her, Elizabeth enrolled in law school at Rutgers University. In 1976, she had a JD and new baby and few prospects.

“I graduated law school nine months pregnant and didn’t take a job,” she says. “This was 1976, and I’m thinking that I stepped off the track. So I’m at home, and I thought, ‘I’ll just take the bar exam. What’s the worst that can happen?’ So I took the bar exam and thought, ‘Well, shoot, I’ll just hang out a shingle.’ ” (In this, Warren is being quite literal. The shingle now hangs in her Harvard office, beneath the foreclosure notice from 1882.) She did real estate closings and lawsuits arising from automobile accidents. (Her talent for drawing up a will has yet to be fully tested, because, as far as she knows, nobody for whom she drew up a will has died.) In time, Rutgers asked her to teach a class part time, and Warren found herself a calling. By then, her husband’s job had vanished because the United States had bargained away the ABM system by treaty with the Soviet Union. They moved back to Houston and divorced in 1978. (She met Mann a year later.)

She taught in the law school at the University of Houston and, subsequently, at the universities of Texas and Pennsylvania before landing at Harvard in 1995. But Warren stumbled upon her specialty at her first full-time teaching job in Houston. In 1979, a new code of bankruptcy law went into effect, and Warren shared its details with the students in her first bankruptcy class the next year. Her interest was piqued. “I taught it like a Final Jeopardy question,” she recalls. “If this is the answer, what must have been the problem that people thought this fixed?” She teamed up with another law professor and a sociologist, and the three of them went into the field to study what was happening in the nation’s bankruptcy courts.

“I get this clever idea,” she says. “I’m going to expose these sleazy debtors who are exploiting the bankruptcy system and their poor, hapless creditors and enriching themselves as far as the law allows by going through bankruptcy court. I go out with these other two folks and we start collecting data about the families who are filing for bankruptcy. We end up doing this big study, and it ends up as a book [AS WE FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS]. And it completely turns me around. I knew what I was going to find before I went out there, and I discovered that it doesn’t work that way.”

Warren continued her study of the effect of the macroeconomic financial system on American families. Another book, THE FRAGILE MIDDLE CLASS, examined why most families in bankruptcy would be considered to be middle class by any conventional social indicator, and reported that most of them ended up in dire financial straits due to medical problems, job loss, or the breakup of the family. This led to THE TWO-INCOME TRAP, which she coauthored with her daughter, Amelia. (She also has a son, Alexander.) “It really was about what happened to the middle class over a generation,” she explains. “From the 1970s to the early 2000s, there was a hollowing out of the middle class.”

Over the past two years, in its near-collapse, the financial services industry began to smack not a little of the rigged wheel, and its impact on the lives of American families — particularly as seen through the prism of the subprime mortgage fiasco — appeared to be dire. The issues on which Warren made her career exploded into the national consciousness. She became a sought-after expert, debuting as a pundit — a word that makes her roll her eyes and moan — on the Dr. Phil show. And she minced no words.

“More and more middle-class families realized that what they were experiencing was not unique to themselves, that there were larger social trends,” she says. “And I also think there comes a point where people get tired of hearing the same old stuff from the kind of media machine the financial services industry has been pumping out.

“The thing about the Masters of the Universe syndrome is that it plays on ‘What I’m doing is so obscure that you’ll never get it. You’re too dumb.’ This really became relevant when we hit the financial crisis a year ago.”

Then, one day, while Warren was barbecuing with students, Harry Reid called and asked her to take on the TARP oversight job. “I’ve really been talking about the same set of issues for a long time, but I was under the radar, and that was OK with me,” she says, the twang thickening just a bit, as though her voice had been aged in oak. “I don’t know, but I think part of it was that the world changed. What was a boring and obscure issue suddenly moved front and center.” And, when it did, she was there, with her history and all that, looking faceless forces squarely in the eye, speaking plainly to persiflage, and, in her own amiable way, drowning out the faint, distant voice of Sheriff Frankenfield’s auctioneer.

Charles P. Pierce is a staff writer for The Globe Magazine. E-mail him at cpierce@globe.com.

© Copyright 2009 A.D. The New York Times Company

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor ELIZABETH WARREN has long been a heroine of mine, especially when she takes on ‘the good old boys.’ She shares my sense of outrage (aimed at Paulson & Geithner) and my concern about the impact of our financial and bankruptcy systems on families. What is it about Brooksley Born, Sheila Bair, and Elizabeth Warren that they call on us to ‘do the right thing,’ but most important, ‘get the job done.’

I have often visited her Cambridge office (back before Obama took office) to encourage her to read http://www.LivingLies.WordPress.com. That was BEFORE she got the call.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Ace, on December 27, 2009 at 8:29 pm said:

WITHOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE YOU HAVE A LACK OF STANDING

I am not a lawyer. This is my experience and any advice forthwith is simply that, ADVICE. Mostly obtained from this site, elders and friends. All of these people have many more years of experience in life than I, and therefore, I regard their views and advice to be of the utmost importance to me.

I am a 43 y.o., Self-Employed Craftsman, who bought my home in Oct. of 1994 from the FDIC. It was a leftover from the S&L housing crisis of the 80’s. Kind of odd that I find myself here I think. The Registry of Deeds shows a Mortgage Discharge for when I purchased it from the FDIC as receiver, but no new Mortgage Assignment. Not sure if this concerns me yet.

In 2005 I refinanced with South Shore Mortgage Corp. of NY which was working for Argent Mortgage Corp. a subsidiary of Ameriquest. The Registry of Deeds shows a Mortgage Assignment for Argent, but no Mortgage Discharge when I refinanced with Countrywide in 2007. I am very concerned with this.

The Registry of Deeds does show a Mortgage Assignment for Countrywide and a Mortgage Discharge from Countrywide. I am very concerned with this as well.

On August 28th 2008, just as the market was crashing, I succumbed to a hereditary disease that prevented me from moving around very well for close to 8 months. This will linger for the rest of my life, but Please No Pity; I am a better person because of it. This resulted in my loss of employment and a need for assistance from my ‘Lender’. At that time the ‘Lender’ was Countrywide, or so I thought. I began making calls to ask for assistance and found myself waiting for excuses.

First the clerks at Countrywide were saying wait for TARP to go through, then the Bush plan, a vain attempt at a modification, (Monthly payments actually increased, and in a recent modification that I have seen, your rights under bankruptcy protection would be surrendered), then the new President, the Obama plans 1 & 2… and I am still here after 16 months. Waiting. Why?

“Because I can”. What do I mean?

I started calling and requesting assistance from my ‘Lender’ immediately upon my injury. After a few months into this I stumbled upon this site. I had no idea what this was, nor do I remember how I found it. At first, as a layman, I was overwhelmed. Looking up Latin phrases, MA State law…I was so confused, so many questions, yet had all the time to investigate this site. How could this possibly help me I asked myself?

Then a very dear friend, my best friend now, a WWII vet, and his lovely companion, suggested that I try to get an education. Try to find a better way to be employed without further damage to my body. “It’s all I know” I said to him. He suggested otherwise.

I went to my local community college, signed up and passed my entrance exam with high praise from the administrator of the test, went to the finance office and was told I was the most eligible student for assistance, but there is no assistance available. Sorry. Try again in 09’. I will not personally take any type of loan for anything for a long, long time.

I went home discouraged. Despondent. I continued to research this site and found myself asking myself and then, Countrywide, who is the “Actual Noteholder?” and lo and behold, they said nothing. Just calls from more clerks.

As 08’ became 09’, I started to realize that I was educating myself. I was learning about all of this. Around this time, I believe I changed my mindset. I can’t afford a lawyer. What I have saved is for the real Noteholder, if they actually exist, not a lawyer.

Then I see the words Pro Se.

Bank of America arrives on the scene about this time, by buying Countrywide, as the latest to claim the “Servicing” of my mortgage. The Registry of Deeds does not show a Mortgage Assignment for Boa. I am very concerned about this, which leads me to believe I have a ‘Clouded Title’.

I have been sending Certified Mail; Return Receipt Requests for information for 1 year + now. 18 letters in all to date, some are duplicates to multiple addresses. My father suggested this early on as a way to keep a record of the requests for assistance which became requests for information. QWR’s. (It say’s so in the mort. docs you have that this a way for you/me to receive important information from your ‘Lender’) This has been suggested here in regards to modifications and, I believe, should be used for all correspondence with your purported ‘Lender’. Forevermore.

Other than the one lame duck modification offer I received in Dec.08’, which I denied, I have not received any other written response. None. Clerks call without leaving messages now. No auto-dialer calls either anymore. I tried to record some clerks and they refused to consent. MA is a two party consent state.

In early March 09’, I started looking online for any sort of help I could find. I called 200+ places in MA. Got 21 possible hits. Only one turned out to be true help. The MA State Attorney Generals’ Hotline. I left a message and 3 long weeks later I got a call. What a feeling that was once I realized who was on the line. A retired lawyer doing pro-bono work for the above mentioned agency was calling me back. He has assisted me ever since. He found nothing in my mortgage docs that could help me. He helped me with a QWR in response to BoA’s ‘Notice of Intent to Foreclose’ that basically says, “I would like to request a modification, again, under certain terms, but, Without Empirical Evidence you have a lack of standing to modify or foreclose.” That was Sept.09’. I have not received anything in writing to date.

During this whole period, 16 months & counting now, with the education I have received from this site, my close friends and family, I have become engrossed in this. I have a new found passion for education and the truth. I have never posted. I’ve only watched and read.

Neil etal, have provided something amazing here. I have poured over this site reading some things two or more times. I copy the most important aspects into my pc and then print them and re-read them and hi-lite all the important things. Educating myself.

I have copies of the entire important mortgage related doc’s that Are on File at the Registry of Deeds. I have spoken with the employees there in person and on the phone. They have explained to me, in a very professional manner that before any foreclosure can occur in MA, a non-judicial state, a Complaint needs to be filed there. CMPLT is what to look for. I look at the registry files online everyday. It has to be done everyday or you will miss it and fall behind. Losing precious time is only going to hurt your cause.

I recently bought the NOLO 6th Edition “Represent Yourself in Court”, a must buy for any ProSe. I am reading this book and, again hi-liting all the important things. My thought is to try to legally clear a ‘Cloud of Title”.

MA state laws were not adhered to as to informing me, the homeowner who the actual ‘Noteholder’ was/is, and proper registration of certain required documents at the Registry of Deeds.

With all this education, I am doing all I can to defend my rights and not be tricked out of my home by what appear to be common thieves.

Again, ‘Because I Can’. Educate yourself to protect yourself.

A short time ago I read on this site a question, “What are you doing to help in this mess”, or something to that effect. The writer should contact me.

I have driven to homes that I find in the newspaper foreclosures. No one was there. The homes were empty.

I called a local family through the same process. I spoke to one of the owners and suggested this website. She explained to me that they were in a trial modification. I still suggested this site. She asked, “What has it done for you”? I simply stated, “I am still in my home after this long a fight and still going.”

I have friends who are watching to see how I make out before they request another modification. (They didn’t sign either.) I will talk to anyone who will listen. Some do, some don’t. Some are ignorant, some say I am crazy, some come around and yet others don’t.
My life’s most important educator/objector did. Dad

I have explained what I have been doing to save my own home. Maybe someone will see this and it will help them somehow or maybe someone who reads this wants to help me. I am ‘HOPING’ there are. No pun intended. I could use it.

If anyone wants to know more you can email me and I will answer any questions you may have.

Now I know that I have definitely done something other than help and educate myself. Thank you for listening.

Mymortgagemess@yahoo.com
Holli G, on December 27, 2009 at 1:06 pm said:

can someone please HELP …I am not in foreclosure yet and dont want to get there..my loan servicer is ONEWEST/Indymac my origional creditor was Quicken loans in 2006 . I have been denied a modification by OneWest .I applied in March 09 had never been late ,I did not make my Nov or Dec pymnt .I was contacted by Onewest and told I was approved for a trial Mod also emailed apoproval after not recieveing docs I called they said it was a system error and NO MOD which after reading all these horror stories i think im glad BUT i want to rersolve this before foreclosure .,
after reading all these posts and more info on the web about servicers not actually owning the note ,im confused what direction to go in ..I believe there is an answer but do I need to wait until its too late or can I file something now regarding FRAUD ??? HELP PLEASE I am i California
Abby in CA, on December 27, 2009 at 1:02 pm said:

and Cal Western Reconveyance is a wholly owned subsidiary of Prommis Solutions

http://prommis.com/
Dan Edstrom, on December 27, 2009 at 12:20 pm said:

I have tried to post this numerous times, let’s see if it works this time …

It turns out Dolan Media is foreclosing on me.

NDEx West, LLC is owned by National Default Exchange. National Default Exchange was owned by Barrett

X_http://investor.dolanmedia.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=211849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1180105&highlight=

They make lots of money. 50,000 files processed in Q3 2009 with $23.6 Million in revenue. And that is just one default processing firm handling California, Texas and Georgia.

X_http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTk4MTZ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom @ hotmail.com
rena, on December 27, 2009 at 10:47 am said:

Once again Gretchen Morgenson tells it like it is! This article was only published on Dec.23,09 and already has 531 comments a lot of them from Wall Street Insiders. She is great, she has 3 more great articles she published this month as well links below.
Here is the link to this article if you want:
Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/24trading.html?pagewanted=1
and the other 3:
What Iceberg? Just Glide to the Next Boardroom
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/business/economy/27gret.html
Get Ready, Get Set, Point Fingers
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13gret.html
Why Treasury Needs a Plan B for Mortgages
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/business/economy/06gret.html

NOW IF ONLY WE COULD TEACH CONGRESS TO READ!!!!!

Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and LOUISE STORY
Published: December 23, 2009
In late October 2007, as the financial markets were starting to come unglued, a Goldman Sachs trader, Jonathan M. Egol, received very good news. At 37, he was named a managing director at the firm.
Right, William P. O’Donnell/The New York Times
One former Goldman salesman wrote a novel about the crisis. A Deutsche Bank trader passed out T-shirts for investors hoping to profit on a housing bust.

Profits in a Crisis
Statement by Goldman Sachs
Add to Portfolio
Goldman Sachs Group

Left, Treasury Department; Kevin Wolf/Associated Press
Lewis Sachs, left, who oversaw C.D.O.’s before becoming a Treasury adviser, and John Paulson, whose company profited as the housing market collapsed.

Mr. Egol, a Princeton graduate, had risen to prominence inside the bank by creating mortgage-related securities, named Abacus, that were at first intended to protect Goldman from investment losses if the housing market collapsed. As the market soured, Goldman created even more of these securities, enabling it to pocket huge profits.
Goldman’s own clients who bought them, however, were less fortunate.
Pension funds and insurance companies lost billions of dollars on securities that they believed were solid investments, according to former Goldman employees with direct knowledge of the deals who asked not to be identified because they have confidentiality agreements with the firm.
Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.
While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.
One focus of the inquiry is whether the firms creating the securities purposely helped to select especially risky mortgage-linked assets that would be most likely to crater, setting their clients up to lose billions of dollars if the housing market imploded.
Some securities packaged by Goldman and Tricadia ended up being so vulnerable that they soured within months of being created.
Goldman and other Wall Street firms maintain there is nothing improper about synthetic C.D.O.’s, saying that they typically employ many trading techniques to hedge investments and protect against losses. They add that many prudent investors often do the same. Goldman used these securities initially to offset any potential losses stemming from its positive bets on mortgage securities.
But Goldman and other firms eventually used the C.D.O.’s to place unusually large negative bets that were not mainly for hedging purposes, and investors and industry experts say that put the firms at odds with their own clients’ interests.
“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”
Investment banks were not alone in reaping rich rewards by placing trades against synthetic C.D.O.’s. Some hedge funds also benefited, including Paulson & Company, according to former Goldman workers and people at other banks familiar with that firm’s trading.
Michael DuVally, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, declined to make Mr. Egol available for comment. But Mr. DuVally said many of the C.D.O.’s created by Wall Street were made to satisfy client demand for such products, which the clients thought would produce profits because they had an optimistic view of the housing market. In addition, he said that clients knew Goldman might be betting against mortgages linked to the securities, and that the buyers of synthetic mortgage C.D.O.’s were large, sophisticated investors, he said.
The creation and sale of synthetic C.D.O.’s helped make the financial crisis worse than it might otherwise have been, effectively multiplying losses by providing more securities to bet against. Some $8 billion in these securities remain on the books at American International Group, the giant insurer rescued by the government in September 2008.
From 2005 through 2007, at least $108 billion in these securities was issued, according to Dealogic, a financial data firm. And the actual volume was much higher because synthetic C.D.O.’s and other customized trades are unregulated and often not reported to any financial exchange or market.
Goldman Saw It Coming
Before the financial crisis, many investors — large American and European banks, pension funds, insurance companies and even some hedge funds — failed to recognize that overextended borrowers would default on their mortgages, and they kept increasing their investments in mortgage-related securities. As the mortgage market collapsed, they suffered steep losses.
A handful of investors and Wall Street traders, however, anticipated the crisis. In 2006, Wall Street had introduced a new index, called the ABX, that became a way to invest in the direction of mortgage securities. The index allowed traders to bet on or against pools of mortgages with different risk characteristics, just as stock indexes enable traders to bet on whether the overall stock market, or technology stocks or bank stocks, will go up or down.

Multimedia

Goldman, among others on Wall Street, has said since the collapse that it made big money by using the ABX to bet against the housing market. Worried about a housing bubble, top Goldman executives decided in December 2006 to change the firm’s overall stance on the mortgage market, from positive to negative, though it did not disclose that publicly.
Even before then, however, pockets of the investment bank had also started using C.D.O.’s to place bets against mortgage securities, in some cases to hedge the firm’s mortgage investments, as protection against a fall in housing prices and an increase in defaults.
Mr. Egol was a prime mover behind these securities. Beginning in 2004, with housing prices soaring and the mortgage mania in full swing, Mr. Egol began creating the deals known as Abacus. From 2004 to 2008, Goldman issued 25 Abacus deals, according to Bloomberg, with a total value of $10.9 billion.
Abacus allowed investors to bet for or against the mortgage securities that were linked to the deal. The C.D.O.’s didn’t contain actual mortgages. Instead, they consisted of credit-default swaps, a type of insurance that pays out when a borrower defaults. These swaps made it much easier to place large bets on mortgage failures.
Rather than persuading his customers to make negative bets on Abacus, Mr. Egol kept most of these wagers for his firm, said five former Goldman employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. On occasion, he allowed some hedge funds to take some of the short trades.
Mr. Egol and Fabrice Tourre, a French trader at Goldman, were aggressive from the start in trying to make the assets in Abacus deals look better than they were, according to notes taken by a Wall Street investor during a phone call with Mr. Tourre and another Goldman employee in May 2005.
On the call, the two traders noted that they were trying to persuade analysts at Moody’s Investors Service, a credit rating agency, to assign a higher rating to one part of an Abacus C.D.O. but were having trouble, according to the investor’s notes, which were provided by a colleague who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to release them. Goldman declined to discuss the selection of the assets in the C.D.O.’s, but a spokesman said investors could have rejected the C.D.O. if they did not like the assets.
Goldman’s bets against the performances of the Abacus C.D.O.’s were not worth much in 2005 and 2006, but they soared in value in 2007 and 2008 when the mortgage market collapsed. The trades gave Mr. Egol a higher profile at the bank, and he was among a group promoted to managing director on Oct. 24, 2007.
“Egol and Fabrice were way ahead of their time,” said one of the former Goldman workers. “They saw the writing on the wall in this market as early as 2005.” By creating the Abacus C.D.O.’s, they helped protect Goldman against losses that others would suffer.
As early as the summer of 2006, Goldman’s sales desk began marketing short bets using the ABX index to hedge funds like Paulson & Company, Magnetar and Soros Fund Management, which invests for the billionaire George Soros. John Paulson, the founder of Paulson & Company, also would later take some of the shorts from the Abacus deals, helping him profit when mortgage bonds collapsed. He declined to comment.
A Deal Gone Bad, for Some
The woeful performance of some C.D.O.’s issued by Goldman made them ideal for betting against. As of September 2007, for example, just five months after Goldman had sold a new Abacus C.D.O., the ratings on 84 percent of the mortgages underlying it had been downgraded, indicating growing concerns about borrowers’ ability to repay the loans, according to research from UBS, the big Swiss bank. Of more than 500 C.D.O.’s analyzed by UBS, only two were worse than the Abacus deal.
Goldman created other mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s that performed poorly, too. One, in October 2006, was a $800 million C.D.O. known as Hudson Mezzanine. It included credit insurance on mortgage and subprime mortgage bonds that were in the ABX index; Hudson buyers would make money if the housing market stayed healthy — but lose money if it collapsed. Goldman kept a significant amount of the financial bets against securities in Hudson, so it would profit if they failed, according to three of the former Goldman employees.
A Goldman salesman involved in Hudson said the deal was one of the earliest in which outside investors raised questions about Goldman’s incentives. “Here we are selling this, but we think the market is going the other way,” he said.
A hedge fund investor in Hudson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that because Goldman was betting against the deal, he wondered whether the bank built Hudson with “bonds they really think are going to get into trouble.”

Multimedia

Indeed, Hudson investors suffered large losses. In March 2008, just 18 months after Goldman created that C.D.O., so many borrowers had defaulted that holders of the security paid out about $310 million to Goldman and others who had bet against it, according to correspondence sent to Hudson investors.
The Goldman salesman said that C.D.O. buyers were not misled because they were advised that Goldman was placing large bets against the securities. “We were very open with all the risks that we thought we sold. When you’re facing a tidal wave of people who want to invest, it’s hard to stop them,” he said. The salesman added that investors could have placed bets against Abacus and similar C.D.O.’s if they had wanted to.
A Goldman spokesman said the firm’s negative bets didn’t keep it from suffering losses on its mortgage assets, taking $1.7 billion in write-downs on them in 2008; but he would not say how much the bank had since earned on its short positions, which former Goldman workers say will be far more lucrative over time. For instance, Goldman profited to the tune of $1.5 billion from one series of mortgage-related trades by Mr. Egol with Wall Street rival Morgan Stanley, which had to book a steep loss, according to people at both firms.
Tetsuya Ishikawa, a salesman on several Abacus and Hudson deals, left Goldman and later published a novel, “How I Caused the Credit Crunch.” In it, he wrote that bankers deserted their clients who had bought mortgage bonds when that market collapsed: “We had moved on to hurting others in our quest for self-preservation.” Mr. Ishikawa, who now works for another financial firm in London, declined to comment on his work at Goldman.
Profits From a Collapse
Just as synthetic C.D.O.’s began growing rapidly, some Wall Street banks pushed for technical modifications governing how they worked in ways that made it possible for C.D.O.’s to expand even faster, and also tilted the playing field in favor of banks and hedge funds that bet against C.D.O.’s, according to investors.
In early 2005, a group of prominent traders met at Deutsche Bank’s office in New York and drew up a new system, called Pay as You Go. This meant the insurance for those betting against mortgages would pay out more quickly. The traders then went to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the group that governs trading in derivatives like C.D.O.’s. The new system was presented as a fait accompli, and adopted.
Other changes also increased the likelihood that investors would suffer losses if the mortgage market tanked. Previously, investors took losses only in certain dire “credit events,” as when the mortgages associated with the C.D.O. defaulted or their issuers went bankrupt.
But the new rules meant that C.D.O. holders would have to make payments to short sellers under less onerous outcomes, or “triggers,” like a ratings downgrade on a bond. This meant that anyone who bet against a C.D.O. could collect on the bet more easily.
“In the early deals you see none of these triggers,” said one investor who asked for anonymity to preserve relationships. “These things were built in to provide the dealers with a big payoff when something bad happened.”
Banks also set up ever more complex deals that favored those betting against C.D.O.’s. Morgan Stanley established a series of C.D.O.’s named after United States presidents (Buchanan and Jackson) with an unusual feature: short-sellers could lock in very cheap bets against mortgages, even beyond the life of the mortgage bonds. It was akin to allowing someone paying a low insurance premium for coverage on one automobile to pay the same on another one even if premiums over all had increased because of high accident rates.
At Goldman, Mr. Egol structured some Abacus deals in a way that enabled those betting on a mortgage-market collapse to multiply the value of their bets, to as much as six or seven times the face value of those C.D.O.’s. When the mortgage market tumbled, this meant bigger profits for Goldman and other short sellers — and bigger losses for other investors.
Selling Bad Debt
Other Wall Street firms also created risky mortgage-related securities that they bet against.
At Deutsche Bank, the point man on betting against the mortgage market was Greg Lippmann, a trader. Mr. Lippmann made his pitch to select hedge fund clients, arguing they should short the mortgage market. He sometimes distributed a T-shirt that read “I’m Short Your House!!!” in black and red letters.

Multimedia

Graphic
Profits in a Crisis

Deutsche, which declined to comment, at the same time was selling synthetic C.D.O.’s to its clients, and those deals created more short-selling opportunities for traders like Mr. Lippmann.
Among the most aggressive C.D.O. creators was Tricadia, a management company that was a unit of Mariner Investment Group. Until he became a senior adviser to the Treasury secretary early this year, Lewis Sachs was Mariner’s vice chairman. Mr. Sachs oversaw about 20 portfolios there, including Tricadia, and its documents also show that Mr. Sachs sat atop the firm’s C.D.O. management committee.
From 2003 to 2007, Tricadia issued 14 mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s, which it called TABS. Even when the market was starting to implode, Tricadia continued to create TABS deals in early 2007 to sell to investors. The deal documents referring to conflicts of interest stated that affiliates and clients of Tricadia might place bets against the types of securities in the TABS deal.
Even so, the sales material also boasted that the mortgages linked to C.D.O.’s had historically low default rates, citing a “recently completed” study by Standard & Poor’s ratings agency — though fine print indicated that the date of the study was September 2002, almost five years earlier.
At a financial symposium in New York in September 2006, Michael Barnes, the co-head of Tricadia, described how a hedge fund could put on a negative mortgage bet by shorting assets to C.D.O. investors, according to his presentation, which was reviewed by The New York Times.
Mr. Barnes declined to comment. James E. McKee, general counsel at Tricadia, said, “Tricadia has never shorted assets into the TABS deals, and Tricadia has always acted in the best interests of its clients and investors.”
Mr. Sachs, through a spokesman at the Treasury Department, declined to comment.
Like investors in some of Goldman’s Abacus deals, buyers of some TABS experienced heavy losses. By the end of 2007, UBS research showed that two TABS deals were the eighth- and ninth-worst performing C.D.O.’s. Both had been downgraded on at least 75 percent of their associated assets within a year of being issued.
Tricadia’s hedge fund did far better, earning roughly a 50 percent return in 2007 and similar profits in 2008, in part from the short bets.
Karen Agan, on December 26, 2009 at 1:23 pm said:

Do I have any Rights? The vacant unit next to mine, pipes bursted 2 weeks ago. Flooded and damaged my home. No help from the Hoa in knowing the units owner, and or bank if it is in foreclosue. I’m trying to save my home with BOA, and now I have to pay a $500.00 dedutable to fix my place, now knowing that it could be mortgage payment, and now the value of my place just tanked. No one has been in that vacant unit to begin cleaning it up. Who would want to live next to a place that now is becoming a mess of mold. And now why do I even want to keep my own place. Why do I have to pay for something that is not my fault?
usedkarguy, on December 25, 2009 at 1:29 pm said:

Hey, Dan! I don’t think “Ira” is doing Christmas this year. (YUK, YUK!) Happy Hanukkah, Ira! Merry Christmas Folks!
ALLAN (with news that Miami Dade Clerk of Courts is moving foreclosure auctions out of the courthouse to the Internet to reduce the 10 month foreclosure auction backlog), on December 25, 2009 at 12:50 pm said:

In an effort to reduce their 10 month backlog of foreclosure auctions and save 25,000 man hours and $750,000, Miami Dade Clerk of Courts, on its home page, http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/dadecoc/ announced it is going high tech partnering with http://www.realauction.com.

The foreclosure auction website http://www.MiamiDade.Realforeclose.com was launched Pearl Harbor Day and has its first online auction scheduled for January 11, 2010.

This is expected to free up court personnel, bring efficiency to foreclosures, and reduce costs. The 10 MONTH backlog is expected to be reduced to 6 WEEKS, tops!

Just think what that’ll do for those egregiously vile ‘rocket dockets,’ freeing court personnel up to make sure Plaintiffs are fully playing by the rules. Just in time for 2010, when foreclosures are expected to be off the charts.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
ALLAN (with a valuable RESEARCH TOOL tip for you avid advanced fellow researchers), on December 25, 2009 at 12:16 pm said:

Ever try to keep several GOOGLE tabs going at once, but had to toggle between tabs? No more. Now you can easily make side-by-side comparisons.

Go to http://www.GoogleGoogleGoogleGoogle.com.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
deontos, on December 25, 2009 at 10:46 am said:

Ken,

That article is an “artful pleading” designed to disguise a stinking mound
of CRAP and FRAUD.

We must collectively examine everything these people put out in their propaganda pieces. THEY LEAVE CLUES. Forget their garbage rationalizations and outright lies.

I use the “Great Google” with keywords from articles like this to learn who, what, where and how. Homeowners have been BLINDSIDED disastrously
by bunch of psychopathic greedy banksters and their money blinded Esq’s.
We have to learn from any source we can their strategies and mindsets. We must learn from THEIR successes and their failures how to obtain JUSTICE based on truth and fairness to all “real parties of interest”.

I commend YOU for bringing this article up, although reading it sickens me because of all the blinding hypocrisy and arrogance. I hope all garner some substantial helpful knowledge from it.
Ken Dost, on December 25, 2009 at 2:57 am said:

THIS IS AN ARTICLE THAT I CAME ACROSS THAT REALLY DEMONSTRATES THE UPHILL BATTLE THAT WE FACE….ACTUALLY THE ARTICLE REALLY PISSES ME OFF…WHAT GETS ME ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS THAT THERE IS CLEAR CUT FRAUD ON SO MANY LAYERS YET IT SEEMS TO COME DOWN TO AN ADHESION TO CONTRACT….TOO THAT PEOPLE ARE UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE OF WHAT THOSE BASTARDS DID……ANYHOW TAKE A READ OF THIS ARTICLE

Full Text:COPYRIGHT 2009 Mortgage Bankers Association of America

If you want to change the foreclosure process these days, you may have to take a number and get in line. Across the nation, state lawmakers, attorneys general, municipal officeholders, local attorneys and even borrowers are attempting to rewrite the rules governing what happens when a mortgage borrower fails to make his or her payments. * The result of all this has been a quagmire of competing legislation, increased compliance and holding costs for lenders, and a caseload that’s clogging court systems across the country. All of that, and yet there’s been no significant reduction in foreclosures. * While responsible lenders understand that some borrowers have unfair loans, what’s happening in the legislative and enforcement arenas goes beyond that notion, says Andrew L. Sandler, co-chair and partner of BuckleySandler LLP, a Washington, D.C., law firm. * “That notion is being translated into the notion that all borrowers have a right to be able to stay in their homes,” Sandler says, “without sufficient regard to what the [borrower's financial] problem is, whether it’s in that borrower’s long-term interest to maintain homeownership or whether the borrower was complicit in obtaining a loan under fraudulent circumstances. * Fueled by outrage over the very real problem that some people were placed in unaffordable loans, legislators are coming up with solutions that, in some cases, allow borrowers to simply stop making payments. * Public acceptance of the idea that people do not have to meet their financial obligations is highly problematic for the future of an industry built upon the idea that a borrower’s willingness to repay can be accurately measured.

State stalemates

Given the political climate, it’s not surprising that state legislatures have taken up the issue of foreclosure with the same zeal they exhibited for anti-predatory-lending laws in past sessions.

“The states, in a very haphazard way, have come up with a variety of moratoriums that were really motivated as much by the political impact of taking action as by due consideration of what would happen by suspending foreclosures in their state,” says Gerald Alt, president of LOGS Network, a Northbrook, Illinois–based default- and foreclosure-management company.

California, North Carolina, Ohio, New York and other states have told lenders they can’t start a foreclosure for some set period of time, or in some cases until they have sent out specific notices or exhausted reasonable efforts to do a workout, says Alt.

Other states are obligating servicers and lenders to attend mediation sessions, says Nanci Weissgold, a partner with law firm K&L Gates, LLP in Washington, D.C.

While every state is different, mediation laws typically require lenders to notify the court system that a foreclosure complaint has been filed and then delay foreclosure until the mediation process has been conducted. “A lot of times, mediation is run by the court system,” Weiss-gold says. “Some states are using retired judges, and there could be a huge backlog–so the timing is critical.”

A New Jersey anti-foreclosure bill amended in July says high-risk borrowers, including those who failed to make payments during the three-month loan-mod trial period under the Making Home Affordable (MHA) program, are entitled to an additional six months of forbearance–during which they do not have to make payments. Borrowers can also ask to be placed in the court system’s Foreclosure Mediation Program.

California’s anti-foreclosure law defines how servicers should contact delinquent borrowers. Washington state looked to California as a model and passed a similar bill, Weissgold says.

The result of many state legislative efforts has been an extended time frame for foreclosures. This has brought increased holding costs and–in markets where property values are declining–lower eventual sale prices.

While home retention is a major public policy goal and it is the driving force behind this type of legislation, unfortunately some of these laws may have the perverse incentive to delay serious loan-modification discussions, Weissgold says.

“What they’re doing is just delaying the inevitable for borrowers,” says attorney Joshua Mandell, an associate at the Los Angeles law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP.

“The reality is, there are many homeowners in homes today who probably are not financially able to make even modified mortgage payments. The legislation is pushing those foreclosures down the road, and courts are clogged up with these challenges,” Mandell says.

Moratoriums would work a lot better if the legislatures that create them also funded debt counseling and budgeting education for troubled borrowers, Alt suggests.

“The moratoriums were well-intentioned but maybe not so well-executed, because they don’t include a component to help analyze the underlying financial condition of the borrower and find a solution,” he says.

Moratoriums can be a temporary respite for borrowers with too much consumer debt, but they don’t stop interest from accruing on credit-card and auto debt. And unless home prices rise while the lender forbears, a moratorium won’t help underwater borrowers in troubled real estate markets whose homes are worth less than their outstanding mortgage amount.

Contrary counties

Smaller legislative bodies have also started telling lenders how to deal with foreclosures. Counties in Florida have mandated mediation before foreclosure, and a rogue sheriff in Detroit’s Wade County last winter refused to do foreclosure sales for a period of time.

Sheriff Warren Evans said that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) pre-empted Michigan foreclosure laws and allowed him to stop the sales. “I cannot in clear conscience allow any more families to lose their homes through foreclosure sales until I’m satisfied they have been afforded every option they are entitled to under the law to avoid foreclosure,” Evans told The Associated Press.

Even municipal attorneys are looking to score political points by filing foreclosure-related lawsuits against lenders. Their legal strategy is akin to what state attorneys general did to tobacco companies, lead-based paint manufacturers and gun makers.

In Cleveland, Ohio; Birmingham, Alabama; and Baltimore, municipal attorneys are alleging that the practices of various lenders led to foreclosures that caused a dramatic drop in the value of entire neighborhoods, and therefore the lenders that made those loans should be considered a public nuisance.

The suits, which are soon to be filed in Atlanta and Memphis, Tennessee, as well, have a class-action-like effect, explains Richard Gottlieb, director of the financial institutions group at law firm Dykema Gossett PLLC, Chicago.

The idea that home loans can be classified as a public nuisance, in much the same way as tobacco, lead-based paint and guns, was a tough sell in Cleveland, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the city’s case.

The Birmingham case is similar to the Cleveland case. The Baltimore suit, which alleges that one lender engaged in discriminatory practices against African Americans that resulted in foreclosure activities, will look familiar to the lawyers defending claims like these elsewhere.

Among the defenses offered by the lender in the Baltimore case is the fact that the city itself foreclosed on homes in the same neighborhood when homeowners were delinquent on water or property tax bills.

“Baltimore has repeatedly foreclosed on the very same citizens it now casts as victims,” Gottlieb says.

Consumer counselors

In terms of sheer numbers, there’s probably nothing that tops the volume of cases being filed by individual borrowers seeking to stop foreclosure. That figure has at least doubled since 2008, and there are significantly more cases being filed today than there were five years ago, according to Fred Rivera, partner and co-chair of the financial services litigation group at Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle.

“At times I’m getting up to half a dozen cases a month,” he reports. “And over the last year, we’ve handled scores of these cases in a half-dozen states–California, Massachusetts, Washington and the District of Columbia.”

Local bar associations and non-profits have played a role in the expansion of individual litigation. In Washington state, the bar association conducted foreclosure-prevention clinics, training lawyers how to look at loan documents and find grounds to stop or delay foreclosures, he says.

Rivera says the attorneys he has faced off against tend to fall into one of three categories. One set treats foreclosure cases like personal injury cases, and sees them as a means to collect damages and attorney fees.

A second set of attorneys see the court system as an avenue for getting the loan servicer to agree to a workout. Loan Modification Advisory Corporation (LMAC), Longwood, Florida, owners of http://www.savemyloantoday.com, is one such firm. It works for attorneys whose clients experience financial hardships from job loss, death, divorce or medical expenses.

“Forensic loan auditing continues to be a great tool for our business,” says LMAC President Jim Boghos. “What we’re looking for in an audit are violations of state and federal consumer-protection laws. We then attempt to circumvent the often understaffed or non-empowered loss-mitigation department and attempt to move the case to a supervisor status, elevated department or, in some cases, go straight into the legal department.”

With more egregious violations, the consumer could file suit and make a claim of full loan rescission with interest payments dating back for a specific period of time, Boghos says.

“The lender knows this, but until a lawsuit is actually filed, it merely puts the lender on notice that they are vulnerable,” Boghos says. “The bottom line is that we’re trying to put the borrower into a healthier loan and we will exhaust any and all resources to do so. A ‘healthy loan’ usually means paying escrow and repaying principal.”

While LMAC finds errors in about 90 percent of the files it reviews, many of these errors are fairly minor infractions that, taken alone, do not create strong legal cases, Boghos says. The top three errors found are Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HUD-1 form errors and problems with option adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs).

“Option ARMs are often fraught with errors,” Boghos says. “The calculations are usually off due to careless and improper forecasting and the fact that they were originated in a wild and wooly time.” Many option ARMs had TILA violations automatically built in because the lender disclosed the payment would stay the same for 12 months and yet the payment changed monthly, he adds.

By contrast, LMAC’s weakest cases are typically those where an appraiser was pushed to give an inflated appraisal, but the rest of the overall origination process and documentation was solid, he adds.

Rivera disputes Boghos’ claims that forensically audited loan cases end up being resolved in the legal department. “Going the litigation route without trying to modify first throws up another gate they [the borrowers] have to go through,” Rivera says. “And the legal department will send them to the same loan-modification department they would have gone to in the first place.”

Boghos answers that LMAC does try to modify first. “But in some cases the lender won’t play ball, so we get aggressive to try and force the lender’s hand with a demand for restructure as opposed to a request for modification,” he says.

“Again, we only deploy this tactic when the lender is dragging its heels, refuses to lower principal or decides that it isn’t going to give the homeowner a modification at all. This is when we get aggressive for our clients,” Boghos says.

But if a plaintiff/borrower lacks the income to qualify for even the most generous modification programs, the legal department won’t agree to a deal that the borrower can’t uphold, Rivera says.

“Lenders and servicers desire to do a loan mod–when it’s a good idea,” Rivera says.

Fighting back

These days, the lenders and servicers Rivera represents are taking a more aggressive approach to borrower lawsuits that attempt to stop or delay foreclosure. Mortgage banking clients that used to delay foreclosure proceedings until litigation was completed these days are fighting temporary restraining orders.

“They’re fed up with frivolous litigation that’s been filed, and they’re prepared to defend themselves early on and not allow these restraining orders to remain in place,” he says.

Among the defensive tactics that have led to success are statute-of-limitations arguments. “These loans are several years old, so payments were made on a timely basis and there were no issues,” Rivera explains. “Six years down the road, a lawyer gets a hold of it and attempts to make these claims.”

He’s had mixed success at the early stages of these cases. “Most judges are pre-wired to grant a borrower’s motion for the stay of the foreclosure,” Rivera says. But once the evidence is examined, his clients typically prevail.

As part of the defense, Rivera and his clients take a second look at the origination applications of litigating borrowers. “When there’s evidence of mortgage fraud or similar misconduct by the borrower and we’re able to bring that to the attention of the judge, we can successfully defend a motion for a temporary restraining order,” he says.

In one of Rivera’s recent cases, a borrower who had claimed to be an owner-occupant at origination turned out to be an investor. That fact helped Rivera win the case, and his lender client revoked a loan modification it had offered to the borrower.

The third category of cases Rivera sees are filed by lawyers who clearly have no idea what they’re doing. “They may have read an article or gone to a seminar and they file a case and don’t know what their end game is,” Rivera says.

Produce the indictment

In some cases, the end game may be a simple one: generating fees. In California, Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. is suing attorney Mitchell Roth of M.W. Roth PLC, Sherman Oaks, California, and foreclosure “consultant” Paul Noe Jr., president of United First Inc., a Nevada corporation, charging them with conning 2,000 homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for “phony lawsuits” attempting to stop foreclosures.

“Noe and Roth ripped off homeowners desperate for help by charging unconscionable fees for phony lawsuits,” Brown said in a press release about the lawsuit. “Instead of aggressively pursuing the lawsuits, Noe and Roth strung them along so they could continue to rake in fees,” Brown charged.

Mandell was assigned one of Roth’s cases, which argued that a foreclosure was invalid because the lender was required to have the inked or original promissory note before filing against the borrower.

“That’s the gist of the theory, and it’s spawned a lot of litigation where borrowers are trying to force the lender to produce the original note and simultaneously delay foreclosure proceedings that have already started,” Mandell says.

In California, a non-judicial state, foreclosures are highly structured and regulated. “There are a lot of statutes that specifically describe what can be done and what’s required to be done during the foreclosure process,” Mandell explains. “At no point is there a requirement that the lender or its agent produce a copy of the original promissory note or provide proof they have the original promissory note before foreclosure.”

Similar suits filed in other states, referred to as “produce-the-note” cases, have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower’s mortgage debts, Brown adds.

Not all the produce-the-note litigation is being filed by attorneys. Thanks to the Internet, individuals are filing similar lawsuits on their own behalf without an attorney, Mandell says. “In California, the courts have seen a huge uptick in the number of filings made by plaintiffs without counsel and specifically with trying to avoid foreclosure,” he adds.

Of course, lenders know that rescission isn’t usually a viable option for a financially troubled borrower. “I have only one matter where the plaintiff appears genuinely interested in rescission,” Mandell says. “Otherwise, it’s clear they want a modification–and you don’t need the attorney to do that. We provide a loan-modification application to the plaintiff, and if they qualify it’s expected they’ll dismiss the complaint.”

How popular is filing anti-foreclosure cases? Here’s one measure: There are enough lawyers working the niche in Florida that someone started a trade association for them–the Florida Foreclosure Defense Bar Association, based in Boca Raton.

Fortunately for the lenders being sued, quantity doesn’t always lead to quality. “Many lawyers find this to be a boom time to set aside foreclosure,” says Michael Agoglia, a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco. “And they know public opinion is in their favor. They’re riding that tide and trying to take advantage of it. They bring cases on a technicality, and many times they’re wrong.”

Wacky actions

Still, the current environment is one in which mortgage bankers cannot afford to take any cases for granted, no matter how outlandish the case may sound.

Take, for instance, the class-action claims that shareholders of Reston, Virginia-based MERSCORP Inc. are part of a grand conspiracy and that assignments of deeds of trust in about two dozen states with non-judicial foreclosures should be invalidated. MERS is, of course, prepared to provide a vigorous response to the case, Agoglia says.

The plaintiffs in that case allege that MERS conspired to mask unsavory originations and predatory lending via hidden assignments. If that argument has you shaking your head, you’re not alone.

“This is the type of far-fetched theory lawyers have come up with to take advantage of a ripe political and judicial environment to challenge mortgage bankers,” Agoglia says. “Those claims, in my judgment, are very, very weak. It’s a steep uphill challenge on class certification or, more immediately, to have a nationwide injunction [against foreclosures involving loans registered with MERS].”

If the class action were accepted, such a sweeping decision would immediately mobilize industry and government officials to prevent it from going into effect, he adds. “The theories they’re pursuing are born of the current political climate and little else,” he says.

Eventual enforcement

The trend toward micro-management of the foreclosure process via legislation is relatively recent, so in many cases the implementing rules are still being translated into regulation and enforcement actions. “These legislative efforts have come in the last year and a half, and there’s lag time and a period of compliance and investigation, and then enforcement follows,” Agoglia says.

Meanwhile, lenders and servicers are waiting to see exactly how all these jurisdictions will enforce their new laws.

“Everyone is waiting to see what’s happening, as opposed to definitively saying, ‘This is what’s supposed to take place,’” says Dana Jenkins-Krind, director of legal reviews and remedies for Lenders Compliance Group, Long Beach, New York.

“It seems like there’s always something new to give to the lender as a compliance person. It’s more laws and more difficult laws, and they’re not as definite as they used to be,” says Jenkins-Krind. And while they wait for clarification and an end to the country’s economic woes, and for the legal industry to move on to the next “hot” issue, lenders and servicers will continue to do what they’ve always done: They’ll seek out ways to keep borrowers in their homes whenever possible. But when they can’t work out the borrower’s problems, they’ll move as swiftly as legally possible to liquidate the asset and recoup their losses.
ALLAN (let's educate one WSJ journalist whosurprise, surprise, just `doesn't get it), on December 25, 2009 at 12:59 am said:

* The Wall Street Journal

* DECEMBER 24, 2009

Foreclosure Challenges Raise Questions About Judicial Role

By AMIR EFRATI

A group of state and federal judges presiding over foreclosures are wiping away borrowers’ mortgage debt, invalidating foreclosure sales and even barring some foreclosures outright.

The decisions in recent months by a handful of judges in states including Massachusetts, New York and Texas mark a new phase in the judiciary’s battle to stem the rising tide of foreclosures by punishing mortgage companies for paperwork mistakes and alleged mistreatment of borrowers.

The number of judges taking such action remains small, and most foreclosures go through without a challenge.

But the growing number of rulings against lenders’ claims is raising questions among some legal experts about judges’ impartiality.

“The question is whether judges are changing the rules in the middle of the game…just because there is a financial crisis,” says Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University and a critic of policy initiatives aimed at curtailing lenders’ ability to foreclose.

As early as 18 months ago, several judges in California, New York, Ohio and elsewhere would dismiss foreclosure cases if they could find reason to do so. But those judges often allowed the mortgage companies to refile their foreclosure claims after attesting to their ownership of the mortgage in the county in which the homeowner lives.

Now, after the country has been mired in a housing crisis for more than two years, more judges are calling these companies on their paperwork glitches, and in some cases going much further in their efforts to help homeowners.
[Hardship]

It makes sense for judges to demand that mortgage companies follow the rules to the letter if they want to win foreclosure cases in court, says Raymond Brescia, an assistant professor at Albany Law School who has written about the role of the courts in the financial crisis. “I don’t think that’s a crazy idea,” he says. “To expect plaintiffs to prove their case is what the judicial system is founded on.”

But if judges decide to help borrowers in ways that overlook the merits of individual cases, Mr. Brescia adds, that would “undermine the integrity of the judiciary, and that’s not going to help anybody.” Instead, he says, it might trigger a backlash from legislators or regulators to rein in activist jurists.

At the heart of some of the court rulings is what became a common practice among mortgage companies: filing a foreclosure claim without showing proof that they actually own the mortgage and have the right to foreclose. This occurs in part because mortgages change hands multiple times after the original loan is made, but the mortgage documents and the contracts between borrowers and lenders are never altered to reflect those changes. Years later, it can be difficult to verify who is the owner of the mortgage.

That played a key role in a ruling in October by Keith Long, a state-court judge in Massachusetts. He invalidated two foreclosure sales that had occurred more than two years ago. The judge affirmed his own prior ruling that said units of U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. never had the right to sell the homes.

Judge Long ruled that even though the companies physically held the relevant mortgage documents, the mortgages were never legally assigned to them and recorded with the state.

“They’re selling something they don’t own,” says attorney Paul Collier, who began representing the borrowers in the case last year.

Walter H. Porr, a lawyer for the companies, which are appealing the ruling, says his clients “operated in what had been an accepted industry fashion for the better part of 15 or 20 years.” He adds: “We owned those mortgages.”

In October, a federal bankruptcy judge in White Plains, N.Y., rejected a claim by a mortgage company that the debtor owed $460,000. The judge, Robert D. Drain, said the company, PHH Mortgage Corp., couldn’t prove it owned the debt.

A spokeswoman for PHH, which is appealing, said the company is trying to resolve the case.

And in a prominent case in New York’s Suffolk County on Long Island, Jeffrey Spinner, a state-court judge, canceled $292,000 in mortgage debt after he ruled the borrowers were mistreated by IndyMac Bank.

The judge said in a November ruling that the bank displayed “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” behavior by making no attempt to negotiate a settlement with Diane Yano-Horoski after she and her husband fell behind on payments, despite a state law requiring the company to try.

OneWest Bank, which purchased the debt from IndyMac, plans to appeal. In a statement, it said the ruling, “if allowed to stand, has sweeping and dangerous implications.”

At least one judge has been admonished for appearing to favor borrowers. In September, a Florida state appeals court ruled that a lower-court judge, Valerie Manno Schurr, erred in routinely delaying foreclosure sales by several months. Her reasoning put concern for the homeowners ahead of the law, the appeals court said.

Judge Manno Schurr didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Write to Amir Efrati at amir.efrati@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Amir Efrati seems to have the Cliff Notes or Dummies version of what’s going on in foreclosure nation. Judges who are branded ‘activist’ are actually standing up for judicial integrity, warding off interlopers with their false claims.

Mr. Efrati naively believes that the adversarial system of justice should remain superficially impartial. How is a judge supposedly favoring a borrower, showing bias or partiality when securitized mortgages are involved that were designed to obfuscate, and the foreclosing party has no right of redress as it fraudulently avails itself of a remedy meant only for an injured party?

God save us from a backlash where legislators further muzzle judges as they did in rejecting cramdowns. One can expect Wall Street to further stack the deck against borrowers and judges that want to do justice. That backlash ought be met with a counter-backlash with decent people taking to the streets by the millions.

NEIL, it’s time to open a third tab or prong in your strategic foreclosure defense attack, and if you have space, set yet another for the fourth estate. Make this third tab for JUDGES. Remind judges that foreclosure is chiefly a remedy in equity, and that if in their rocket dockets they myopically see foreclosure as altogether a breach of contract, then have them drill down and have them require every ‘i’ be dotted and ‘t’ crossed along the entire chain. Used to be a Plaintiff used to have to prove EVERY ELEMENT of their case in order to prevail. Now, expediency requires overburdened court systems and overworked judges to DISPENSE WITH JUSTICE.

Let’s praise and support LOUDLY those independent judges who have a conscience and can see that rocket dockets are not about rendering justice. Instead, they are about corrupting due process, and lopsiding equities. Let’s hold up to encomium and national acclaim those exemplary judges who do not go along to get along with the values of the propertied class – their social equals who have very little understanding of life at the cadastral level. Let’s broadcast especially the feats of those judges that sua sponte come down on the side of doing justice.

These ‘activist’ gatekeepers of doing the right and honorable thing mirror the passionate call of Shakespeare’s Portia, when she reminds Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, that he can have his pound of flesh (contract) but that he better not draw blood (equity) in enforcing this remedy. Forfeiting the contractual pound of flesh ought not require the counterparty to forfeit his life.

Let’s do a massive outreach to independent judges and rail against legislators who’ll try muzzle them.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Christmas Day
12:59 A.M.
Dan Edstrom, on December 24, 2009 at 8:18 pm said:

Ira,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

If you have found your SEC filings, somewhere in there you will find a statement that goes something like this:

MERS is acting solely as the nominee for the Originator and MERS has NO interest in any property.

These quotes are from my Pooling and Servicing agreement:

One:
MOM Loan: With respect to any Mortgage Loan, MERS acting as the mortgagee of such Mortgage Loan, solely as nominee for the originator of such Mortgage Loan and its successors and assigns, at the origination thereof.

Two:
The Depositor shall promptly cause to be recorded in the appropriate public office for real property records the Assignment referred to in clause (iii) of Section 2.01(b), except (a) in states where, in an Opinion of Counsel acceptable to the Master Servicer, such recording is not required to protect the Trustee’s interests in the Mortgage Loan or (b) if MERS is identified on the Mortgage or on a properly recorded assignment of the Mortgage, as applicable, as the mortgagee of record solely as nominee for Residential Funding and its successors and assigns. If any Assignment is lost or returned unrecorded to the Depositor because of any defect therein, the Depositor shall prepare a substitute Assignment or cure such defect, as the case may be, and cause such Assignment to be recorded in accordance with this paragraph. The Depositor shall promptly deliver or cause to be delivered to the Trustee or the respective Custodian such Mortgage or Assignment, as applicable (or copy thereof as permitted by Section 2.01(b)), with evidence of recording indicated thereon upon receipt thereof from the public recording office or from the related Subservicer or Seller.

Three:
The Master Servicer further is authorized and empowered by the Trustee, on behalf of the Certificateholders and the Trustee, in its own name or in the name of the Subservicer, when the Master Servicer or the Subservicer, as the case may be, believes it is appropriate in its best judgment to register any Mortgage Loan on the MERS(R) System, or cause the removal from the registration of any Mortgage Loan on the MERS(R) System, to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Trustee and the Certificateholders or any of them, any and all instruments of assignment and other comparable instruments with respect to such assignment or re-recording of a Mortgage in the name of MERS, solely as nominee for the Trustee and its successors and assigns.

These are from my prospectus:

One:
The mortgages or assignments of mortgage for some of the mortgage loans have been or may be recorded in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns.

Two:
The recording of mortgages in the name of MERS is a relatively new practice in the mortgage lending industry. Public recording officers and others in the mortgage industry may have limited, if any, experience with lenders seeking to foreclose mortgages, assignments of which are registered with MERS. Accordingly, delays and additional costs in commencing, prosecuting and completing foreclosure proceedings and conducting foreclosure sales of the mortgaged properties could result. Those delays and additional costs could in turn delay the distribution of liquidation proceeds to certificateholders and increase the amount of losses on the mortgage loans.

Three:
The original mortgages for some of the mortgage loans have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, recorded in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns, and subsequent assignments of those mortgages have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System. In some other cases, the original mortgage was recorded in the name of the originator of the mortgage loan, record ownership was later assigned to MERS, solely as nominee for the owner of the mortgage loan, and subsequent assignments of the mortgage were, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System. With respect to each of these mortgage loans, MERS serves as mortgagee of record on the mortgage solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee, and does not have any interest in the mortgage loan. As of the cut-off date, approximately 99.9% of the cut-off date principal balance of the mortgage loans were recorded in the name of MERS.

Four:
If stated in the accompanying prospectus supplement, and in accordance with the rules of membership of Merscorp, Inc. and/or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. or, MERS, assignments of the mortgages for the mortgage loans in the related trust will be registered electronically through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS (Registered Trademark) System. For mortgage loans registered through the MERS (Registered Trademark) System, MERS shall serve as mortgagee of record solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee and shall not have any interest in any of those mortgage loans.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ira, on December 24, 2009 at 7:31 pm said:

Something fishy this way comes?

I recently found an “Assignment of Mortgage” (AOM) and “Satisfaction of Mortgage” in county records from MERS, both allegedly signed by employees of MERS. MERS has never been named as the ‘mortgagee’ and ‘noteholder’ on any of our documents, but only as a beneficiary the first time we refinanced in 2003. On its website under ‘Foreclosures’, even MERS admits:

“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.”

On the MERS AOM to WMC Mortgage, it states it is a COPY, is to be returned to WMC Mortgage, is missing the printed name under the alleged signature of a Witness, gives an address in Michigan yet is purported to be notarized in New York, is signed by an ‘Assistant Secretary’ whose name is handwritten on the document (not typed)’, is dated January 13, 2003 yet wasn’t recorded in county records until April 29, 2005.

On the the MERS ‘Satisfaction of Mortgage’ document, it states all of the following:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY / RETURN TO:
Peelle Management Corporation
P.O. Box 30014
Reno, NV 89520-9827

THIS CORPORATION HAS NO CORPORATE SEAL (not sure if this is referring to MERS or Peelle)

Purports to be notarized in Santa Clara County, California.

Prepared by: E. N. Harrison, Peelle Management Corporation, 4690 Longley Lane, Suite #8, Reno, NV 89502, LN # 1710195 Investor LN # 15924152 P.I.F.: 12/07/05

** Prepared by E. N. Harrison but he did not sign anywhere on the document

REPLY TO: 4closuremess@gmail.com
Ira, on December 24, 2009 at 7:31 pm said:

Something fishy this way comes?

I recently found an “Assignment of Mortgage” (AOM) and “Satisfaction of Mortgage” in county records from MERS, both allegedly signed by employees of MERS. MERS has never been named as the ‘mortgagee’ and ‘noteholder’ on any of our documents, but only as a beneficiary the first time we refinanced in 2003. On its website under ‘Foreclosures’, even MERS admits:

“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.”

On the MERS AOM to WMC Mortgage, it states it is a COPY, is to be returned to WMC Mortgage, is missing the printed name under the alleged signature of a Witness, gives an address in Michigan yet is purported to be notarized in New York, is signed by an ‘Assistant Secretary’ whose name is handwritten on the document (not typed)’, is dated January 13, 2003 yet wasn’t recorded in county records until April 29, 2005.

On the the MERS ‘Satisfaction of Mortgage’ document, it states all of the following:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY / RETURN TO:
Peelle Management Corporation
P.O. Box 30014
Reno, NV 89520-9827

THIS CORPORATION HAS NO CORPORATE SEAL (not sure if this is referring to MERS or Peelle)

Purports to be notarized in Santa Clara County, California.

Prepared by: E. N. Harrison, Peelle Management Corporation, 4690 Longley Lane, Suite #8, Reno, NV 89502, LN # 1710195 Investor LN # 15924152 P.I.F.: 12/07/05

** Prepared by E. N. Harrison but he did not sign anywhere on the document
marcus, on December 24, 2009 at 9:05 am said:

Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won
NYTimes 12/23/09

In late October 2007, as the financial markets were starting to come unglued, a Goldman Sachs trader, Jonathan M. Egol, received very good news. At 37, he was named a managing director at the firm.

Mr. Egol, a Princeton graduate, had risen to prominence inside the bank by creating mortgage-related securities, named Abacus, that were at first intended to protect Goldman from investment losses if the housing market collapsed. As the market soured, Goldman created even more of these securities, enabling it to pocket huge profits.

Goldman’s own clients who bought them, however, were less fortunate.

Pension funds and insurance companies lost billions of dollars on securities that they believed were solid investments, according to former Goldman employees with direct knowledge of the deals who asked not to be identified because they have confidentiality agreements with the firm.

Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.

While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.

X_http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/24trading.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1261670626-5zW1ZuD5tMc0LTV/MG1xKg
expertwitness, on December 23, 2009 at 9:23 pm said:

Loan Mod Fraud

The article and thought processes needs to be better developed. Not quite there. Guessing at the lenders strategy is a double loser. If you’re wrong the homeowner errs and there’s no brass ring for the purveyor of gospel.

Look, I will beg, plead and steal to get a Gender Bender, or pretender lender to leave me be. But a lender who is registered as the depositor is the party charged with selling the loan. Their interest is in fact in the security and its is real …it’s just not the security you and I would consider under a deed of trust.

Get the party who claims to be a lender to write you, call you telegraph – whatever. Make a fax request of a client as mentioned and Party Over! It’s a lender dilemma and a bigger problem. It’s called recognition and a violation of GAAP under gain on sale or accrual accounting. The loss of control over the asset sold renders the entire trust composition to self destruct. These mods are unenforceable as to a controlling interest and considered a serious looming condition precedent upon transfer.

In short the lender cannot talk to you or make any contact with you subject to having to restate earnings and classify assets. The case to be made is nothing can be offered by the seller other than attempts to collect back payments they covered for you.

So actually, the seller must keep you away from the trust whereby the trust can offer you anything you want. It’s the seller /lender who loses insurance proceeds, must post 150 percent against the loan mod and then must replace the loan in a down market.

Anyway, what these people call a pretend lend loan mod, if true, is really a novation and that’s the kiss of death for the lender.

If you only knew what they are really doing to you in a trustees sale.

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com.
Abby in CA, on December 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm said:

ALERT FLORIDIANS & OTHER STATES
see my earlier post from a day or so ago regarding
notary in California and recordings for New Century or Home123 victims.

MORE INFO: as we examine the Florida recordings with the California notary and the use of a single ‘witness’, we have also learned that if the California notary must attach a ‘proof of execution certificate.’ We are not seeing that ‘proof of execution’ certificate on some of the recordings we examined from Florida, such as Assignment of Mortgage.

Also, make sure you pursue the identity of the so called ‘witness’ who signed the recorded docs.

It is my opinion that New Century and Home123 ran some sort of ‘forgery factory’.

Again–all California notaries have to take a thumprint of anyone notarizing a property related document. The thumbprints are kept in the notarial journal.

Anyone can pay a small feed and request a copy of the page in the notarial journal with the thumbprint.

If the notary has gone out of business, the notarial journal is supposed to reside at the county recorder’s office in the county the notary is commissioned in.

Example, Andres Rojas, a California notary with commission 1523525 was commissioned in Orange County California. He was used extensively by New Century Mortgage and Home123 for notarial services. He even notarized hundreds and hundreds of Florida ‘Assignment of Mortgage’ docs….he never left California and the Florida docs are recorded in Florida….but there could be significant & illegal
aspects of the recordings.

Aside from the fact that he notarized a certain VP from Home123 and New Century and the VPs signature is different on different recordings between California and Florida and even between various counties within the state.

See my earlier email on steps you should take.
Sherri Hill, on December 23, 2009 at 1:24 pm said:

Hi, how is everyone?

It’s interesting that there are so many different
fraudulent signtures on these recorded documents, that are used to steal our homes. My original lender
New Century used the name Hazelle Weissinger as
vice president assigning the note to Deutsche Bank,
which already had an interest in the mortgage, the note and all other documents in the loan file as Banker’s Trust, pursuant a letter to the closing agent.
As if they (Deutsche Trust) didn’t have enough interest in the mortgage, the note and all other
documents in the loan file, they had to throw the mortgage into a pool and sell it to investors creating
New Century Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-2
adding Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brother’s, Credit
Suisse, J.P. Morgan Chase, citibank to name a few.
To add more fuel to the fire, New century
in their Chapter 11 sold the servicing rights and platform to carrington Mortgage, which doesn’t have
access to accountants to calculate a true balance of
whats owed. (I gave up a long time ago trying to figure
out who to pay).
Next we have a recorded assignment of the
deed of trust to Deutsche Bank, who along with Deutsche Trust already has an interest in the mortgage loan, the note and all other documents in the loan file. The vice president of Deutsche Bank
substitutes the trustee on the same day the deed of
trust is assigned. These were endorsed on 02/12/07
and recorded on 03/07/07 and some how Hazelle Weissinger must have resigned her position as vice
president of New Century and was then employed as vice president of Deutsche Bank since both the assignment and substitution were signed by her.
Only thing is, she don’t work for either of them.
This being new found evidence because they failed to mail a copy of the assignment at the same time they mailed the substitution and notice of trustee sale, (because of a temporary layoff we went into default in November 06 that we cured in March 07
while New Century was under cease and desist orders) Deutsche Bank foreclosed in Jan. and their fast eviction attorney filed an unlawful detainer in June.
Attorney For Deutsche Bank John Bouzane
fabricated people and court documents. His fake
process server Mike Penalber’s declaration of due
diligence wasn’t signed. N. Greulich has three very
different signatures. Mac Johnson is purportedly a
REO Regional Manager Of Deutsche Bank. Mac J is
employed by John Bouzane. Because we were late
finding out about Hazelle and already filed a motion
to set aside the judgment (denied) and late finding
out about the liar of due process John Bouzane and
are in appeal and already evicted (as of Nov 24th)
someone give me another course of action please?
Sherri Hill
Deontos, on December 23, 2009 at 8:41 am said:

UPDATE ON JANE’S FORECLOSURE STORY

PAY ATTENTION, FOLKS! THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE!

The crooks trying to take your home, in this case Bank of America, MERS and their attorneys are using fraud and sleight of hand by recording an assignment of your mortgage shortly before they file a lawsuit against your or notice up a trustee’s sale.

They do it this way because it’s the only way they can show they have standing to foreclose. MERS never owns the note, and because it’s just a database, they never assign the mortgage until they foreclose on the property.

Why is this wrong? Because it completely circumvents the proper laws that govern how to document the chain of assignment and ownership.

These laws have existed for decades in this country. Before the lending industry created MERS and the securitization scheme, the owner of the Note would properly record the chain of ownership at the county recorder’s office where the property is located. That’s important, because as we’ve explained plenty of times, MERS’ entire operation is ILLEGAL.

Most homeowners just roll over and let them take their homes because they’ve never figured out how to put the pieces together.

I’m telling you that this is what’s going on, it’s fraud, and if you don’t do something about it, these crooks who LIED to you about your home loans will take your house because most people have no idea how bad the fraud is. Even the judge doesn’t have a clue about what’s really going on unless you explain it to the court.

If you’re in a judicial foreclosure state, fighting back is much easier to do. The plaintiff has already sued you, so there’s a legal action already open.

If you’re served, file an answer within thirty days and raise these issues. People are getting their foreclosures dismissed across the country because of this fraud.

Most judges don’t know anything about what’s really going on. If you keep it simple, hopefully the judge will get it. During the foreclosure proceedings, ask the judge to make the plaintiff explain what they did and how the mortgage got assigned to MERS in the first place.

So, attend all your court hearings, stick to the real issues, which are:

1) that the real lender isn’t a party to the lawsuit,

2) an assignment executed by someone who is not even employed by the entity trying to foreclose just a week before the foreclosure sale is initiated isn’t enough to prove standing to foreclose,

3) you know you owe someone some money, but you believe that the person who you owe the money to isn’t the party who is attempting to foreclose,

4) you want to make sure that the proper party that you owe the money to doesn’t sue you later after the plaintiff forecloses.

Note: Do not tell the judge you’re trying to get your home free and clear! This just makes you look like you’re trying to scheme the system, and will distract everyone from the real issue: that the Plaintiff is the party who is lying and that you want to make sure that the party foreclosing is the party who you actually owe the debt to.
Hopefully, the judge will get it. I say hopefully because this isn’t always the case.

However, in many cases, the foreclosure will be stalled because the plaintiff’s attorney’s office will not be able to explain to the court how the mortgage got assigned to the servicer or MERS in the first place.
If they did explain it, they would essentially be admitting that they participated in a massive scheme to defraud Americans by securitizing their home loans.

If the foreclosure is dismissed, they cannot take your home.
In some cases, the foreclosure sale is never re-filed and the borrowers continue to live in their homes without making a mortgage payment.

Depending on your state’s laws, after a certain period of time, the homeowner can file a quiet title action. For example, in Florida, after five years, the borrower can file a quiet title action.

A quiet title action is basically a lawsuit that asks a judge to “quiet title” to wipe away the mortgage debt, leaving the homeowner to own their home free and clear.

I don’t know what the statutes say in various states, but it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

This is how homeowners are winning their homes free and clear.

I’m telling you that this is what’s going on, it’s fraud, and if you don’t do something about it, these crooks who LIED to you about your home loans will take your house because most people have no idea how bad the fraud is. Even the judge doesn’t have a clue about what’s really going on unless you explain it to the court.

If you’re in a judicial foreclosure state, fighting back is much easier to do. The plaintiff has already sued you, so there’s a legal action already open.
Deontos, on December 22, 2009 at 9:25 pm said:

FROM FORECLOSURE FRAUD TWITTER FEED

Corporate America pays price for arrogance in taking family’s home
John L. Smith

A stone against a giant. David dropped Goliath with a well-placed rock. But in corporate America, the best most little guys can hope for is putting a knot on the giant’s noggin and escaping with a little cash.

That, in short, is what Gerald and Katrina Thitchener and their children have to show for their courtroom victory over mortgage lending behemoth Countrywide Home Loans.

Friday’s jury verdict was swift and in a better world would have sent a message to all big, arrogant corporations: “Clean up your act.”

The couple won $922,690 to compensate them for having their home wrongly foreclosed and sold.

They were awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages after a jury found the obvious: The arrogant giant failed to apologize for accidentally selling off their condominium and destroying their personal property.

It was hardball from the start.

Why?

Big corporations know hardball works because most little guys can’t go the distance.

When I first reported the Thitcheners’ plight in January 2004, they were struggling to keep their case alive after hiring attorneys Terry Coffing and Terry Moore.

Gerald was a former Air Force F-16 mechanic who moved to Tucson after his Air National Guard unit was activated. Katrina followed with the couple’s children and left the condo near Nellis Air Force Base locked and partially filled with their possessions.

In a screw-up Countrywide only later admitted partial responsibility for, the Thitcheners’ unit was mistakenly foreclosed and sold. Their personal items, including photos and Katrina’s wedding dress, were thrown out.

Most of the material facts in the case were settled prior to trial. Damning depositions revealed that the company’s mistakes cost the Thitcheners dearly.

But it’s what followed that should anger everyone in the valley. Instead of owning up, the company lawyered up.

It was asinine, but it’s also the way of corporate America.

No doubt the Thitcheners’ attorneys salivated at the obvious jury appeal of the story of an Air Force mechanic getting pushed around by a large corporation, but then the facts endorsed the assessment. Among many: The Thitcheners continued to make their mortgage payments from Arizona and to pay the condo’s light bill. They’d abandoned nothing; they’d merely relocated.

Countrywide denied its blunder was “willful and deliberate” and shouldn’t be punished for merely taking away a family’s home and belongings. That’s arrogance personified.

On Friday, a jury agreed.

While appeals are possible, Countrywide would be wise to let this debacle fade.

The company wouldn’t even admit the family lost anything of real value. Admittedly, family photos and a wedding dress are hard to put a price on, but they’re even harder to replace.

Ask yourself this: What are your family photos worth? And how about all those other items of sentimental and personal value?

Better yet, what do you suppose Countrywide’s CEO would have done if someone had swiped his home?

The manhunt would be on.

Ask yourself what you would be tempted to do to a person who, while you were off on military duty, stole your house and sold it?

The Thitcheners will get a majority of the nearly $3.5 million they were awarded from a company that in 2004 netted $2.2 billion.

The award must look like a fortune to the Thitcheners, who had trouble paying their monthly bills; but to the giant it’s a veritable write-off.

It’s naive to think the judgment will teach a large corporation a lesson in customer relations. Such decisions usually don’t make life better for other victimized families. On the contrary. A lawyer is probably already drafting additional “hold harmless” language to make it even tougher to litigate future mistakes.

Instead of improving training, there will be checks cut in the name of tort reform. It’s easier for some companies to change definitions than admit mistakes.

That $3.5 million won’t change the world, but it will buy a nice new house for the Thitcheners with plenty left over.

A stone against a giant.

Hey, Goliath, how’s that head feel now?

John L. Smith’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.

4closureFraud
Lisa E., on December 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm said:

http://blip.tv/file/1868597

Wow!

Lisa E
Lisa E, on December 22, 2009 at 10:45 am said:

I have many lawsuit affidavits from Florida foreclosure cases where they attest to being Assistant Secretaries at Chase Home Finance.

There are also, filed with all the FL county clerks, mortgage assignments which are signed by the above as VPs and/or Assistant Secretaries of a variety of different financial institutes and also MERS.

I think they are all signed & notarized in Franklin, OH.

Dan, let’s collaborate on this and make a file!

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Dan Edstrom, on December 22, 2009 at 10:03 am said:

Nye Lavalle has great info on Ocwen and Scott Anderson:

X_http://www.scribd.com/doc/13625520/PMIOcwenAndersonReport

He probably has lots more. In fact a simple search on Google brought all of this Ocwen information to light (for me).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 22, 2009 at 9:19 am said:

Ocwen Loans – Attention!

According to a lawsuit filed by Ocwen against MERS, Scott Anderson, a VP, is the only person authorized to sign as a MERS representative. If you have an Ocwen loan and an assignment was done that was NOT signed by Scott Anderson, you should investigate this issue further. If Scott Anderson signed your document as a MERS rep, you should check the signature with other documents to see if there are any “issues”.

Specifically Joseph DeRinaldi is NOT been designated as a “certifying officer”.

X_http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/ocwenvmersshutoutdisputecomplaint.pdf

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Thomas S., on December 22, 2009 at 6:54 am said:

.Serious U.S. mortgage delinquencies up 20 percent

By Kim Dixon Kim Dixon – Mon Dec 21, 11:24 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Serious delinquencies among U.S. prime mortgages rose nearly 20 percent in the third quarter from the prior quarter, as the percentage of current and performing mortgages fell for the sixth consecutive quarter, banking regulators said on Monday.

The report by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which are part of the Treasury Department, covered about two-thirds of all U.S. mortgages.

It found 3.6 percent of prime mortgages — those made to the most credit-worthy borrowers — were seriously delinquent in the third quarter. That was more than double the year-ago quarter and up nearly 20 percent from the 2009 second quarter.

The report defined “serious delinquencies” as those loans 60 days or more past due and loans to delinquent bankrupt borrowers.

Big U.S. banks and thrifts carried out 2.4 million home loan modifications, trial period plans or payment plans in the quarter, spurred mostly by a government plan offered by President Barack Obama, according to the report.

Most came from the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program. Mortgage servicers carried out 274,000 trial plans in the third quarter, up 240 percent from the second quarter when the plan was launched.

But only 1 percent of those had been converted to permanent modifications as of September 30, 2009, the report said.

A major cause of this disconnect is that loan servicers are finding that many borrowers who initially appear to qualify for the program do not, according to the report.

The Treasury Department has been pressuring lenders and mortgage servicers to do more to ease the harm from rising foreclosures.

Loan modifications made outside the new aid program fell in the third quarter by nearly 8 percent, the report said.

(Reporting by Kim Dixon, editing by Matthew Lewis)
Dan Edstrom, on December 22, 2009 at 6:11 am said:

I have a bunch of New Century recordings from two counties in CA (El Dorado and Placer). Signers are Beth Cottrell, Stacy Spohn, Christina Trowbridge, Jeff Szymendera, Frank Mercado Jr, Tom Croft, Diana Noriega, Bill Koch, G Hernandez, Carrie Stone, Steve Nagy, Ryan Phillips, etc. In most cases I have multiple documents for each of these alleged signers.

I also have a bunch of assignments for Mortgage Lenders Network in El Dorado County and Placer County (both in CA) and also from around Las Vegas, NV.

If anyone has a Mortgage Lenders Network originated loan please contact me immediately.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on December 22, 2009 at 1:43 am said:

ALERT!! Especially Floridians and Californians

Anyone who has recordings(docs) done by Home123 or New Century Mortgage, should examine closely and take note.

It has become apparent that most, if not all, recordings such as Corporate Deeds of Assignment were notarized by California notaries.

Thus, they’d have to comply with California laws and it appears that the California notaries used a ‘subscribing witness’ on the Florida recordings ‘Assignment of Mortgage’ and the notary also used the California All-Purpose Acknowlegement form.

The subscribing witness cannot be used on deeds & this may make these assignments voidable.

Here is the California law.
Note: A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed (other than a trustee’s deed or deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)).

Additionally, you should check for forgeries by New Century or Home123 signers. For instance Home123 VP Stephen L. Nagy has a different signature in Florida as he does in California.

If you are not sure about your recording and the subscribing witness laws, then please send a certified copy of the document (obtain from your county recorder) and a letter to:

Debra Bowen
California Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

She is in charge of notaries in the State of California

I’d also advise you to file a complaint with the FBI and your local county DA.

As to the relevance of any fraudulent documents and your property or foreclosure action, consult a competent attorney.

IMHO–the recording irregularites, forgeries and illegal notarizations could be widespread and have implications for thousands of homeowners across the USA, whether dealing with foreclosure or not.

ONE MORE THING–in California the notary has to take prints in their journal of anything recorded that has to do with property.

I believe that one can ask for a copy of the notarial journal page (with the fingerprint) and there will be a small fee to obtain it.

This could also help prove the forgeries on the documents.
Lisa E., on December 21, 2009 at 8:16 pm said:

Yeah, the snow………you know…………snow.

Of much MUCH MUCH greater importance than human beings being thrown out of the only homes they have…basically tossed out INTO THAT DAMN SNOW!

Sorry. I’ll not give advance notice again!

That’s the second time illegal evictions and property confiscation by the millions has been “pre-empted” by a much lesser issue.

BUT, on a lighter note, ABBY…………….I laughed out loud at that video you linked here! THANK YOU!

Happy Holidays to us all.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Thomas S., on December 21, 2009 at 7:31 pm said:

L.Fitzgerald,
Thanks , I don’t know if you noticed it ,but that article was written and published 4-1-2008. I saw that yesterday when I googled the name Michael Sasso after I didn’t find the article in the paper. Maybe I’m
missing something here.

Thomas S.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 21, 2009 at 7:23 pm said:

LF & Thomas,

The article in the Tribune was NOT published. The one that LF linked to is from April of 2008.

Yes, the powers that be may be too great to let it be published, but we do not believe that it was the case this time, yet…

According to Sasso, it was suppose to run front page but the NE blizzard took precedent..

You know how it goes… Snow storms are much more newsworthy than foreclosure tsunamis…

4closureFraud
L.Fitzgerald, on December 21, 2009 at 6:51 pm said:

To Thomas ..

The article in the Tampa news paper was published ..click the link below ..

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/apr/01/bz-law-firms-cash-in-on-foreclosures/

LF
Thomas S., on December 21, 2009 at 2:32 pm said:

Lisa E,
I picked up a Tampa Tribune yesterday hoping to see the article written by M.Sasso ,but it must not have been published.
I guess the powers that be are too great to let it be published.

Thomas / Lea @Clearwater Bch.
marcus, on December 21, 2009 at 12:56 pm said:

New RESPA Rules Start Jan. 1
The government hopes that the revamped Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, which takes effect Jan. 1, will make it easier for home buyers to understand what’s going on at closing.

While some industry professionals are enthusiastic, others are dubious that these new regulations will really clear the fog.

“I think the net result is that it will cost consumers more because it will discourage shopping,” said Hank Shulroff, senior vice president at Attorneys’ Title Guaranty Fund. “The early disclosures are more transparent, but in the end the consumer is going to have less information about what it is they actually purchased, especially as it relates to title services.”

Jeri Lynn Fox, president of the Illinois Association of Mortgage Professionals, finds the new procedures more, rather than less, confusing. “Whenever you have confused consumers, isn’t that when the opportunity for them to be taken advantage of comes up?” she asks.

Source: Chicago Tribune, Mary Ellen Podmolik (12/18/2009)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Ira Shaver, on December 21, 2009 at 12:43 pm said:

ALLAN,

Yes, the comments about the Nevada USDC ruling are from Bob Hurt. I posted the message here in hopes that it might be of assistance to someone, and I simply failed to also copy Bob’s name or to give him credit for the comments. It was an oversight…not intentional. I would encourage everyone to subscribe to Bob’s Google group to stay informed on vital issues of law.

All the Best,

Ira
Abby in CA, on December 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm said:

FOR FUN- Santa CLaus Bailout Hearings
Don, on December 21, 2009 at 11:44 am said:

I hope she gets the best attorney and goes after everything including the kitchen sink. That is outrageous. She needs to file a police report too!.
Dan Edstrom, on December 21, 2009 at 11:42 am said:

Abby,
That is the best description of securitization I have seen yet.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 21, 2009 at 11:40 am said:

Oops sorry, here is $5,000. We took everything you had and kept what we wanted and sold the rest. Oh well. 1156, 1157, what’s the difference.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 21, 2009 at 11:26 am said:

“Trashed Out” Las Vegas Woman Victim of Foreclosure Mistake
December 21, 2009

LAS VEGAS – A Las Vegas woman says she is the victim of a horrible mistake that has left her with an empty condominium and lots of questions.

Nilly Mauck lived in her condominium for two years and said she never had problem until this week when a series of strange events eventually lead to a company coming into her home and throwing away everything she owned.

As Mauck walks around her dark and now empty condo she can’t help but remember how things use to look. Every room in the home is empty and Mauck says the reason for it is a mistake of address numbers. Her address is 1157 which is close to 1156 a condo that is in foreclosure. A few weeks ago the foreclosed home was suppose to get locks changed but Mauck says that’s not what happened.

“I came home to pick up something and there was a note on my door from the Brenkus Team of Keller and Williams Realty stating that they accidentally re-keyed the wrong door,” she said.

It was a problem Mauck thought was fixed until she came home to find a man going into her home. Mauck says everything in her home was missing.

She says she later learned her home had been “trashed out” a process done to foreclosures where everything left inside is thrown away. Mauck says she contacted the Brenkus Team.

Mauck is now staying with friends because she doesn’t want to go back to her condo. “I do not feel secure because I know someone has access to my door.”

“I said give me $100,000 to $200,000 to replace my things because it will take time and that is being generous and they said okay that is too much she called me that day and told me they were only willing to give me $5,000.”

“My clothes, my wedding dress, baby pictures, wedding photos, my dishes, my towels, my jewelry, anything you could possibly have in your house.”I kept asking them where did you take my things because I was ready to go and dumpster dive, and they had no answer for me.”

8 News Now attempted to contact the Brenkus Team about this story and they told said legal council has advised them not to make a statement at this time. 8 News Now also tried to contact the cleaning company involved and they also want to wait to respond until after they contact their attorney.

4closureFraud
ALLAN (with a THANK YOU to Abby & clarification request of Ira Shaver), on December 21, 2009 at 11:16 am said:

Abby, thanks for producing that bankruptcy fraud manual. May prove very useful in the humongous case on which I am working.

Ira, I subscribe to Clearwater FL activist Attorney Bob Hurt’s daily contributions to Lawmen, a Google group. He sent me the very same article you cite “Lawmen: 3434] Nevada USDC affirms Bankruptcy ruling that MERS can’t foreclose, but will it matter?” but with remarks your posting, perhaps mistakenly, attributes to you. I thought those were Bob Hurt’s sentiments. Please clear up my confusion.

HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE, ALL!
Beginning tonight, the nights will get shorter and the days longer! YAY!

ALLAN (snowed in in a Cambridge winter wonderland)
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Abby in CA, on December 21, 2009 at 10:47 am said:

US Bankruptcy Trustee Manual on Fraud & Abuse Enforcement see pg 65 RE: Ponzi

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24379022/U-S-Trustee-Manual-Bankruptcy-Fraud-Abuse-Enforcement-Program
Ira Shaver, on December 21, 2009 at 9:33 am said:

Judge upholds rule on foreclosure

See the below story of a ruling by Las Vegas NV USDC judge Kent Dawson. He upheld a bankruptcy court ruling that MERS could not foreclose because it had no beneficial interest in the note. Various commenter on the article seemed to think this amounted to good news, but Herb Sandler (maybe THE Herb Sandler of World Savings fame) said it would not matter, and foreclosures would continue apace because lenders have a lot of money to hire lawyers. He wrote correctly. It won’t matter at all.

If the lender, trustee, MERS, etc., show up with the original note, so what? The SEC filings prove the scheme to securitize the note and put ownership of the note in the hands of investors who have no clue about the borrowers’ identities. Even if it holds the note, the trust has beneficial interest only if it buys back the note from the certificate holders (the actual owners of the note).

Borrowers must hammer claimants in court, demanding that they prove not only possession , but also present ownership of the note. Borrowers seeking bankruptcy protection must insist that the actual owners file B10 forms (www.uscourts.gov/bankform/formb10new.pdf), which they signed under penalties of perjury, to support their claims. Those who don’t really have the beneficial interest will thereby subject themselves to perjury charges on such claims. At the bottom, the form bears this warning:”Penalty for presenting fraudulent claim: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 and 3571.”

Securitization of debts and bets regarding debtor defaults amount to nothing more or less than a scam – a scheme to defraud. Perhaps Congress will someday outlaw them or require that a fair share of the proceeds go to the borrower. Why? All of the money that changes hands in those transactions comes from the signature of the borrower on that note. If borrowers actually knew how much money lenders make from securitizations, credit default swaps, and mortgage insurance payouts, borrowers might start pressuring Congress to give borrowers a fair share of the proceeds.

*************************************************************

By JOHN G. EDWARDS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Judge rules Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems can’t foreclose on home

Homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure got some good news Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson upheld a bankruptcy court ruling that makes it harder for lenders to foreclose on home mortgages.

The case, which was heard by a panel of federal judges in November, concerned whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., or MERS, could foreclose on residences on behalf of lenders. The electronic system records the ownership of residential mortgages for the mortgage banking industry.

Dawson said the company could not foreclose on a home because it did not provide evidence that it held the note on the residence and didn’t show that it was an agent of the lender.

About half of all U.S. mortgages “whose loans have been securitized, sliced and diced are now held by (MERS),” according to a blog posted by securities analyst Barry Ritholtz.

The case started in bankruptcy court two years ago.

MERS asked bankruptcy Judge Linda Riegle for permission to start foreclosure proceedings against a property owned by Lisa Marie Chong. Bankruptcy trustee Lenard Schwartzer objected, saying the electronic system was not a “real party in interest” in the mortgage loan.

Like many mortgages, Chong’s loan had been securitized, meaning it had been pooled or packaged into a security held by investors.

MERS was unable to show that it had possession of the note. The bankruptcy judge ruled in Schwartzer’s favor. The decision was appealed to federal court.

In his decision Tuesday, Dawson said the registration system does not lose money when borrowers fail to make payments on home mortgages.

Dawson ruled that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems must at least provide evidence that it was a representative of the mortgage loan holder, which it failed to do.

“Since MERS provided no evidence that it was the agent or nominee for the current owner of the beneficial interest in the note, it has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is a real party in interest with standing,” Dawson said, affirming the bankruptcy court ruling.

Real estate attorney Tisha Black-Chernine said the ruling is good news for struggling borrowers and home-owners.

“It will have a dramatic effect on lenders being able to foreclose,” she said.

Because the decision makes it more difficult to foreclose, she hopes lenders will be more willing to negotiate with homeowners struggling to meet mortgage payments by approving short sales or making other concessions.

In a short sale, a lender agrees to let a homeowner sell his home for less than is owed. This is particularly helpful, because many homeowners owe far more than their homes are worth since home prices have fallen.

Houses sold in short sales typically go for 30 percent more than homes sold after foreclosure, Black-Chernine said.

Appraisers looking at the short sale price will use it in determining the market value. Thus, avoiding foreclosure results in higher market values for other houses, she said.

“It should help buoy home prices,” Black-Chernine said.

Bill Uffelman, chief executive officer of the Nevada Bankers Association, a trade group, predicted that most foreclosures will be able to proceed because the real mortgage owners and notes will be able to be identified in most cases. However, he said many homeowners facing foreclosure may be able to stay in their homes longer because of the delay.

“In the end in 99.9 percent of the cases, ownership of the note will be proved,” he said.

Although the decision is believed to be the first of its kind in Nevada, the Kansas Supreme Court made a similar finding in a similar case.

An attorney for the electronic system did not return a call for comment on whether it will appeal.

Contact reporter John G. Edwards at jedwards@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0420.
ALLAN (with a provocative timely report from AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM), on December 21, 2009 at 12:17 am said:

GO TO: http://www.ourfinancialsecurity.org/

WALL STREET BONUSES COULD FUND AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS

Submitted by admin on December 17, 2009 – 2:41 pm

Despite unleashing havoc on the global economy, Wall Street is on track to pay out an all-time record in bonuses and compensation this year. The nation’s six largest banks alone – Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – are on pace to give their bankers a staggering $150 billion payday.[1]

Click here to vote on how you would spend the $150 billion

Click here for information about protests about big bank bonuses in your area

The massive windfall for bankers comes straight out of taxpayers’ pockets. Yet while bankers use taxpayer assistance to enrich themselves instead of jumpstarting the economy by lending, federal, state, and local governments struggle to find the resources to clean up the banks’ mess, protect services, and create jobs.

If even a fraction of the big banks’ $150 billion in bonuses, benefits, and compensation (“bonus and compensation”) were used to fund important policy priorities, we could bring about a real economic recovery in this country:

$142 billion could fill the total budget gap for all 50 states for FY 2010;

$40 billion (just 27% of the total bonus and compensation pool set aside by top six banks) could finance a federal jobs initiative to create 1,000,000 jobs in early childhood education, in-homes services for the elderly and people with disabilities, and other community services through a federal jobs initiative;

$10 billion – about half of what Goldman will dole out to its bankers this year –could fund an increase to Head Start that would create 330,000 new jobs and better prepare children for school;

The full $150 billion could extend unemployment coverage for each of the 15,700,000 unemployed workers in the United States by seven months or buy individual health insurance plans for more than two-thirds of the nation’s uninsured, changing the lives of 31 million people in the process.
Bubble Bursts, But Bonuses Still Inflated

Bankers justified their massive paychecks by pointing to the outsize returns many investors received during the credit boom. But even after crashing the economy, bankers are still finding ways to lavish themselves with compensation. The bankers at the nation’s six largest banks – Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – are on pace to take home $150 billion in bonuses, benefits, and compensation in 2009, 19% more than their high during the peak of the financial boom in 2007.

2009 Projected Bonuses & Comp. 2007 Bonuses & Comp. Total bailout funds received*
Goldman Sachs $22.3 billion $20.2 billion $63.6 billion
JPMorgan Chase $29.1 billion $22.7 billion $94.7 billion
Bank of America $32.2 billion $18.8 billion $199.0 billion
Wells Fargo $26.3 billion $13.4 billion $36.9 billion
Citigroup $25.0 billion $34.4 billion $341.1 billion
Morgan Stanley $14.5 billion $16.6 billion $25.0 billion

This massive windfall for bankers comes straight out of taxpayers’ pockets. After taking nearly $17.8 trillion in bailouts to stay afloat, banks and other financial firms are still relying on taxpayer-funded programs to generate their profits. Along with the now-publicized TARP investments, debt guarantees, AIG payments, and emergency lending programs, big banks are also benefitting from a Federal Reserve commitment to pump $1.25 trillion into the market for mortgage-backed securities, which has fueled a speculative trading boom that is currently propping up bank earnings.

Banker Pay Could Fund National, State, and Local Priorities

Instead of ramping up risk-taking and lavishing bankers with excessive bonuses and compensation, the banks could be contributing to a real economic recovery. The top six banks are on pace to pay $150 billion in bonuses and compensation this year, which translates to $577 million every day or $72 million every hour. Even a small portion of the bankers’ total bonuses and compensation – just days or hours of pay, in some cases – could make a huge impact at the national, state, and local levels.

Provide relief to unemployed Americans

Less than half of the of the bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund the 14-week extension of unemployment benefits just signed into law by President Obama, providing relief to 15,700,000 unemployed residents of the United States.

Just 17 days of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund the 14-week extension of unemployment benefits for all 2,200,700 unemployed residents of California.

In Illinois, 19 days of big bank bonuses and compensation could pay for an even longer extension of unemployment benefits – a full year – for each of the 674,700 unemployed residents of Illinois

A mere 6 days of bankers pay could fund the year-long extension of unemployment benefits in Oregon, providing long-term assistance to the 211,500 unemployed residents of Oregon.

The bonus and compensation pool created by the big banks could fund 10 months of severance at full pay for the 5,452,000 laid off workers in the United States.

5.3% of that $150 billion bonus and compensation pool could fund a full-year severance package at full pay for the 249,000 laid off workers in Ohio.

Just 3% of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund a year-long severance package at full pay for each of the 105,900 workers laid off in Massachusetts in the past year.

In the Washington, D.C. metro area, 1 % of the big bank bonuses and compensation – the equivalent of just 3 days of work for bankers at the top six banks – could fund the one-year, full-pay severance package for the region’s 37,000 laid off workers.

Award bonuses to every American worker

The top six banks’ bonuses and compensation could fund a $1,000 bonus for all 138,275,000 working Americans.

Provide health care for the uninsured

The bonuses and compensation at the big banks could fund health insurance coverage for 2 out of 3 uninsured Americans changing the lives of over 31million people.

In New York, just 8.5% of the $150 billion set aside by the top six banks could fund health insurance coverage for each of the 2,634,000 uninsured people in the state.

A mere 7 days of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund health insurance coverage for each of the 764,000 residents of Washington who are currently uninsured

Another 7 days of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund health insurance coverage for the 746,000 currently uninsured residents of Indiana.

A single day of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could make health insurance more affordable for 88,785 laid-off workers by extending the federal government’s subsidy of COBRA premiums for nine additional months. Forty-four days of big bank bonuses and compensation – or 17% of their total compensation and bonus pool – could fund the entire $25 billion cost of an extension, benefitting an estimated 7 million laid-off workers and children.

Provide relief to families facing foreclosure

Just 23% of the big banks’ bonuses and compensation could prevent or postpone every foreclosure projected for the United States in 2009-2012 by providing mortgage payment assistance to 9,000,000 families.

7.2% of what the six banks are setting aside for pay – the equivalent of just 19 days of bankers’ bonuses and compensation – could prevent or postpone every foreclosure projected for California in 2009-2012 by providing mortgage payment assistance to 1,888,716 families.

A single day of the big banks’ bonuses and compensation could prevent or postpone 89% of the foreclosures projected for Massachusetts in 2009-2012 by providing mortgage payment assistance to 107,977 families.

In Illinois, just 6% of what JPMorgan Chase alone is expected to dole out in bonuses and compensation — $1.7 billion – could prevent or postpone each of the 384,490 foreclosures projected for Illinois in 2009-2012.

A small percentage of the bonuses and compensation at the big six banks could even help buy back homes which have already been foreclosed on.

A mere 9% of the bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could buy back each of the 113,570 homes in Ohio in foreclosure in 2008 or each of the over 50,000 homes in New York lost to foreclosure during the same period.

Just 4% of the bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could buy back each of the 45,937 homes in Indiana lost to foreclosure in 2008.

Another 3% of the top six banks’ bonuses and compensation could buy back each of the 18,001 homes in Oregon in foreclosure in 2008.

Award college scholarships for all American students

The bonuses and compensation pool at the top six banks could fund a free public education and a $2,774 cost of living award for each of the 15 million students in the United States.

Just 9% of the $150 billion set aside by the top six banks for bonuses and compensation could fully cover the cost of an in-state public education for each of the 2,257,000 college students in California.

3% of the bonus and compensation of the big banks could pay the cost of an in-state public education for the 421,000 college students in Massachusetts.
7% of the bonuses and compensation of a single bank – Bank of America – could cover the cost of an in-state public education for each of the 321,000 college students in Washington.

Increase Social Security benefits for America’s seniors

Just 6 days of bankers’ bonuses and compensation could fund a 5.8% cost-of-living adjustment in 2010 for each of the 51 million Social Security recipients in the United States, providing relief to seniors after the Social Security Administration announcned there would be no COLA for the first time since 1975.

The top six banks could fund could fund the COLA increase for each of the 2,021,874 Social Security recipients in Ohio in 2010 with just 2 hours of bankers’ bonuses and compensation.

In Illinois, 8 hours of bonuses and compensation at Bank of America alone could fund a COLA increase for each of the 1,948,578 Social Security recipients in the state.

A mere 22 minutes of Goldman Sachs bonuses and compensation could fund a 2010 cost-of-living adjustment for each of the 71,468 Social Security recipients in DC.

The $150 billion in bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could be used to increase every single Social Security recipient’s monthly benefit check by $245 (nearly $3,000 annually). That would be a 23% increase!

Provide state and local budget relief:

The bonus and compensation pool at the top six banks is roughly equivalent to the budget deficit of all state governments. Instead of lavishing millions on bonuses for the very rich, small percentages of the bankers’ pay could go a long way to filling huge holes in state crises and providing valuable and needed services to families.

Just 6 days of bonuses and compensation at Bank of America alone (or 2.2% of the $32.2 billion Bank of America is setting aside for bonuses and compensation) could restore over $700 million in cuts to California community colleges.

A mere 1.4% of the bonuses and compensation at JPMorgan Chase could restore the $405 million New York City was forced to cut from its Department of Education budget.

3 hours of bonuses and compensation at Bank of America could fund the rehiring of 338 DC public schools employees, including 229 teachers, who were laid off in as the result of $40 million budget in budget cuts.

Another 3 hours of bonuses and compensation – this time at JPMorgan Chase – could have prevented $38 million of cuts in mental health and developmental disability programs and grants in Illinois.

[1] The $150 billion figure is an estimate. The top six banks set aside $112 billion for bonuses, benefits, and compensation in the first three quarters of 2009, or $37.3 billion every quarter. At this rate, their total compensation pool for all four quarters will total approximately $150 billion for the year.

* Bailout calculation includes funds received under the TARP program and other government sponsored or funded financial assistance mechanisms.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Out of habit, I tend to hold my own conspiracy theories up to criticism or to the feedback of those I trust, but here, somehow, I feel there truly is a huge ‘stealth’ transfer of wealth underway from the soon to be ‘have nots’ to the ‘haves’, except it ain’t ‘stealth’. It’s all being accomplished in plain sight, right out in the open, and feels a bit like requiring those who are about to meet their demise dig their own graves. All done with the impunity of knowing those who are supposed to impose checks and balances for the health of the system, are giving the predator bankers the green light.

While our government is coddling the big banks and going easy on them all in the interest of maintaining economic stability, million of lives are being ruined needlessly. Who’s manning the switch on the vision thing that is allowing this to continue unabated?

Let the world know we are Americans who are for real financial reform. This heartless plunder must stop! Why does it feel so like the land grabs that go hand in hand with ethnic cleansing (or witch trials), except packaged in the legitimizing process of law, where too often justice takes a back seat to power and influence? Where are the Portias of the world when we so need them to balance upholding authentic contract with doing equity?As Portia in Act IV, Scene 1, addressed Shylock, the merchant of Venice:

“The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God’s
When mercy seasons justice.”

The Merchant of Venice,
~ William Shakespeare

GO TO: http://www.castroller.com/podcasts/BillMoyersJournal/1375428

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Ira, on December 20, 2009 at 7:49 pm said:

Something fishy this way comes?

I recently found an “Assignment of Mortgage” (AOM) and “Satisfaction of Mortgage” in county records from MERS, both allegedly signed by employees of MERS. MERS has never been named as the ‘mortgagee’ and ‘noteholder’ on any of our documents, but only as a beneficiary the first time we refinanced in 2003. On its website under ‘Foreclosures’, even MERS admits:

“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.”

On the MERS AOM to WMC Mortgage, it states it is a COPY, is to be returned to WMC Mortgage, is missing the printed name under the alleged signature of a Witness, gives an address in Michigan yet is purported to be notarized in New York, is signed by an ‘Assistant Secretary whose name is handwritten on the document (not typed)’, is dated January 13, 2003 yet wasn’t recorded in county records until April 29, 2005.

On the the MERS ‘Satisfaction of Mortgage’ document, it states all of the following:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY / RETURN TO:
Peelle Management Corporation
P.O. Box 30014
Reno, NV 89520-9827

THIS CORPORATION HAS NO CORPORATE SEAL (not sure if this is referring to MERS or Peelle)

Purports to be notarized in Santa Clara County, California.

Prepared by: E. N. Harrison, Peelle Management Corporation, 4690 Longley Lane, Suite #8, Reno, NV 89502, LN # 1710195 Investor LN # 15924152 P.I.F.: 12/07/05

** Prepared by E. N. Harrison but he did not sign anywhere on the document.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm said:

Sounds like fun. I’m in! I wonder what the prizes will be?

Fabricated Notes to properties?
Forged Assignments for mortgages?
False Affidavits for fees?

Maybe even someone’s house!

Game On!
Good Luck!

4closureFraud
usedkarguy, on December 20, 2009 at 2:33 pm said:

Thanks, Baby Doll!

I love you guys, every single one of you!

Merry Christmas!
Lisa E., on December 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm said:

In case anyone wants a little break from the enormity of the tragedies that have hit us all hard; individually and collectively:

Come on over for the first episode of a new extreme reality game show.

FORECLOSURE OF THE WEEK

Where a foreclosure is picked at random from the public records and we go back to try to figure out what in the heck happened! This ain’t no CandyLand Game!

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/122009-its-foreclosure-of-the?xg_source=activity

Lisa E.
Dan Edstrom, on December 20, 2009 at 8:29 am said:

I have previously reported how identity theft in California is a felony. Here is some information on Federal laws:

X_http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/

X_http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

Quotes from the 2nd link:

“Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person’s personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.”

“The Department of Justice prosecutes cases of identity theft and fraud under a variety of federal statutes. In the fall of 1998, for example, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act . This legislation created a new offense of identity theft, which prohibits knowingly transfer[ring] or us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law.

18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). This offense, in most circumstances, carries a maximum term of 15 years’ imprisonment, a fine, and criminal forfeiture of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense.

Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud may also involve violations of other statutes such as identification fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028), credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), or financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344). Each of these federal offenses are felonies that carry substantial penalties in some cases, as high as 30 years’ imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture.

Federal prosecutors work with federal investigative agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service to prosecute identity theft and fraud cases.”

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 19, 2009 at 9:26 pm said:

Maybe it is time to revisit this case – especially if you are in bankruptcy. It has to do with pledging notes and who has the real copies. It is kind of old though (1980) … This seems to be a variation of the games played in securitization. What do you think?

625 F.2d 281
6 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1385, 29 UCC Rep.Serv. 639
In re STAFF MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, dba Sondo
Diagnostic Corporation, and dba Century
Seventy-Two Corporation.
Robert E. GREINER et al., Plaintiffs,
and
Port Arthur, Annette Shoemake, Sigurd M. Jensen, Stinne T.
Jensen, Johnny Jensen, Doroth Veverka, Ray Healey
and Ella A. Healey, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
C. Douglas WILKE, etc., Defendants/Appellees.
No. 78-2755.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 4, 1980.
Decided Aug. 11, 1980.
Isaac M. Pachulski, Stutman, Treister & Glatt, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs/appellants.
John J. Wilson, Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants/appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before PECK,* ANDERSON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
1
Appellants appeal the district court’s affirmance of the judgment entered by the bankruptcy court. We affirm.
FACTS
2
The factual circumstances of this appeal are nearly the same as an earlier case, In re Staff Mortgage & Investment Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1977) (Huffman v. Wikle ), involving the same bankrupt. Therefore, the facts will not be set forth in detail.
3
As a part of its business activity, the bankrupt, Staff Mortgage & Investment Corporation (Staff), would borrow money and execute its note to evidence the loan. To secure its loan, Staff would pledge one or more promissory notes secured by trust deeds which it had in its inventory. The promissory notes and trust deeds were assigned to the lenders. To effectuate the assignments, documents entitled “Collateral Assignment of Note” and “Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust” were attached to the respective instruments. The “Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust” was then recorded in the county wherein the real property covered by trust deed was located. The documents, except Staff’s note to evidence the loan, remained in the possession and control of Staff.
4
Appellants are persons who had loaned money to Staff under the above-described procedures. When Staff went into bankruptcy, appellants sought to have the promissory notes and trust deeds turned over to them. The trustee in bankruptcy refused, and the appellants filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” in bankruptcy court. They sought a declaration that (1) they held security interests in the promissory notes and trust deeds; (2) their security interests were superior to the trustee’s interests in the notes and trust deeds; and (3) the trustee was required to assign the interest in the notes and trust deeds to the appellants.
5
The bankruptcy court determined that notes secured by the deeds of trust were unperfected security interests under the California Uniform Commercial Code § 9304(1). Thus the appellants’ security interests in the notes secured by the deeds of trust were subordinate to the rights of the appellee trustee in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court essentially relied upon the previously-decided case of Huffman v. Wikle.
6
On appeal, the district court affirmed, stating that Huffman v. Wikle constituted the law of the case. The district court also stated that were it free to make a de novo ruling, it would not change the result.
DISCUSSION
Law of the Case
7
The district court stated that this court’s prior decision in Huffman v. Wikle constituted the “law of the case” and that it was bound by that decision. The district court was correct that Huffman was a relevant prior precedent; however, Huffman should have been followed under the doctrine of stare decisis and not the law of the case.
8
The law of the case concerns the continued application of a rule of law previously determined in that same case. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Port of Seattle, 106 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1939). If a court determines, in litigation between P and D, that the applicable rule of law is that certain security interests are instruments, and they were not perfected, then this ruling is the “law of the case” for the P and D litigation. See, 1B Moore’s Federal Practice P .401 (2d Ed. 1974).
9
In litigation involving a bankrupt, a decision in one proceeding does not necessarily prevent the institution of a new proceeding involving the same issues. As stated by the court in In re Peer Manor Bldg. Corporation, 143 F.2d 769 (7th Cir. 1944):
10
“An involved debtor may successfully resist an attempt by its creditors to reorganize it under (Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act). The next day it may be subject to another petition seeking the same purpose. The petitioners, as here, may not be the same creditors. The debtor’s situation may have changed. The evidence may not be the same. The relief sought in the new petition may be appropriate in the second application and yet the denial of relief in the first proceeding may also have been proper upon the showing made.”
11
The present situation is similar. Both proceedings involved the same bankrupt and trustee in bankruptcy. The issues raised regarding security interests in notes secured by trust deeds were nearly identical. However, the proceedings were commenced by different plaintiffs, and the notes and trust deeds, while similar, were not the same. The separate proceedings did not constitute the same case; thus, the doctrine of the law of the case was not applicable. We, nevertheless, affirm as the district court stated it would have reached the same decision upon a de novo review, and the decision in Huffman controls the disposition of this case.
Nature of the Security Interest
12
In Huffman, this court determined that (1) the collaterals, notes secured by deeds of trust, used to secure Staff’s promissory notes to the plaintiff were “instruments” under the California Commercial Code; (2) the failure of the plaintiffs to take possession of the collaterals caused the security interests to be unperfected under California Commercial Code § 9304(1); and (3) thus the trustee in bankruptcy took the collaterals free and clear of the plaintiffs’ claims.
13
Appellants do not contend that the facts in this case are different in any relevant sense. Rather, they argue that Huffman was erroneously decided and should not be applied here. Appellants argue that the collateral packages of notes secured by trust deeds were general intangibles and not instruments as concluded in Huffman. They also contend that they should have been deemed to have constructively possessed the collaterals because (1) the recordation of the assignments of the trust deeds provided constructive notice of the assignment to all persons; and (2) the assignments executed by Staff were firmly stapled to the collateral notes and trust deeds.
14
In Huffman, we reversed the district court’s determination that the plaintiff had constructive possession of the collaterals. The district court “placed reliance on the fact that the . . . collateral notes and trust deeds had been recorded in the county where the land was located. The court felt that this ‘served as notice to all interested parties.’ ” Id. at 1230. However, we rejected that reasoning, stating that such notice was not the type of notice intended or provided by the California Commercial Code. Even the additional fact raised by appellants that the assignments were stapled to the collaterals does not change the result. Perfection of a security interest in an instrument can only occur with the actual possession of the instrument by the secured party or by an agent or bailee on his behalf. Id. at 1230; In re Bruce Farley Corporation, 612 F.2d 1197, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 1980). Had the legislature intended to allow perfection by methods proposed by appellants, they could have done so.
15
By holding in Huffman that the collateral packages of notes secured by trust deeds were instruments, we implicitly decided that the collaterals were not general intangibles.1 The district court’s discussion2 (unpublished) of the issue provides ample bases for rejecting the appellant’s characterization of the collaterals as general intangibles and we adopt its reasoning and conclusion.3
CONCLUSION
The decision of the district court is
16
AFFIRMED.
*
The Honorable John W. Peck, Senior Circuit Judge, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation
1
The issue of whether the collaterals were general intangibles and not instruments was presented and considered in the petition for rehearing. The petition was summarily denied
2
The district court stated that:
“Uniform Commercial Code Comment 3 to § 9105 of the Code reads in part as follows:
” ‘The term (“instrument”) as defined in paragraph (1)(i) includes not only negotiable instruments and investment securities but also any other intangibles evidenced by writings which are in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery. . . .
” ‘The fact that an instrument is secured by collateral, whether the collateral be other instruments, documents, goods, accounts or general intangibles, does not change the character of the principal obligation as an instrument or convert the combination of instrument and collateral into a separate Code classification of personal property. The single qualification to this principle is that an instrument which is secured by chattel paper is itself part of the chattel paper, while also retaining its identity as an instrument.’ (Emphasis added)
“The California District Court of Appeal described the attributes of a deed of trust in Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc., supra :
” ‘(A) deed of trust is a mere incident of the debt it secures and . . . an assignment of the debt “carries with it the security.” (Citations omitted); . . . a deed of trust is inseparable from the debt and always abides with the debt, and it has no market or ascertainable value, apart from the obligation it secures (citations omitted); and . . . a deed of trust has no assignable quality independent of the debt, it may not be assigned or transferred apart from the debt, and an attempt to assign the deed of trust without a transfer of the debt is without effect. (Citations omitted).’ ”
“270 Cal.App.2d (543) at 553-54 (76 Cal.Rptr. 529) (footnote omitted). It is clear, therefore, that the collateral notes which were secured by the deeds of trust were the primary security for the promissory notes issued by the bankrupt to appellants, because the deeds of trust had no value and were not assignable apart from those collateral notes. Those collateral notes clearly fall within the definition of instruments in § 9105 of the Code, and the fact that they were themselves secured by the trust deeds brings them squarely within the emphasized portion of Comment 3, quoted supra.
“Any remaining doubts as to the propriety of characterizing the collateral package as an instrument are set to rest by Uniform Commercial Code Comment 4 to § 9102 of the Code. That Comment contains a hypothetical which is instructive in its terminology.
” ‘The owner of Blackacre borrows $10,000 from his neighbor, and secures his note by a mortgage on Blackacre. This Article is not applicable to the creation of the real estate mortgage. Nor is it applicable to the sale of the note by the mortgagee, even though the mortgage continues to secure the note. However, when the mortgagee pledges the note to secure his own obligation to X, this Article applies to the security interest thus created, which is a security interest in an instrument even though the instrument is secured by a real estate mortgage. . . . ‘ (Emphasis added).
“The Comments to the Code thus expressly negate the idea that the collateral package herein may be characterized as general intangibles. See also Uniform Commercial Code Comment to Code § 9106 and Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 to Code § 9305 for discussion of what constitutes general intangibles.”
(Record at 513-515).
3
In Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So.2d 171 (Fla.App. 1978), a collateral package of a note secured by a real estate mortgage was also considered. The court there ruled that the assignment of the real estate mortgage along with the note did not bring the real estate mortgage under the coverage of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The court also determined that the recordation of the assignment of the mortgage gave constructive notice of the assignee’s interest in the mortgage
While Rucker may be contrary authority, we are not convinced that it is the law in California. In any event, a three-member panel may not overrule a prior precedent. Absent a decision by an en banc panel of this court, or a decision by the Supreme Court of California that is contrary to Huffman, we are bound to follow that decision.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Lisa E., on December 19, 2009 at 9:24 pm said:

UKG: Two words for you.

Duct Tape.

_____________
usedkarguy, on December 19, 2009 at 9:03 pm said:

Well said, Dan. And you can’t get around “holder in due course” with these trustee relationships. At least, I couldn’t. I think I screwed up. Anyway, I should have a better chance in the BK system. I will have an attorney this time. I know who, I just can’t afford him. Hell, I can’t afford shoestrings!
Dan Edstrom, on December 19, 2009 at 8:51 pm said:

Ken,
Sure I can give you input on it. There are two aspects to the “conveyance” of the loans from the depositor to the Trust. My pooling and servicing agreement is similar to yours but says it differently. Mine says something like “Even though we said we sold the loans for tax purposes, for accounting purposes we used seller financing”. Actually I found about 3 different instances in various place describing what they did (check your Pooling and Servicing agreement, Assignment and Assumption agreement and the Prospectus). Here is what my interpretation of this is:

A full and normal sale would mean they did a normal assignment of the loan WITHOUT RECOURSE. This means they received full value in return for giving the trust full rights. But this is typically NOT what actually happens. They actually do BOTH, without recourse and with recourse. For tax purposes (for reporting to the IRS), the transfer is a SALE. For accounting purposes, they PLEDGE the note – meaning they promise to transfer it at some point in the future at such a time as they receive full payment. When they pledge they agree to buy it back again at some future point under certain conditions (kind of like a money back guarantee). With a true sale it is usually as is and you are on your own. It is of course more complicated then this – after all they don’t call it financial engineering for nothing. Why do they do all of this? Here is what happens (this is my opinion from my limited knowledge):
Once the Seller has acquired the loan from the originator, they “pledge” the loan into securitization. That is they “promise” to transfer the loan at some point to the depositor, and the depositor “promises” to transfer the loan at some point in the future to the Trust. The trust collects the principal and interest payments and transfer them to the “holders of certificates”. All the trust truly needs is the payments. They “need” the loans as collateral to make the certificate holders think there is something of value behind the certificates, but the collateral (the pool of mortgages) would just be sitting idle in the trust if they transferred them in. These are financial engineers so they use every piece they can. Why does the seller (and/or depositor) need the loan if the payments go to the trust? That one is extremely easy to understand – they use it as collateral to borrow money from other banks. Think about it. The pool my loan is in was worth about $500,000,000.00 at inception. If they transferred all of these loans into the trust, that $500,000,000.00 would be doing absolutely nothing but sitting there. They put this on their balance sheet as an asset and borrower money from another bank. Now $500,000,000.00 is a lot of money, but my “deal” was one of 5 done in 2005 by my originator and GMAC-RFC. If the value was approx. the same in all 5 that turns out to be $2.5 Billion dollars. If they borrowed 80%, that would give them $2.0 Billion dollars in extra money they did NOT have. So think about it. The investors who purchased certificates from the Trust paid for the money that went to the mortgage loans at closing. As “passive” middlemen with NO money invested (they are using other peoples money), they get $2.0 Billion dollars to spend and invest however they want.

Anyway, I am far away from your original question. So NONE of the trusts actually have any loans in them – that is until about 50 to 55 days BEFORE the foreclosure sale. That is when they “assign” the loan (allegedly for real) into the Trust so that they can foreclose on it. That is why the assignments are all happening AFTER foreclosure is initiated. The problem with this is that it violates FAS 140-3 and probably other accounting standards. The only way the can truly transfer title is through an open market transaction. They are using the foreclosure sale as an open market transaction.

So, who actually owns your loan? Well, here it goes, here is what I think happened in my case. The originator “closed” my loan and sold it to an affiliate (a banking entity). The affiliate sold it to GMAC-RFC (the sponser and seller). GMAC-RFC actually provided the warehouse line of credit to the originator. GMAC-RFC receives their warehouse credit line from GMAC-ResCap (Residential Capital). GMAC-ResCap receives their warehouse line of credit from GMAC Bank F.S.B. (now Ally Bank F.S.B.). GMAC-RFC pledged the loan to the depositor (RASC – Residential Asset Securities Corporation). RASC pledged the loan to the trust and put the title in the name of the Trustee. The trustee putatively has legal title but the true owner is the Trust. Who owns the trust? The pooling and servicing agreements says that each certificate issued by the trust represents and ownership interest in the Trust such that all certificates together make up 100% ownership. Is that clear enough? Here is a rundown of all parties that have an interest in my property:

– The master servicer, sponser and seller (GMAC-RFC)
– GMAC-ResCap
– A Federal Savings Bank (Ally Bank FKA GMAC Bank)
– the Depositor (RASC)
– the Trust (RASC Series 2005-EMX4)
– the Trustee (US Bank N.A.)
– the successor master servicer (US Bank N.A.)
– the custodian? (Wells Fargo Bank N.A.)
– each investor who purchased certificates issued by the trust (parties unknown)
– The master servicer (GMAC-RFC)
– the sub-servicer (Wells Fargo Bank N.A.)

The sub-servicer is in the above list because according to the Pooling and Servicing agreement if I don’t make my payment they have to advance the funds for me. If the sub-servicer doesn’t advance the funds for me the master servicer has to advance the funds. If the master servicer doesn’t make my payment the successor master servicer has to make them. Read your pooling and servicing agreement – check the section under Advances.

The main purpose of securitization is so that the investors receive their payments every month no matter what.

Again let me reiterate that they do not call them financial engineers for nothing. These guys are very good at what they do. So good that it looks to me like they are going to destroy our country. We are actually paying them (government bailouts, TARP, etc) for their losses incurred when they borrowed money against the loans that they really didn’t own. And they are going to get most every borrowers house AND they are going to suck every last bit of money from many, many people.

Shoot me an email and I can send you a couple of the monthy certificateholder statements created by my master servicer and sent to the bondholders and the ratings agencies. I can also send you my reverse engineering of my loan and securitization.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. These are my opinions and this is for informational and educational purposes only.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Lisa E., on December 19, 2009 at 8:35 pm said:

Ken Dost,

One more thing:

As far as case law for Oregon…check your local paper and/or google for some foreclosure defense attorneys.

Then, on Monday, call the local file room clerk of your local courthouse. Ask him/her how to search for those (pick 4 or 5) attorneys’ case files and how you could view his/her files for their work regarding foreclosure defense.

That’s how you’ll find your Oregon Case Law; by reading files of cases involved in current litigation and reading how both sides are comporting themselves on the battlefield.

You’ll also quickly grasp which attorneys understand the underlying issues and which ones need to brush up on their knowledge base.

Hope this helps a little during this very stressful and difficult time.

Lisa E.
Lisa E., on December 19, 2009 at 8:28 pm said:

Ken Dost:

First of all, it’s really slow here on the weekends, somewhat due to the heavier mod/approval required before posts are viewable.

Second, here’s a link: http://foreclosurehelp.oregon.gov/

Third: it appears that Oregon is both a judicial and a non-judicial state. What that means is that you will most likely have to file a suit against the entity that is trying to foreclose upon your home (most likely the loan servicer, but not assuredly). Talk to others here from CA or other non-judicial states for tactical suggestions based on how they are handling their own non-judicial anti-foreclosure fight.

Fourth: the info you posted from a Pooling and Servicing Agreement has to be gently entered into a court case. As much as we’d like to hang our hats (and homes) on the “protective” verbiage in a P&S Agreement, it’s far from simple to do so. You need to have a court case and a judge. Then you need to slowly, gently, politely educate the judge as to the issues behind securitized mortgages and the illegality of foreclosures for all mortgages registered in a Mortgage Backed Security. Then you need to have that P&S entered into “evidence”. Then, and really from what I’ve seen and understand, ONLY THEN can you rely on the “contract law” within the security agreement of a P&S.

Fourth: there are many non-judicial participants here who might have suggestions that are a little faster and/or easier than the approach above.

Fifth: I am not an attorney and may be totally off base in all of the above. This is not legal advice.

Good luck to you as you carry on the fight for your home.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Ken Dost, on December 19, 2009 at 7:49 pm said:

ANYONE…..SOMEONE ….PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT MY POST EARLIER TODAY AND YESTERDAY AND PLEASE GIVE SOME INPUT

ALSO

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY GOOD CASE LAW FOR OREGON
Lisa E., on December 19, 2009 at 6:57 pm said:

Radio Show NPR This American Life start listening at minute 19 for a better understanding of a Credit Default Swap.

Helps explain why a mortgage is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more in default (foreclosure) as opposed to the modified loan.

http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/365.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Ken Dost, on December 19, 2009 at 6:09 pm said:

I found this in my pooling and service agreement. Can I get some input and thoughts on the following:

With respect to any Mortgage Loan that is not a Co-op Loan, none of the
Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Servicer, the Securities Administrator or
the Trustee shall be obligated to cause to be recorded the Assignment of
Mortgage referred to in this Section 2.01. With respect to any Co-op Loan, none
of the Depositor, the Servicer or the Trustee shall be obligated to cause to be
filed the Form UCC-3 referred to in this Section 2.01. In the event that any
Assignment of Mortgage referred to in this Section 2.01 is not recorded or is
improperly recorded, the Servicer and the Trustee shall have no liability for
any failure to receive or act on notices related to such Assignment of Mortgage.

The ownership of each Mortgage Note, the Mortgage and the contents of the
related Mortgage File is vested in the Trustee on behalf of the
Certificateholders. None of the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Servicer or
the Securities Administrator shall take any action inconsistent with such
ownership and shall not claim any ownership interest therein. The Depositor, the
Master Servicer, the Servicer and Securities Administrator shall respond to any
third party inquiries with respect to ownership of the Mortgage Loans by stating
that such ownership is held by the Trustee on behalf of the Certificateholders.
Mortgage documents relating to the Mortgage Loans not delivered to the Trustee
are and shall be held in trust by the Servicer, for the benefit of the Trustee
as the owner thereof, and the Servicer’s possession of the contents of each
Mortgage File so retained is for the sole purpose of servicing the related
Mortgage Loan, and such retention and possession by the Servicer is in a
custodial capacity only. The Depositor agrees to take no action inconsistent
with the Trustee’s ownership of the Mortgage Loans, to promptly indicate to all
inquiring parties that the Mortgage Loans have been sold and to claim no
ownership interest in the Mortgage Loans.

It is the intention of this Agreement that the conveyance of the
Depositor’s right, title and interest in and to the Trust Fund pursuant to this
Agreement shall constitute a purchase and sale and not a loan. If a conveyance
of Mortgage Loans from the Seller to the Depositor is characterized as a pledge
and not a sale, then the Depositor shall be deemed to have transferred to the
Trustee all of the Depositor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the
obligations of the Seller deemed to be secured by said pledge; and it is the
intention of this Agreement that the Depositor shall also be deemed to have
granted to the Trustee a first priority security interest in all of the
Depositor’s right, title, and interest in, to and under the obligations of the
Seller to the Depositor deemed to be secured by said pledge and that the Trustee
shall be deemed to be an independent custodian for purposes of perfection of the
security interest granted to the Depositor. If the conveyance of the Mortgage
Loans from the Depositor to the Trustee is characterized as a pledge, it is the
intention of this Agreement that this Agreement shall constitute a security
agreement under applicable law, and that the Depositor shall be deemed to have
granted to the Trustee a first priority security interest

-55-

in all of the Depositor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the
Mortgage Loans, all payments of principal of or interest on such Mortgage Loans,
all other rights relating to and payments made in respect of the Trust Fund, and
all proceeds of any thereof. If the trust created by this Agreement terminates
prior to the satisfaction of the claims of any Person in any Certificates, the
security interest created hereby shall continue in full force and effect and the
Trustee shall be deemed to be the collateral agent for the benefit of such
Person.
Lisa E., on December 19, 2009 at 9:47 am said:

Sunday 12/20/09: I expect to see an article in the Tampa Tribune by journalist Michael Sasso on FDLG and their “questionable” tactics.

Please everyone go to that article tomorrow and make a comment.

Educate. Link to LivingLies. Negate the “deadbeat borrower” stigma. Thank the journalist for pursuing this timely topic.

Let’s make a presence!

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E., on December 19, 2009 at 6:02 am said:

Judges who are completely resistant to hearing matters of law and rule with a bias: research MOTION FOR RECUSAL (your state) or RECUSAL OF JUDGE (your state)

Warnings:

1) It may not work (many attorneys are often unsuccessful with this tactic) and now you have a biased AND angry judge and

2) The grass is not always greener in another courtroom.

3) In many states, the actual judge whom you are asking to be recused makes the decision whether to have him/herself removed.

4) ALWAYS have a court reporter for ALL hearings in front of that judge so a record is created for appeal (and/or to back up one’s complaint to the state’s Attorney General against the fraudulent Plaintiff)

5) Study. Study. Study. Go in front of that judge as fully armed with knowledge as possible. Know your state’s Statutes, case law, rules of civil procedure. GO TO THE COURTHOUSE every chance you can (if your foreclosure court is open to the public…if not, go to the closest county that is). Observe. Take notes. Find out the best foreclosure defense attorney in that court & get yourself to the file room and ask a million polite questions on how to look up that attorney’s cases. Pay for copies of that attorney’s filings. Go watch that attorney in action. Go watch the attorneys for the fraudulent illegal forecloser in action.

6) If it’s within your belief system: Pray.

7) Before speaking to the judge: ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS take a deep breath to get yourself under control, address the judge as “Your Honor” and remember that you are working not only for your own home but for the thousands of homeowners also in your community who will end up with this same judge.

Good Luck to us all!

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Foreclosure Hamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

***I am not an attorney. This is survival (not legal) advice.***
erlinda, on December 18, 2009 at 10:00 pm said:

neil,

how would you a deal with a JUDGE THAT WON’T LISTEN TO YOUR ARGUMENT? IT SEEMS THIS JUDGE ACT LIKE AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CREDITOR. the judge is so prejudice towards a pro se like me. any help or suggestion how i could tackle this crook judge? i don’t trust lawyers , i was already misrepresented by two incompetent attorneys. i think my next move is to complaint this judge, i can’t prosper doing my reorganization in chapter 11 plan effectively. where could i file a complaint about this judge? need help from the readers of this blog. dan , can you just explain this thing to them , i just email you the reasons. thank you.
Deontos, on December 18, 2009 at 6:17 pm said:

Note to self: When you see that “poster” who goes by the moniker Foreclosure Fraud…….. Uhhhh say thank you.

Good work FF!!
Lisa E., on December 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm said:

Florida Statute & Case Law Study Group is officially open for business.

Come join in!

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/forum/topics/florida-statutes-case-law

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Lisa E., on December 18, 2009 at 5:37 pm said:

Note to self: DO NOT PISS OFF MR. FORECLOSURE FRAUD.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm said:

So I pulled Bernanke’s mortgage…

From Effective Demand Blog

“First and foremost, before yesterday I didn’t care one iota about Bernanke’s mortgage. But when he said this publicly my interest was piqued:

Do you have a mortgage?
Oh, yes, we refinanced.

Oh, perfect. When?
About 5%. A couple of months ago.

Good time.
Yes. We had to do it because we had an adjustable rate mortgage and it exploded, so we had to.

So, did you get a fixed rate at 5%? I think this might be the most valuable piece of information.
(Laughter.) Thirty years fixed rate at a little over 5%.
Needless to say when the guy in charge of monetary policy says he has a exploding ARM it is news so I checked out the public records. While the details are certainly not juicy it leads me down another path of thought which I will get to.

Bernanke bought in May 2004 for $839,000. He had a 5/1 ARM for $671,200 at 4.125% that adjusted to 12 month Libor in June of each year after his fixed period ended. To calculate his rate you take 12 month Libor on that date and add 2.250%, it can’t adjust more than 2% in any one year due to restrictions on the note. He also had a purchase money second $83,900 but for some reason I can’t find the interest rate on that one, nor do I see an ARM rider for it so it could very well be fixed. Both notes indicate they are amortizing loans.

So what does this all mean? Well according to the terms I see for Bernanke’s first and the little information on historic LIBOR I can find… his rate actually went down. So if his rate went down on his first and his second is fixed (an assumption on my part since I see no ARM rider on the second) then ask yourself why refinance now? You would only do so if you expect rates to rise in the future or you don’t think fixed rates will ever be this good again. Winter time is a low demand time for mortgages so rates drop to encourage activity, also the Fed is ending it’s MBS purchases so rates are expected to rise.

Based on his actions I think Bernanke does not expect rates to get better than this at the very least. One can’t read how much worse he might think rates might get based on his refinance but he clearly fixed his rates now so the risk for lower rates in the future based on his personal financial decision is low. I was a little doubtful that the Fed would actually end their MBS purchases since the housing market is only this “good” due to the artificially low rates caused by those purchases. But now I am much more convinced that the Fed will at least let the MBS portion of the market to stand on its own two feet in the near future. They could always jump back in if rates jump higher than they want.”

“Effective Demand’s information raises several questions: Why did Bernanke refi? What did he mean by “explode”, and was his home underwater when he refinanced since he bought in 2004 and apparently borrowed 90% LTV with only 10% down?”
Calculated Risk

4closureFraud
Steve, on December 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm said:

Abby!!! has anyone suggested a “Forensic Mortgage Audit” Endless Fraud Detection has been having GREAT success with issues like yours. I have had “personal” experience with these lawyers that “get it”. from my experience there couldn’t be anything farther from the truth. THEY DO NOT GET IT!!! Endless Fraud Detection DOES!!! They have 2 radio shows. They had one of their clients on the show last night and this client of theirs has his mortgage co against the ropes, and they are going down for the count. his note was rescinded. That means he got his house and is going to court soon to sue them for the return of ALL of his money!!! Go to the Endless Fraud Detection website and talk to them. I really think they can help.

Good luck

Steve
Abby in CA, on December 18, 2009 at 11:02 am said:

Attorneys–what would it mean to all the New Century & Home123 victims to have had their documents, signed, forged and notarized in Mexico and not the USA proper??

Anyone??

The notary stamps used were primarily for California notaries. They seem to notarize for states across the USA.

I really want to know about Mexico though.
Deontos, on December 18, 2009 at 10:49 am said:

MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY NEW YEAR ….. now get out!

Dec. 18, 2009, 9:36 a.m. EST
Citigroup, Fannie and Freddie suspend evictions for holidays

By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Citigroup Inc. have announced that they will suspend evictions during the holidays.

Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) said they have ordered mortgage servicers and foreclosure attorneys to suspend evictions for occupied single-family homes owned by the government-controlled companies between Dec. 19 and Jan. 3, 2010. Foreclosure processes will continue, however.

Tenants living in foreclosed properties backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages will also not be subject to evictions during the holiday time frame, according to Fannie Mae.

Also Thursday, Citigroup said it will suspend foreclosures and evictions for 30 days, until Jan. 17, for roughly 4,000 borrowers.

The lender said the suspension, which applies only to borrowers who have loans with Citigroup (NYSE:C) , will start Friday.

“We hope that with this suspension we can make the holidays a little less stressful for our customers who are going through a very difficult time,” CitiMortgage President Sanjiv Das said in a statement. “And we will continue to look for meaningful ways to assist our customers experiencing hardship.”

Citigroup expects the national suspension will affect about 2,000 borrowers scheduled for foreclosure sales as well as another 2,000 that were to receive foreclosure notifications in the next 30 days.

According to a Treasury Department report, Citigroup has started 103,478 three-month temporary modifications under an Obama administration program, yet it has only made 271 of those permanent as of the end of November.
Abby in CA, on December 18, 2009 at 10:48 am said:

Don—yes I did and I filed an AP, but the debtor’s attorney is trying to dismiss my AP. I cannot seem to get a hearing on the matter, even my judicial notice, because I keep getting told that the judge does not have to have a hearing…he can just dismiss at whim.

I’m fighting hard and about ready to contact the justice department.
Dan Edstrom, on December 18, 2009 at 9:41 am said:

Abby,
I pulled some records on New Century in my county in California. I have a document signed by Diana Noriega as A.V.P Trailing Documentation. It has a New Century corporate stamp (stamp dated 8/3/1995)and the assignment is dated 3/19/2004. The notary was Erika Reyes. Recording Requested by has New Century and it is crossed out. Below that is an address for Wells Fargo Bank. Diana’s signature appears to be a D and an N kind of overwriting eachother. Erika’s commission is #1455401 and it expires 12/9/2007. I can scan and send it if you want a copy.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Don, on December 18, 2009 at 9:40 am said:

Abby – Did you file a claim with the Bankruptcy Trustee?
Abby in CA, on December 18, 2009 at 9:20 am said:

ALL New Century or HOME123 victims—check your recorded docs!! ATTORNEYS TOO!!!

Also, if anyone is at a point of doing discovery or depositions–this woman was in charge of New Century Records Management etc. in Mexico and she would be a good person to get information from.

The VP from New Century who signed (forged) my Corp Deed of Assignment was in charge of ‘Records Management’.

My suspicion is that this woman was in charge of mass signings & forgings and notarizing down in Mexico and not in the USA.

This is her information pulled from the internet.

She also claims to have communicated with staff in Mexico in Spanish and to have assisted with the closing of New Century as a company,

Believe you me–New Century is still in chapter 11 bankrupcty in Delaware and may come out as a re-organized business.

Please let me know if you find out facts or evidence from this woman.

Diana Noriega
AVP/Operations Manager at New Century Mortgage

New Century Mortgage
Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; NEW; Financial Services industry
November 1997 – December 2007 (10 years 2 months)
• Responsible for Managing the various Records Management departments & Auditing Dept in Monterrey, Mexico
• Responsible for training and supporting Asst. Manager & Supervisors
• Knowledge of mortgage operations & post closing documentation
• Interviewed and hired staff
• Maintained Policy & Procedures for departments
• Maintained appropriate department reporting and data
• Maintained staffing metrics and engagement
• Performed personnel annual performance reviews
• Assessed, planed, prioritized and coordinated dept functions and activities
• Balanced organization, staff and customer’s interests
• Responsible in resolving issues and complaints from staff members and customers
• Communicated with Senior Management & Wall Street Investors
• Communicated with staff, internal and external clients
• Communicated in Spanish with staff in Monterrey, Mexico
• Assisted in the closing of Corporation
• Managed and Audited the closing of all Post Closing Operations
Sheri Hill, on December 18, 2009 at 6:02 am said:

Hi Everyone,

Maybe I came in at a good time, I notice a mention of Attorney and fast eviction specialist John Bouzane, having to do with Flores, read further and you’ll hear more about his practices.

In March 2006 we got a refi with New Century, the original pretender lender we had to sign loan dos on the 15th and 17th of March due to the date wrong on date on
some of them, a mistake on their part. the docs between these two signings were switched (bait and switch) to include a balloon note. We didn’t get a copy of the docs at closing, instead they later mailed them along with a blank Notice of Right to Cancel, tolling the right to rescind to three years. Banker’s Trust (aka Deutsche Bank who purchased BTC in 1998) who pursuant a letter (contained in the loan docs) to the closing agent indicates Banker’s Trust has an interest in mortgage,the note, loan ect. The loan was put into a pooling and servicing agreement with Deutsche Bank (aka Banker’s Trust) as the Indenture Trustee
(custodian or note registrar) and sold to investors pursuant the prospectus filed with the SEC to take effect June 29, 2006.
We went into default in Nov. 06 while My Husband a
journeyman carpenter was on a temporary layoff, that we were able to cure March 23, 07. We received a notice of sale and sub of trustee recorded 03/07/07, what we didn’t receive was a notice of assignment. Deutsche Bank accepted an assignment of a non performing loan in
default with a possibility of claims.
This is new to us, because we didn’t get the notice of assignment and found it ourselves, the vice pres of New Century that assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank is the same vice pres. of Deutsche Bank that substituted the trustee, signed on the same date 02/07/07, and notarized by the same notary. This person has never worked for either company but now works for the foreclosing trustee, who really is not the trustee because the date that the sub trustee was executed on July 15, 2008 and effected (recorded) on January 08, 2009. The Nod was recorded June 03, 08, 42 days earlier. Copies of notarized declarations indicates that the trustee was not yet a trustee when the notice of default was recorded, so the sale is void. The assignment is VOID, (if you don’t own it you can’t sell it).The Sale is VOID (wrong trustee) . We also rescinded the loan. (nobody owned it) The sale is VOID
New Century went into bankruptcy and sold the servicing rights and platform to Carrington Mortgage, we received a notice of joint assignment from New Century and Carrington to take effect July 01, 2007. In an effort to possibly get lower payments because the adjustable rate payments were to high, we only ended up with higher payments. Carrington could not figure out what we owed, Our statements would show payments not made as being credited and two weeks later it would be different. they insisted us sign modification papers without an explanation of there contents, so not knowing who to pay or how much and by examining the loan docs we found numerous violations of federal and state law. They were also very rude and indifferent to us. The purported beneficiary Deutsche Bank and the purported trustee Old Republic Default managment foreclosed on Jan 28, 2009 after we rescinded the loan that everyone ignored and initiated an unlawful detaineron June 08, 09 that we were unable to defend because of their fast eviction Attorney who has fabricated people and names on declarations, claiming one to be an REO Regional manager for Deutsche Bank and a fake process server that purportedly served the Summons and Complaint and filed a POS with an unsigned declaration of due diligence. We have a 9 cause of action (pro se) civil case against them and we also have 3 different signatures for the same person purported to deliver docs and filed as POS. We were evicted on Nov.24 and are now in appeal, but no hearing until April, I really don’t know which is the best way to go about this new evidence and getting our house back the quickest.
If your out there Soliman, Abby, Neil, Lisa someboby, I have been an avid reader for about 2 years with a lot of help from you guys. HELP?
Sherri Hill
Jeff, on December 17, 2009 at 10:47 pm said:

EXACTLY WHAT NEIL AND OTHERS ARE SAYING

MODIFICATIONS DON’T EXIST

Homeowners often rejected under Obama’s loan plan
——————————————————————————–
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Add us to your iPhone or G1 More on this Story
Story | Long-time jobless become new faces of foreclosure crisis
Story | What rebound? Foreclosures rise as jobs and income drop
Graphic | Few homeowners get help

MCT

View larger image
Comments (11)
|
Recommend (4)
By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Ten months after the Obama administration began pressing lenders to do more to prevent foreclosures, many struggling homeowners are holding up their end of the bargain but still find themselves rejected, and some are even having their homes sold out from under them without notice.

These borrowers, rich and poor, completed trial modifications of their distressed mortgage, and made all the payments, only to learn, often indirectly, that they won’t get help after all.

How many is hard to tell. Lenders participating in the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, still don’t provide the government with information about who’s rejected and why.

To date, more than 759,000 trial loan modifications have been started, but just 31,382 have been converted to permanent new loans. That’s averages out to 4 percent, far below the 75 percent conversion rate President Barack Obama has said he seeks.

In the fine print of the form homeowners fill out to apply for Obama’s program, which lowers monthly payments for three months while the lender decides whether to provide permanent relief, borrowers must waive important notification rights.

This clause allows banks to reject borrowers without any written notification and move straight to auctioning off their homes without any warning.

That’s what happened to Evangelina Flores, the owner of a modest 902 square-foot home in Fontana, Calif. She completed a three-month trial modification, and made the last of the agreed upon monthly payments of $1,134.60 on Nov. 1. Her lawyer said that in late November, Central Mortgage Company told her that it would void her adjustable-rate mortgage, which had risen to a monthly sum above $2,000, and replace it with a fixed-rate mortgage.

“The information they had given us is that she had qualified and that she would be getting her notice of modification in the first week of December,” said George Bosch, the legal administrator for the law firm of Edward Lopez and Rick Gaxiola, which is handling Flores’ case for free.

Flores, 58, a self-employed child care worker, wired her December payment to Central Mortgage Company on Nov. 30, thinking that her prayers had been answered. A day later, there was a loud, aggressive knock on her door.

Thinking a relative was playing a prank, she opened her front door to find two strangers handing her an eviction notice.

“They arrived real demanding, saying that they were the owners,” recalled Flores. “I have high blood pressure, and I felt awful.”

Court documents show that her house had been sold that very morning to a recently created company, Shark Investments. The men told Flores she had to be out within three days. The eviction notice had a scribbled signature, and under the signature was the name of attorney John Bouzane.

A representative in his office denied that Bouzane’s law firm was involved in Flores’ eviction, and said the eviction notice was obtained from Bouzane’s Web site, http://www.fastevictionservice.com.

Why would a lawyer provide for free a document that gives the impression that his law firm is behind an eviction?

“We hope to get the eviction business,” said the woman, who didn’t identify herself.

Flores bought her home in 2006 for $352,000. Records show that it has a current fair-market value of $99,000. The new owner bought it for $78,000 at an auction Flores didn’t even know about.

“I had my dream, but now I feel awful,” said Flores, who remains in the house while her lawyers fight her eviction. “I still can’t believe it.”

How could Flores go so quickly from getting government help to having her home owned by Shark Investment? The answer is in the fine print of standard HAMP documents.

The Aug. 25 cover letter from Central Mortgage Company, the servicer that collects Flores’ mortgage payments, offered Flores a trial modification with this comforting language:

“If you do not qualify for a loan modification, we will work with you to explore other options available to help you keep your home or ease your transition into a new home.”

CMC is owned by Arkansas regional Arvest Bank, itself controlled by Jim Walton, the youngest son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.

A glance past CMC’s hopeful promise finds a different story in the fine print of HAMP document, which contains standardized language drafted by the Obama Treasury Department and is used uniformly by lenders.

The document warns that foreclosure “may be immediately resumed from the point at which it was suspended if this plan terminates, and no new notice of default, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of acceleration, or similar notice will be necessary to continue the foreclosure action, all rights to such notices being hereby waived to the extent permitted by applicable law.”

This means that even when a borrower makes all the trial payments, a lender can put the house up for auction if it decides that the homeowner doesn’t qualify — assuming that foreclosure proceedings had been started before the trial period — without telling the homeowner.

Until now, lenders haven’t even had to notify borrowers in writing that they’d been rejected for permanent modifications.

In January, 11 months after Obama’s plan was announced, homeowners will begin receiving written rejection notices, and the Treasury Department finally will begin receiving data on rejection rates and reasons for rejections.

The controversial clause notwithstanding, the handling of Flores’ loan raises questions.

“Foreclosure actions may not be initiated or restarted until the borrower has failed the trial period and the borrower has been considered and found ineligible for other available foreclosure prevention options,” said Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokeswoman. “Servicers who continue with foreclosure sales are considered non-compliant.”

CMC officials declined to comment and hung up when they learned that a reporter was listening in with permission from Flores’ legal team. Arvest officials also declined comment.

McClatchy did hear from Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance agency seized by the Bush administration in September 2008. Freddie owns Flores’ loan, and spokesman Brad German insisted that Flores was reviewed three times for loan modification.

“In each instance, there was a lack of documentation verifying that she had the income required for a permanent modification,” German said.

That response is ironic, said Michael Calhoun, the president of the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan group in Durham, N.C., that works on behalf of borrowers.

“These lenders gave loans with no documentation and charged them a penalty interest rate for doing so. And now when the people ask for help, they are using extravagant demands for documentation to give them the back of their hand and continue to foreclosure,” Calhoun said.

German said that Flores was sent a letter on Nov. 24, which would have arrived several days later, given the Thanksgiving holiday, informing her that she’d been rejected for a permanent modification. Flores and her attorney said she never got a letter, and neither Freddie Mac nor CMC provided proof of that letter.

Exactly one week after the letter supposedly was sent, Flores’ home was sold to Shark Investments. That company was formed on Aug. 19, according to records on the California Secretary of State’s Web site. Shark Investments, apparently an unsuspecting beneficiary of Flores’ woes, has no phone listing. The Riverside, Calif., address on the company’s filing as a limited liability company traces to a five-bedroom, four-bath house with a swimming pool.

German didn’t comment on whether Flores received sufficient notice under Freddie Mac rules, or how the home could move to sale so quickly.

Flores’ legal team, which specializes in foreclosure prevention, thinks that lenders and servicers are gaming Obama’s housing effort.

“It seems servicers are giving people false hopes by sending them a plan, and they are using the program as a collection method, getting people to pay them with no intention of modifying the loan,” said Bosch. “I believe they are using this as a tool to suck people dry.”

Dashed hopes aren’t exclusive to the working poor such as Flores.

David Smith owns a beautiful home in San Clemente, Calif., the location of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library. Smith purchased his five bedroom home four years ago for $1.3 million. Today, the real estate Web site Zillow.com estimates the value of Smith’s home at $981,000, slightly below the $1 million he still owes on it.

Smith said he went from “making a lot of money to making hardly any” as the national and California economies plunged into deep recession. He’s a salesman serving the hard-hit residential and commercial construction sector. On top of his hardship, Smith’s mortgage exceeds the limits for the HAMP plan.

In late August, Smith signed and returned paperwork in a prepaid FedEx envelope to Bank of America that said it had received the contract needed to modify the adjustable-rate mortgage he originally took out with the disgraced lender Countrywide Financial, which Bank of America bought last year.

The modification agreement shows that Bank of America agreed to give Smith a 3.375 percent mortgage rate through September 2014, and everything Smith paid between now and through 2019 would count as paying off interest. He’d begin paying principal and interest in October 2019, with the loan maturing in 2037.

The deal favors the lender, but Smith, 55, jumped on it because it kept him in the home.

Armed with what he thought was “a permanent modification,” Smith returned a notarized copy of the agreement and made subsequent payments on time.

In return, he got a surprising notice from Bank of America saying that his house would be auctioned off on Dec. 18.

“It looks like they’re trying to sell this out from underneath me,” Smith said. “My wife cries all the time.”

After a Dec. 16 call from McClatchy asking why Bank of America wasn’t honoring its own modification, the lender backed off.

“The case has been returned to a workout status and a Home Retention Division associate will be contacting Mr. Smith for further discussions,” said Rick Simon, a Bank of America spokesman. “The scheduled foreclosure sale will be postponed for at least 30 days to allow for review of the account in hope of completing a home retention solution for Mr. Smith.”

The Center for Responsible Lending says such problems are common.

“Everyone acknowledges that the system is not working well,” Calhoun said.
steve sinacola, on December 17, 2009 at 10:05 pm said:

there is a host of “Decaratories” that seem to be useful…especially in non judicial to get the pretenders and mocking modifiers into court

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declaratory-relief/

Declaratory relief refers to a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. By seeking a declaratory judgment, the party making the request is seeking for an official declaration of the status of a matter in controversy. Optimally, the resolution of the rights of the parties involved will prevent further litigation. For example, a party to a contract may seek the legal interpretation of a contract to determine the parties’ rights, or an insured may seek a determination of insurance coverage under a policy.
Dan Edstrom, on December 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm said:

Pay attention everyone. Darryl seems to be on to something GOOD!!!

Definition: declaratory judgment

–noun Law. a judgment that merely decides the rights of parties in a given transaction, situation, or dispute but does not order any action or award damages.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Darryl-CA, on December 17, 2009 at 6:21 pm said:

Mr. Garfield,

My name is Darryl Evans, I am not an attorney but I know how to stop foreclosures by proving through simple litigation (Complaint for Declaratory Relief) that ANY alleged securitized loan is non-existant.

It is urgent that I speak to you.

562-556-2080
daltoids@aol.com

By the way I live in Long Beach California
Abby in CA, on December 17, 2009 at 5:21 pm said:

Article about 79.9% interest rate on a credit card:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/799-percent-interest-cred_n_396191.html
Bob, on December 17, 2009 at 10:57 am said:

Alan,

I see your kit for sale for $97. Is this all there is to it? All the tools/documents for $97?

The tools and information necessary to Fight against Foreclosure, and protect your property including Step-by-step instructions on:

* Where to start?
* What to Expect?
* Judicial Vs. Non-Judicial
* How much time do I have?
* What about the Bailout?
* What about MERS? (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems)
* How much will Stopping my Foreclosure cost?
* Can I do this without an attorney?
* What to look for in your Loan Documents
* How to demand documents from the mortgage company
* Do I have a Predatory Loan?
* How to get a Forensic Loan Audit: Why do I need that?
* Am I a victim of Deceptive Lending Practices?
* What if the Broker lied about my income on the application?
* What about the Truth in Lending Act?
* Federal Vs. State

How to interview an attorney to discover if they understand foreclosure defense concepts
How to STOP FORECLOSURE on YOUR HOME IMMEDIATELY! and

How about learning How to Demand the Lender negotiate with you to KEEP YOU in YOUR home!

Are there any upsell’s to this information?

What has been reported back as the success rate using your information and step-by-step instructions?

You know the old saying, “You get what you pay for”, but maybe you just gifting consumers with your generosity and charging a nominal fee?

Anyone else used Alan’s info and had success?
Allan Hennessey, on December 17, 2009 at 10:21 am said:

Hey Folks!

Just wanted to chime in really quickly and give thanks for the congratulations in my case of successfully defending my home.

I have been flooded with calls, and am making my way through all the messages to get back to each one… If I miss you, please try to reach me again. I am currently understaffed, and we are doing the best we can.

If you have issues with any attorney not getting the job done whether you found them on this site or others… there is a saying…

“If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.”

Attorneys allegiance is sworn to the court first, client second.

Even with the preponderance of information on this site and others, many attorneys “still dont get it”. Many never will. I have personally spoken to hundreds of attorneys in the past two years from all across the country. I dont know of a single one that really truly “gets it.”

The deeper you dig, the more you find out… The fact is… you cannot expect a court to fix this for you. You must be the one to fix it, then get the court to recognize the correction, and dismiss the case(in judicial states). It is important to note, that all public employees, have a vested interest in their pension and retirement funds. These funds are heavily vested in the financial sector. Can anyone say conflict of interest? I know of someone that uses a motion for recusal, bringing judicial notice of this fact into court cases, getting dismissal after dismissal.

It is very difficult for someone uneducated in law, to navigate these turbulent waters, but in my opinion, a homeowner has a better chance fighting PRO SE, without an attorney than with one. You just need the support and help from the educated folks that are willing to help. Also, get a blacks law dictionary, and look up terms.

CORRECTING THE PUBLIC RECORD:

Folks, I cannot sufficiently explain here how to do this. We have a tool that is effective at this. Many people have issues with getting documents recorded. We have a tool for that as well. These tools have been carefully developed and since I am only a contributor to these documents I cannot freely disperse them.

I can only explain like this: If your car registration had an error on it… what would you do? GET IT CORRECTED! If someone you work with has an incorrect address or phone number what do you do? GET IT CORRECTED!

Since the documents YOU originally signed (mortgage/deed of trust) are incorrect, GET IT CORRECTED! File a corrected version. There is a bit more to it in the documents we use (notice of revocation of power of attorney, notice to cease and desist, etc.) This is not an area where you want to try and reinvent the wheel folks.

One more thing… regarding FORENSIC LOAN AUDITS… This is not an area where you want to find the most inexpensive service. Many audits will verify TILA calculations and say “thank you for your business”. There are many components to a loan that you need to know the facts about… there are other elements that are only crucial if you are seeking treble damages in a Tort or other similarly styled suit.

IF YOU JUST WANT TO SAVE YOUR HOUSE, GET AN AUDIT DONE THROUGH FEDERAL TRUSTEE SERVICES FOR ONLY $500. It will reveal what you need to know to stop your foreclosure.

Even if you have already lost your home, IT IS NEVER OVER!

FRAUD VITIATES ALL TRANSACTIONS, AND ACCOUNTING BUSINESS NEVER CLOSES, ALWAYS OPEN LIKE 7-11.

If you have MERS named ANYWHERE in your documents, THAT IS FRAUD. If your loan was securitized, THAT IS FRAUD. If you owe more than your home is worth, THAT IS FRAUD. If your broker stated your income higher than reality, THAT IS FRAUD.

Fighting for your home is a bit like playing the game “chicken”. Two cars speeding toward each other on a one lane road…Whoever swerves away first loses. Commit now to a head on collision with the bank, and let them know… I AM NOT MOVING! I WILL NOT SWERVE! THIS IS MY HOUSE!

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, GOD BLESS, AND GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!

Allan Hennessey
800-552-9313 Ext 111
Ed, on December 17, 2009 at 8:51 am said:

Ira…I would check out this Florida Attorney

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/
Ira Shaver, on December 17, 2009 at 8:00 am said:

We want to have a complete forensic loan audit done. The cheapest service we’ve found so far is:

http://www.ml-compliance.com

Has anyone else used this service?

There are missing recorded Assignment of Mortgage in the County records, and there is no AOM whatsoever to US Bank National As Trustee (the same outfit that tried to foreclose on us in 2007/2008). We expect to be served with another foreclosure suit just after first of the year.
Abby in CA, on December 17, 2009 at 7:54 am said:

Ira–have you considered filing in federal court….do you have any elements of fraud, TILA violations, predatory lending, usury etc…..you can file in federal court.

I am not an attorney and not offering legal advice or any services.

The above is my opnion.

Pro Se-means people can represent themselves in court.
Ira Shaver, on December 17, 2009 at 7:43 am said:

I reached out to a local Florida attorney on the so-called Lawyers that “Get It” list for foreclosure assistance, and this is the response I get:

“The only judge hearing foreclosure cases in Osceola County is Judge Stroker. He generally will not consider any technical argument in a case, including Federal issues. I do not think I would have to time to get involved in your case. We are focusing primarily on bankruptcy cases and must be selective on the Foreclosure defense cases we undertake. I previously had an office in Kissimmee, but closed it earlier in the year. I prefer going into a case where the forum increases the odds of success.”

So what does this mean? You’re screwed if your case is in Osceola County because there’s only one judge who hears the cases and he’s going to rule against you no matter how legally sound and solid your argument??? The first time we were sued by the Pretender Lender, this judge handled our case and trampled all over our due process rights, ignoring us at every turn, denying our multiple requests for discovery, and – after giving the Pretender Lender one full year to produce the alleged original Note and Mortgage, ruled against us. Now we’re looking at facing another foreclosure suit and we have to deal with this judicial tyrant again? Unbelievable!!! And the attorneys are automatically throwing their hands up in resignation because they don’t want to have to deal with this judge. So what is a homeowner to do???
Luis, on December 17, 2009 at 7:37 am said:

Is there a way to block an assignment ?

Right now the plaintiff wants to re-establish the note, but he has not come up with any documentation to prove they are the holder of such note. Now, they have assigned the note to somebody else.

Could this be blocked somehow?

They should not be able to do an assignment until after the note has been re-established.
Abby in CA, on December 17, 2009 at 7:09 am said:

should anyone want to email the editor of Time about the horrendous selection of Person of the Year Bernanke or how awful the illustration is

letters@time.com
Lisa E., on December 17, 2009 at 4:25 am said:

Luis,

These “Stealth Plaintiffs” in the judicial state of Florida wish that they could simply say, “Oh, darn! I lost the note. Judge, let’s overlook that little glitch and turn over this ridiculous, delay-tactic-employing Defendant’s home to me.”

G-D help us! It works like a charm 90% of the time due to acomplete lack of answer, defense, or response to the foreclosure lawsuit.

The prevailing thought in Foreclosure Mill world is, “Hey, it sure is worth a shot! Almost assuredly, we’ll get our grubby hands on that house and toss that family out on the streets.”

In your case though, you can remind the Stealth Plaintiff that there is that pesky Florida Statute § 673.3091, which does provide for re-establishment of a lost note BUT only under strict requirements.

673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.–

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:

(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
ALLAN (introducing LEWIE RANIERI the man who coined 'securitization', pioneered MBSs and now wants to make amends for inventing " the biggest floating craps game of all time") OBAMA & CONGRESS TAKE NOTICE!!!, on December 17, 2009 at 1:18 am said:

FROM: http://money.cnn.com.

LEWIE RANIERI WANTS TO FIX THE MORTGAGE MESS

Lounging in his giant conference room in an otherwise bland office suite near Long Island’s Nassau Coliseum, Lewis Ranieri cultivates the image of a worldly philosopher. The 62-year-old financier prides himself on being a big thinker who conjures elegant solutions to epic problems.

And the evidence of his searching intellect is spread all over this room, which doubles as a sort of museum for his collection of precious relics. Framed mid-19th-century letters from poets Robert Browning and Alfred, Lord Tennyson, hang on the walls, three Remington statues rest on pedestals, and a marble bust of Benjamin Franklin sits in the corner.

But the most space by far is devoted to the figure Ranieri calls his greatest hero — Abraham Lincoln. On display are a dozen items of rare Lincoln memorabilia, including a bronze likeness of the Great Emancipator, his handwritten letter naming Gen. Ulysses S. Grant as the commander of the Union army, and even a debt-collection notice to Lincoln from a Charleston cotton merchant.

Okay, it’s a stretch to connect the earthy Brooklyn-born private equity investor and powerboat enthusiast to the giant who freed the slaves. Still, Ranieri clearly draws inspiration from his idol. And in his own way he’s trying to do his patriotic duty. THE PROBLEM THAT RANIERI IS NOW ADDRESSING IS THE NO. 1 ROADBLOCK TO AMERICA’S ECONOMIC RECOVERY: THE MORTGAGE CRISIS.

To solve it, Ranieri is combining what he describes as a Lincolnesque dedication to helping the little guy with a technical expertise honed handling home loans “since the beginning of the world.”

“Lincoln spent nights concocting ways to pardon soldiers and perform good deeds for widows,” intones Ranieri, clad this day in pink shirt and chinos, with a BlackBerry holstered to his hip. “I’m willing to do what the banks and government won’t — the manual labor to help struggling homeowners. It’s cathartic for me.”

Many readers, especially younger ones, may not remember Ranieri. Put simply, “Lewie” (as he has long been known to friends and colleagues) WAS ARGUABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT FIGURE IN THE CREATION OF THE MODERN MORTGAGE INDUSTRY THAT HE NOW SEEKS TO REPAIR.

At Salomon Brothers in the 1980s, Ranieri virtually invented mortgage-backed securities, the innovation that more than any other led to the explosive growth in homeownership by expanding the pool of money available for lending to buyers. As the head of the mortgage desk, Ranieri assembled a storied band of overweight, uncouth traders whose exploits were immortalized in Michael Lewis’s book “LIAR’S POKER.”

Since his Salomon days, Ranieri has largely shunned the limelight while pursuing a variety of ventures in the mortgage business. At least until recently, when America’s real-estate-based prosperity crumbled and he went from being venerated as a legendary pioneer to being vilified for fathering the multitrillion-dollar market that went stark raving mad and sank the economy along with it.

Now Ranieri is championing an inventive solution for fixing the mess he’s accused of enabling in the first place. Ranieri has raised $825 million from 31 foundations and corporate and public pension funds, including the South Carolina Retirement Systems, to form the Selene Residential Mortgage Opportunity Fund.

Selene’s mission is simple: to buy delinquent mortgages at a deep discount, work with homeowners to get them paying again, and resell the now stable loans for profit. To get homeowners to do their part, Ranieri is taking the radical step of substantially lowering their mortgage balances.

For the Rodriguez family of Chicago, for example, that meant cutting the value of their loan by $160,000. To Ranieri, THIS WILLINGNESS TO SLASH THE LOAN BALANCE ITSELF RATHER THAN JUST TEMPORARILY LOWER INTEREST PAYMENTS IS THE BIG IDEA, THE ESSENTIAL SOLUTION THE BANKS AND GOVERNMENT ARE MISSING. He sees his approach as a model for stemming the tide of foreclosures that is plaguing the housing market.

It’s not just theory. Ranieri is also doing the “manual labor,” enlisting a handpicked team of workout specialists who bill themselves as “servicers with a soul” and behave more like sunny salespeople than bill collectors.

The members of his team act as credit counselors, advising spendthrift borrowers to sell a second car or to change the weekly dinners at Outback Steakhouse to monthly. SELENE WILL EVEN PAY OFF THEIR CREDIT CARD BALANCES OR FIX THE GARAGE IF IT HELPS THEM PAY THE MORTGAGE AND KEEP THEIR HOUSE.

Ranieri claims that part of his motive for forming Selene is to atone for launching the securitization juggernaut that spun out of control. “I do feel guilty,” he confesses. “I wasn’t out to invent the biggest floating craps game of all time, but that’s what happened.”

It wasn’t the concept of securitization that created the problem, argues Ranieri. Rather, he blames Wall Street for blatantly misusing his brainchild to construct an immense bazaar for “affordability products” that homeowners really couldn’t afford, including loans with low so-called teaser rates that became onerous when they reset.

“This isn’t checkers,” he says. “These are real people losing their homes. I feel a responsibility for dealing with it in a way that’s up close and personal.”

The venture isn’t all log-cabin idealism, of course. Ranieri loves a buck, and he’s found a vehicle to generate strong returns for himself and his investors. He also doesn’t harbor any illusions that his relatively small fund alone can make an impact on the vast U.S. real estate market. But what counts is the effectiveness of his formula, and whether that formula could prove a template for America’s lenders to forestall the dangerous wave in foreclosures. Right now, Ranieri’s method appears to be working. In fact, IT COULD BE THE BEST SOLUTION YET FOR KEEPING MILLIONS OF STRAPPED HOMEOWNERS IN THEIR HOUSES.

A NEW SOLUTION FOR AN HISTORIC RECESSION

Why is Ranieri’s approach so promising? The answer is that it addresses head-on both of the major reasons why millions of Americans are defaulting on their home loans. The first is that they simply can’t afford the payments, generally because the family borrowed too much and then suffered a big loss of income in today’s withering recession.

But that’s only half the story. The second reason for the surge in defaults is that a large and fast-growing slice of America’s homeowners are stuck with “upside down” mortgages that are far higher than the value of their homes.

What makes this housing crisis so different from past shocks is the enormous price declines that pushed down the value of houses by as much as 40% and 50% in bubble markets from Florida to Nevada to California. Those staggering drops have left about one mortgage in four “underwater,” according to First American CoreLogic. In Nevada, Florida, and Arizona, the average underwater house is worth 30% to 40% less than the mortgage balance. Faced with such long odds against ever breaking even on their investment, many homeowners simply walk away.

That phenomenon is adding immensely to the historic scope of the foreclosure problem. Today an astounding 4.2 million home loans — one out of every 12 in America — are either delinquent or in the process of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. That’s three times the total from three years ago, and the highest number since comparable data became widely available starting in 1979.

MOST LOAN MODIFICATIONS DON’T ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF NEGATIVE EQUITY. As a result, they fail to keep people in their houses for more than a few months. The programs — including those for most large banks, and for loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or owned by the FDIC — typically lower interest rates for a few years so that homeowners can afford the payments temporarily.

But the default rates on these modifications are now averaging around 50% after six to nine months, demonstrating that the one-track approach of lowering payments isn’t a durable solution.

“The redefaults on loans that are modified without lowering principal will just keep growing,” says Edward Pinto, chief credit officer with Fannie Mae in the late ’80s and now an industry consultant. “The only way to slow foreclosures is to tackle the negative-equity issue.”

Ranieri believes, with good reason, that borrowers will keep paying only if their restructured mortgages both are affordable and give the borrower a new equity cushion. “Positive equity is the most important factor in getting people to pay again,” says Ranieri. “If they’re far upside down, they think their house will never be worth more than their mortgage, so they act like renters. They’re not about to enrich the bank by fixing the boiler.”

The tonic of positive equity plus Selene’s personal touch produces remarkable results. According to Ranieri, just 7% of Selene’s restructured loans redefault by the six-month mark, a crucial yardstick to determine if they’ll keep paying. So far Selene has invested about half its $825 million war chest, and Fortune estimates that it is delivering a consistent return of between 10% and 12% — good numbers in a world where 10-year Treasuries yield 3.4%.

Small wonder that other investors are jumping into the game. Hedge fund Fortress Investment Group and famed distressed-assets buyer Wilbur Ross are among those on Wall Street who have recently begun buying mortgages cheap and writing down principal.

“If you give them equity, borrowers will start paying again and defend their houses, not damage them,” says CEO Jeff Kaplan of National Asset Direct, a company whose affiliates have so far acquired more than $200 million in delinquent home loans.

From college drop-out to creating securitization

Wall Street has seldom seen a more unlikely success story than Lewie Ranieri’s, or one more full of Rabelaisian excess. Ranieri grew up in a three-story building in Brooklyn; his grandfather’s bakery occupied the street level, and Ranieri, his brother, and seven cousins squeezed into the top-floor apartment.

After his father, a Navy scientist, died from handling toxic chemicals, Ranieri went to work at his uncle’s Italian restaurant in Great Neck, Long Island. The commute was so long that Ranieri, at age 15, enrolled in the Great Neck high school. Ranieri cooked lasagna and gnocchi until the early morning hours, then rushed home to an apartment he shared with his co-chefs from Italy and Argentina, returning to Brooklyn, and his mother, only on weekends.

At age 18, Ranieri dropped out of college to work full-time in the Salomon Bros. mailroom. Over time Ranieri rose from designing computer systems to pioneering “securitization,” a term he actually coined.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn’t this the OBVIOUS solution to get us out of the worsening foreclosure crisis? HELP THOSE WHO ARE ‘UNDERWATER’! Listen up WASHINGTON and WALL STREET!!! Here’s somebody making money off it, AND he ‘knows’ the business!.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on December 17, 2009 at 1:00 am said:

FDIC OKs Delay of FAS 166, 167 Effect on Capital
By DIANA GOLOBAY
December 16, 2009 9:58 AM CST

The board of directors at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on Wednesday finalized a new capital rule that addresses industry concerns raised by Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) 166 and 167. FAS 166 and 167, which take effect in January, will require financial institutions to bring certain securitized assets onto balance sheets.

The industry for months has said these accounting changes will adversely affect institutions’ ability to securitize, as risk-based capital requirements would force these firms to allocate a substantial amount of capital essentially overnight. In her monthly Kitchen Sink column for the January issue of HousingWire magazine, Linda Lowell gives a review of regulatory issues raised by 166 and 167 and other unforeseen consequences of the rule change.

In it, Lowell comments: “The proposed rule also would expand regulators’ authority to require banks to include in risk based capital (RBC), commensurate with the actual risk relationship, the assets of SPEs and VIEs that they sponsored but do not have to consolidate under GAAP.”

“Clearly regulators are certain that FAS 167 might not return a securitization to its sponsor’s balance sheet,” Lowell adds. “They also recognized that future securitizations could specifically be designed to evade consolidation.” The FDIC answered the industry’s calls for capital relief Wednesday with the final rule, which provides an optional delay and phase-in for up to one year for the effect on risk-based capital and the allowance for lease and loan losses related to assets affected by FAS 166 and 167.

Lowell notes that proposed RBC rules asked for industry feedback on the possibility of capital relief in the form of phasing in the requirements. Given the magnitude of potential new capital needed, commenters requested a six month moratorium on application of the rule followed by a three-year phase in period.

“I believe this rule moves in the right direction and will reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of some of the problems we have experienced in the financial and securitization markets,” said FDIC chairman Sheila Bair in a statement.

“The capital relief we are offering banks for the transition period should ease the impact of this accounting change on banks’ regulatory capital requirements, and enable banks to maintain consumer lending and credit availability as they adjust their business practices to the new accounting rules.” The final rule — designed to “better align regulatory capital requirements with the actual risks of certain exposures” — also eliminates the risk-based capital exemption for asset-backed commercial paper assets, the FDIC said in a statement. FDIC said the transitional relief does not apply to the leverage ratio or to assets in conduits to which a bank provides implicit support.

The final rule comes after the FDIC on Tuesday approved an advance notice of proposed rule-making regarding safe harbor protection of institutions’ assets being transferred for securitization.
hilary g, on December 16, 2009 at 8:59 pm said:

Mr. Dost,
I am praying for you and your wife, even as I tread a path similar to yours. Do not let the anger eat you alive, tamp it like coals in a fireplace and use it for energy in the fight. I hope an attorney comes forward to help you, but be very careful as they can be as bad or worse than the banksters.
Luis, on December 16, 2009 at 6:46 pm said:

Is this a joke??

Plaintiff failed to respond to request for production of documents, then failed to respond to order to compel production, then, in proceedings where I asked for sanctions and dismissal, the judge gave plaintiff 15 days to produce (I have been trying to get plaintiff to produce for almost a year) and ordered plaintiff to show up at next hearing (Plaintiff has failed to show up at the previous hearings and for some reason it has not resulted in automatic default. I know that If I don’t show up, then It would be automatic default).

Here is the plaintiff’s response to the request to produce:

“1. Plaintiff does not have the original Note and has sought re-establishment of the same in its complaint.”
Ken Dost, on December 16, 2009 at 5:08 pm said:

I am preparing a pro se lawsuit in the state of Oregon to not only win clear title to my home, but to also recover damages as well. I realize and recognize it repeated often within this site to make it simple and not to present oneself in a manner that a judge may perceive the person in trying to pull a fast one and evade the obligation debt. Certainly, this is a risk, one I am willing to assume due to the circumstances that led us into a subprime loan. I am undecided as to whether I am going to include this within my lawsuit, or whether even I can. As I am in a position in which I am unable to rub 2 nickels together to make a dollar, my road to justice is pro se. Legal aid is unavailable us, because although I am currently unemployed, my wife thankfully is not. I have great respect and trust for the people that participate on this site, therefore I welcome any and all comments and advice.

Late in 2001 my wife and I decided to refinance and consolidate our first mortgage of $240,000, held by WAMU with a $45,000 second that was held by US Bank. Our decision to move forward with US Bank has proved many times over, as being not a good one. To fully put to paper, or to blog as the case may be is an exhaustive and frustrating exercise and to the degree of anger I still feel for US Bank is not healthy for my blood pressure. However, should somebody recognize a viable course of action and offer advice, I will certainly expound on the details.

US Bank misled us for weeks making untrue and false assertions as to status of loan processing. Promises were repeatedly made verbally but never followed through in a manner which documented many of those promises. First, there were difficulties retaining an appraiser that held the extended qualifications and license to perform an appraisal on properties deemed as an ‘estate’, which in our case was not the house per se, rather its resting on a 5 acre parcel. That was understandable, but the report retreated behind the curtain and into the shadows, all the while the gatekeeper, loan officer, keep us entertained and keeping us on the hook, which we foolishly did trusting her words as truth.

That last month she instructed us not pay the mortgage to Wamu for one reason or other was not necessary because of rollover into the new or some bullshit that we stupidly chose heed that advice. Her assurances did not come to fruition and we rolled past the 30 day late mark, yet she still insisted not to worry. The morning of closing, we received a call and for the first time discovered the truth that was being concealed us all along.

The first item was a new condition before final approval, and included actions that were unreasonable and ludicrous. Apparently, US Bank had ordered a field review, which is not uncommon but equally was unbeknownst and undisclosed to us. He changed the comps to homes that were not even in the area and as we later discovered made notation that the current dirt floored daylight basement would be boost value 100k should it have a slab.

This was the condition that was brought to the table at the last possible second, months after we began, what was told us was would be a 30-45 day refinance period. Of course there was no way that we were going to comply with what they referred to as a ‘deferred maintenance’ item. Although, I designed the house and made us of the existing grade so that there could be future expansion, it was nonetheless not represented as such on the plans and therefore not permitted. This was an unreasonable demand and we were forced to walk away.

More disturbing though was their concealment of material facts that nullified a decision that was ours to make, choosing to make it for us instead. US Bank determined us a risk because of my being self-employed even though I had been for 7 years and consistent in my earnings, all well documented and included with the loan apps. They sent it out of house and shopped it finally settling on Greenpoint, this none of which we were made aware prior to this morning. The gatekeeper told us that US Bank policy is to what is necessary to keep people on the hook, encouragement to lie.

This is covers but only a fraction of what happened and what we were to discover. The climate at that time, economically, politically, socially, and judicially was not at all receptive to our claims of righting serious injustices. The state of Oregon and all its associated agencies excused themselves from action, deferring us to the OCC because US Bank is a federally regulated bank. They were as useless as two tits on a bull, and were completely unsympathetic our complaint and noncompliant with their own protocol in the handling of our complaint, admittedly so. That admission was later, of course denied during a Senatorial inquiry that was made on our behalf.

Suddenly, we found our nice settled world collapsing in a shit storm around us, just beginning to realize the full impact of our misplaced trust in US Bank. The question of culpability is one to this day I demand to have answers to, because the ones I have are not at all ethically or morally correct. We could find no bank willing to lend to us given just that one 30 day late pay on the Wamu mortgage, does not matter the circumstances or who had what conversation with whom, it is material fact of being late.
My idealistic virginity in truth and justice was shattered and I came to learn that screwing the little guy by hijacking the free market enterprise system by stuffing the Congrassholes pockets and instituting bureaucratic and market controls …….is the American Way.

I am not one to give up and kept after US Bank, not one attorney would lift a finger in aid to us, some arrogantly admonishing us for even having the nerve and others fearful of going up against them, the easing of which was what we did not have: money.

That late pay again bit us in the ass, as we discovered as our vehicle leases reached expiration a couple of months afterwards. The relationship with the leasing agent was great, contacting us month prior and setting up what vehicles we wished as our next leases. The niceties of turning in the keys of one vehicle, spending a few minutes signing off on a new lease, and being on our way in the matter of an hour is gone. At that point, in that space of time and for the next determinable months to come, whatever that time frame may be, we were not creditworthy.

This is the hook and crook crap that consumer credit reporting and lending colludes on that begins the process of entrapping the good people of America into a life of debt slavery. People do not put their lives on hold while their credit heals, life has to proceed and life for most people, demands that they have vehicles. In our case, we were forced to sacrifice for vehicles of lesser quality, and as infuriating as that is, worse is the advantage by which lenders take to capitalize on your bad credit mark in the interest rate they get away with.

It may appear that I am getting off topic here, but I am really not, it sets up a larger picture that no one is talking about in this whole subprime mess. Well I am, because this is one more devious evil that slithers its way along the ground, seeking out those it can take to its underbelly. We could not qualify for new vehicles because the interest we were hit with was 23% for my wife’s and 28% for mine…..a fucking outrage and as it ended up we were now maxed out on our debt to income ratio.

My most disliked personality types are those that call such consumer actions that stretch debt to income ratios to the max as being irresponsible, or what is one that drives me nuts the most……Oh yea, people living beyond their means. Father, slap the crap out of them for they have not a clue of what they speak of. They are the enablers perpetuating the financial sectors illusion of age old stigmas associated with debt, ideals that have long since faded with the advent and creation of consumer credit.
To move this along faster, we ended up finally striking a deal with the President of Consumer Finance of US Bank, after nearly a year of bitching to anyone or anybody who would listen. I think they became nervous that sooner or later someone would take notice that I was not a rambling lunatic and look into their operations. They offered up what I have to admit was a fantastic deal of a mortgage, although it did little for providing relief, given what they had caused. The acceptance though was conditional upon placing our signatures on a composed waiver that in essence says that we terminate all action now and in the future against them, including shutting my mouth…..which I will never do.
At closing, we signed but added some text of our, the reaction of which was not at all well received. You see, we are in Oregon and Chucky Moore, the President of Consumer Finance that I had mentioned above is located in Ohio, and he had specific instructions for the title company. Closing was to commence only after we signed the waiver, which she was instructed to fax directly to his home the minute we left the building after completed. It was a evening close, wrapping up well after 9 in the evening here, midnight back there. Picture some wealthy asshole in a red cashmere robe sitting in his posh home office, fire blazing and smoking a stogie, all eyes fixated on his fax machine….ring ring ….hurry up and ring…….
Apparently, we was a bit perturbed upon its receipt and was screaming up a storm threatening all sorts of actions against Ticor Title, demanding that the gal handling our close be fired. We ended up signing a clean copy, but no one can tell me that we did not have this guy very nervous and certainly something to hide that concerned him deeply.
Part of the deal in that close was to disburse funds to the insurance premium which just happened to be due around within a few days of closing. They failed to make that payment, and only did so after I was informed a month later that the obligation had not met. A few months later our home was invaded and removed from it was a very expensive acoustic guitar and an amplifier, to which we made claim on. As it came upon the next year and a new premium due, we received a letter from State Farm informing us that were not to be renewed and cancelled from the policy, but that the open claim would still be settled.
I was astonished that US Bank refused to come forward in our defense, as a matter they ignored our requests and were completely unresponsive. State Farm would not accept our explanation by itself and stood firm by their decision. 6 years we had paid into State Farm and was never late with this one exception and never a claim but the one that was still open. The state of Oregon claimed no regulatory authority over the insurance companies in matters of this nature, giving insurance companies free reign to set people up.
Similar to consumer credit reporting, the damage is far reaching and life altering. To be terminated from an insurance company results in higher premiums when going elsewhere, but having any claims that are under one year old makes a person uninsurable. The irony here is that to remove or make attempts to remove an open claim subjects ME to charges of fraud, can you believe that.
You all know what is coming next………forced in place insurance… 488 per month, courtesy of our friends over at US Bank. If this is not an obvious setup for foreclosure in which actionable claims are unable to stick, than I do not know what is. It was not long before we found ourselves in huge trouble, unable to meet those extra costs and having many payments sitting in suspense, the insurance and penalties being drawn from first. This goes beyond despicable as far as I am concerned.
Fortunately, we accepted by the states insurance plan named Oregon Fair Plan in which premiums are in line with conventional insurances, but in coverage lacks personal items and possessions. Unfortunately, the maximum coverage is 300,000 and our principal amount was 315,000, and US Bank declined to accept the difference. It was at this point that we learned of subprime lending and the only way that we would be able to retain our home from the clutches of US Bank was to refinance and get the hell out of there.
I did not like it, and did not want it, but what do you do lay down and die and accept the fact that you have screwed, glued and tattooed. A person can only fight for so long, but I was damned if I was going to accept losing everything to those bastards. Subprime, at least as it was pitched to me was a means by which to find our way back into prime. We had already been raped several times over, a little numb by now it, what is the harm of going 3 years with interest only, if it provides the means to a good end. Then again, a good end should have been brought about a long time prior, given triggers that provided effective consumer protection.
We financed 315,000 with US Bank with a conventional loan memorialized 11/2003 and the payout amount to escape them in 5/2005 cost us 329,000. Go ahead tell me there is nothing wrong with that….once again raped.
The interesting part of all of this is that it was originally set at 323,000 but the day after we closed with the subprime, US Bank came back with this additional amount, collecting the balance for the remainder of the forced in place policy, plus penalties and fees for essentially cancelling it by refinancing. Unbelievable.
We did not have 6 grand to pay out, and we were not really taking any money out of the refinancing, because everyone else was taking and taking, only increasing what we owe. US Bank refused to release the title until they received all the monies they felt due, holding an already done deal hostage, which set off a series of events that left me scratching my head.
Spartan Mortgage, the broker, drew up a security agreement for a loan in the amount of 6,600 cut to a check from Killion Enterprises dba Spartan Mortgage. After signing the agreement we got into his Jaguar and drove to the local US Bank branch to cash it and have it wired back to Ohio for immediate posting thereby releasing the title. We then waited a few days to have all the paperwork redrawn again to include an additional 6,600 dollars, but ended up agreeing to rounding up an additional 5,000 to a total of 350,000 dollars. In the final step we had to go to the title company and resign all the documents again, and not even thinking about any of it at the time, signed many of the documents in blank.
So people, here is the deal……I have formulated the basis for my case based on the wonderful work that Neil has done here, but I want to go further, I have to go further…..damages and all. We have endured 8 years of banking abuse and treachery. We have compromised ourselves in ways that under ordinary circumstances we would never have done. We have had our credit destroyed, my 25 career in Architecture came to abrupt end during one week in August 2007. People think that the collapse came a year later, wrong…..The first to feel the pinches in down economies is the design and development community, and it is the last to recover.
I am, for all practical purposes reaching the end of my limit, relegated to a person I know no longer know, one that has spent the last two years researching and understanding how corrupted this country is and one that sees very little future ahead. I have 3 things that I need to achieve, that I have to achieve because nothing else can be taken from me. I am not so concerned the home itself, because it has become my prison, but it is my stand.
1. My home, free and clear
2. Credit restoration
3. Damages
There are issues of MER’s and standing which I have well in hand, but there is aspects as I laid out here that go beyond and prior to the subprime. Neil is correct in saying that there is a field that attorneys are ignoring, one which can yield large judgments and in turn large fees. I can not find an attorney in the state of Oregon that gives the MERs argument any weight, yet alone what lay beyond…….I HAVE A CASE IN WHICH I AM SEEKING A LAWYER, ONE THAT TAKES IT ON MERIT FOR FUTURE FEES UPON WINNING……

503-543-3642
Lisa E, on December 16, 2009 at 3:57 pm said:

Considering it came down to Ben Bernanke and R.J. Arnold (founder & CEO of MERS)………..

I’m STILL SHOCKED!

Nah……….could it be that the choice was influenced (or fixed even) by “outside influences”?

I formally dissent and declare: The Person of the Year is our very own Neil Garfield!

We’ll have to work tirelessly to assure that next year will yield a most opposite result.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . org (remove spaces to email)
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm said:

Ron Paul: “Ben Bernanke is the most powerful man in the world because he controls the supply of money, which is the dollar, which is the reserve currency of the world. He can create a trillion dollar in secret without any monitoring by the Congress. So there’s no transparency and I think he is more powerful than the President.

The big question is, has he used that power for good, or for evil? And of course, my side of the argument is, the system is evil, and the chairman, whether it’s Greenspan or Bernanke, they can do no good. They cause our troubles, they cause the inflation, they cause the bubbles. And therefore the bust, the correction, is always their fault.”

4closureFraud
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 16, 2009 at 12:09 pm said:

Here’s the cover…

http://bit.ly/Time-Cover-Bernanke

4closureFraud
Abby in CA, on December 16, 2009 at 11:53 am said:

I’m Going to Vomit!! Bernanke and the cover is ugly and makes him look like the ‘God of Money’….ewwwww

Steve Jobs should have been the only one considered for that cover!!
Deontos, on December 16, 2009 at 11:48 am said:

ForeclosureFraud

I CAN’T BELIEVE THEY GAVE
“Man Of The Year” TO BERNANKE.

I told the selection committee
REPEATEDLY that YOU were
the OBVIOUS choice.

I don’t think they are listening to
any of us.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 16, 2009 at 11:40 am said:

Now I have seen everything…

Time’s Person of the Year

4closureFraud
Jeff, on December 15, 2009 at 3:31 pm said:

Goldman faces lawsuit over anticipated bonuses
NEW YORK
Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:20pm EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Goldman Sachs Group Inc is being sued by an institutional investor who claims the firm is preparing to pay out improper bonuses.

The lawsuit, filed with the New York Supreme Court by the Security Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, names chief executive Lloyd Blankfein and other executives and board members as defendants.

Goldman has faced a maelstrom of criticism for setting aside billions for year-end payouts soon after the firm paid back its $10 billion taxpayer bailout.

Goldman is accused in the lawsuit of “blindly” rewarding executives “for corporate performance that has absolutely nothing to do with the skill of the company’s employees.” The lawsuit states that Goldman is estimated to issue payouts in excess of $22 billion.

Goldman spokesman Lucas van Praag said the lawsuit is “completely without merit.”

Wall Street’s dominant firm, which repaid its federal bailout of $10 billion in June, announced last week that its top 30 executives would forgo cash bonuses and receive them entirely in restricted stock.

The lawsuit seeks to recover “billions in compensation” that Goldman has paid or plans to pay employees
marcus, on December 15, 2009 at 1:38 pm said:

Hello “Help”,
You may be getting to Deposition too soon. Have you gotten answer to your Interrogatories and gotten all the documents in discovery? Deposition should be your last step in the discovery phase.
At what stage of the lawsuit are you in now?

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on December 15, 2009 at 1:35 pm said:

Judge considers Restricting Wells Fargo Lawsuit
Source: AP

BALTIMORE – Dec. 15, 2009 – A federal judge suggested Monday that he might restrict the scope of a first-of-its kind lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore against mortgage giant Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

The city accuses Wells Fargo of engaging in illegal “reverse redlining” – targeting black neighborhoods for bad loans that resulted in mass foreclosures. The resulting drain on city services cost tens of millions of dollars, the lawsuit alleges.

Lawyers for Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in September, arguing that the city lacked standing to file the complaint. Baltimore was the first municipality to sue a lender in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. Similar lawsuits were later filed in Cleveland and Birmingham, Ala., but federal judges have dismissed those complaints.

During a hearing Monday on the motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz described the condition of Baltimore’s impoverished, predominantly black neighborhoods as “shocking, disturbing, despicable.” But he suggested it was implausible to hold Wells Fargo responsible for “the deterioration of the inner city.”

Baltimore has an estimated 30,000 vacant properties, but attorneys for the city have found about 150 homes that were vacant as a result of foreclosures by Wells Fargo. Motz said he would consider limiting the damages sought by the city to the costs of dealing with those properties.

“The general damages, I have problems with,” Motz said. “If in fact the case needs to be cut down, I’ll cut it down.”

Motz did not indicate when he would rule on the motion.

John P. Relman, an attorney for the city, said it was the city’s burden to show the widespread drain on property tax revenues caused by Wells Fargo’s “illegal activity” and that it would be inappropriate to limit the lawsuit at this stage.

“If they did something illegal, which reverse redlining is,” Relman said, “it’s plausible that they are responsible for the consequences of their conduct.”

To bolster its claims, the city has submitted sworn statements from two former Wells Fargo loan officers, who said bank employees targeted predominantly black ZIP codes for subprime loans that were referred to as “ghetto loans.” The lawsuits filed against lenders by other cities did not offer such specific evidence, Relman said.

Wells Fargo attorney Andrew L. Sandler said Wells Fargo would prove at trial “that these disgruntled ex-employees offered false evidence.” But the lawsuit should be thrown out even under the assumption that the employees’ statements are true, he said.

The city’s attorneys are “trying to take a set of problems that the city of Baltimore needs to deal with and blame them on one particular lender,” Sandler said.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 15, 2009 at 11:46 am said:

It’s about damn time to hear this sort of thing on mainstream TV.

Dylan Ratigan Reams Ed Perlmutter about derivatives and windfall state support to the banks.

http://bit.ly/6qnoF2

4closureFraud
Remembering Economist Paul Samuelson « Livinglies’s Weblog, on December 15, 2009 at 11:12 am said:

[...] Remembering Economist Paul Samuelson Posted on December 15, 2009 by livinglies Submitted on 2009/12/15 at 1:14am [...]
help, on December 15, 2009 at 10:20 am said:

DEOPOSITIONS- I jsut priced a days of depositions, wow $1400 for a court reporter.

Any suggestions on how to not have a court reporter and save money for depositions? this foreclosure is in floirda?
angry & NOT TAKING IT!, on December 15, 2009 at 9:59 am said:

Allan Hennessey

if you supply a brief explanation re ” correcting public records”
it will be a huge service here for all.
i have left a few messages for you@ your # but to no avail..
thank you !
Jeff, on December 15, 2009 at 9:14 am said:

WCBS NEWS LAST NIGHT NEW YORK

Bankruptcy Becoming Full Mortgage Refund For Some

Comments Dec 14, 2009 8:34 pm US/Eastern Bankruptcy Becoming Full Mortgage Refund For Some
Bank Foreclosure Filings Often Missing Paperwork Or Including Fraudulent Claims; Mortgages Getting Thrown Out Reporting
Kirstin Cole NEW YORK (CBS) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1
AP

Close

With skyrocketing foreclosure rates across the nation, homeowners have felt powerless to stop big banks from taking over. Many are turning to bankruptcy to try to save their homes.

Those dreaded legal proceedings are leading to free homes for some.

“We were terrified,” homeowner Siwanna Green said. “We didn’t know what to do.”

Green is talking about the day last spring that she found out her 3-bedroom Harlem apartment was going into foreclosure – not from the bank, but from a notice in fine print in the newspaper.

“I tried to negotiate with the bank, and they wouldn’t give me any information,” Green said. “I keep hearing my apartment is going to be sold, and they kept saying, ‘call back, call back.’”

It’s the story of many families, but this one may have a nearly fairytale ending since the Greens could get their apartment for free. After being forced into bankruptcy, Green’s lawyer David Shaev dug through reams of paperwork to find the bank that says they own the Green home doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

“They cant prove they have ownership of the mortgage or the note, and they’re filing basically are bogus claims,” Shaev said.

These cases are far from isolated. Just a handful of attorneys are finding these foreclosure filings are either missing paperwork or fraudulent, meaning the bank doesn’t have claim to the home and the mortgage just disappears.

Judges are now ruling that those mortgages be written off. A Patchogue family had their nearly $300,000 mortgage wiped out, and a Cortlandt Manor homeowner just had her $460,000 mortgage thrown out.

In a scathing court hearing the judge declared the mortgage company had a “lack of evidence” to prove they owned the home.

“The judges are very aware and catching on that the documents presented by these banks are not valid,” Shaev said.

Shaev and fellow attorneys estimate there could be $1.1 trillion worth of similar mortgage mix-ups.

“If you want to take my client’s house away, you better at least prove you have the right to,” Shaev said.

A lack of that proof could lead to a very Merry Christmas for some.

While these homeowners can live in their houses free and clear, selling it is another matter since the title is in question. Those battles are currently being fought in court as well
ALLAN (with a sad farewell to Nobel economist Paul Samuelson a giant in financial engineering), on December 15, 2009 at 1:14 am said:

IN MEMORIAM — December 13, 2009
Remembering Economist Paul Samuelson

By: Murrey Jacobson

Update: You can read economics correspondent Paul Solman’s reflections on Samuelson’s life and work here on Making Sen$e.

The world lost one of the giants in modern economics Sunday when Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson died at his home in Belmont, Mass., at the age of 94.

Samuelson became the first American to win a Nobel Prize in economics in 1970 for his pivotal work in bringing mathematical analysis to economics. But Samuelson was known for much more than that: A well-known liberal, Samuelson was an economist who was influential in both the academic world and the real world. He advised and influenced Democrats, including President John F. Kennedy; he helped spread the ideas of Keynesian economics and the notion of government spending and tax cuts when required; his textbook was read by millions of college students; and it could be argued that along with Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith, he was one of the most influential economists of his generation.

He once told an interviewer that he aimed to make economics “enjoyable and understandable.” That was true of his seminal textbook, which has sold more than 4 million copies. And it was true of his wide-ranging work over eight decades, his theories analyzing everything from the fluctuation of markets and of business cycles to the impact of trade to the idea of public goods — goods or services that could only be provided by the government or a collective action.

In awarding him the Nobel in 1970, the committee wrote, “More than any other contemporary economist, he has contributed to raising the general analytical and methodological level in economic science…He has in fact simply rewritten considerable parts of economic theory.”

His mathematical analysis had a huge impact. Robert Lucas, the Nobel Prize winning economist at the University of Chicago, put it this way in his memoir, “I came to the position that mathematical analysis is not one of many ways of doing economic theory: It is the only way. Economic theory is mathematical analysis. Everything else is just pictures and talk.”

Our economics correspondent Paul Solman knew Samuelson and interviewed him at MIT many times over the years. When I spoke with Paul earlier today, he recalled how Samuelson continued to work in recent years and how he “was still so sharp, sharp as a tack” when they talked this year.

Paul will provide his own remembrance of Samuelson on his Making Sen$e site tomorrow. For the moment, his most recent interview with Samuelson last year is well worth your time and gives you some feeling for the intellectual vitality that Samuelson displayed well into his nineties. They discussed what led to the financial crisis of 2008.

More tributes will continue in the days ahead, but here’s a small sampling of statements made today:

Larry Summers, the head of President Obama’s National Economic Council and a nephew of Samuelson’s, said: “Above all else, Paul Samuelson was a scholar. He used to proudly remark that he had never spent a full week in Washington. But through his research, teaching, and writing he had more impact on the economic life of this country and the world than any government economic official and many presidents. We will not see his likes again.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke studied at MIT and was once a student of Samuelson’s. He called him a “path-breaking and prolific economic theorist and one of the greatest teachers that economics has ever known.”

And Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel in 2008, wrote on his blog today: “Its hard to convey the full extent of Samuelson’s greatness. Most economists would love to have written even one seminal paper – a paper that fundamentally changes the way people think about some issue. Samuelson wrote dozens.”

Both Chairman Bernanke and Krugman gave one other tribute: They both noted that they keep Samuelson’s textbook in their offices. Krugman even posted a picture of it.

This is all just a small summary of the man’s accomplishments. The New York Times has a much fuller appreciation of Samuelson up on its Web site, which is worth a look.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Samuelson was deeply aware he, as a kind of Doctor Frankenstein, may have helped create financial engineering monsters on Wall Street in the form of derivatives, credit default swaps and the like. He traces Wall Street’s current demise to excesses that began with the 1980s.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on December 14, 2009 at 10:11 pm said:

Don’t read this unless you are BORED and have some spare time.
—————————————————————————————

How To Make The World’s Easiest $1 Billion

With all the banks paying back the TARP money, some
folks are assuming that the great Wall Street bailout is
finally coming to an end.
But of course it isn’t!

Taxpayers are still guaranteeing all big bank bonds (Too Big To
Fail) and subsidizing huge bank earnings and bonuses with
absurdly low interest rates.

But instead of bellyaching about it, you might as well just smile
and cash in. After all, that’s what Wall Street’s doing.
So here’s how to make the world’s easiest $1 billion:

STEP 1: Form a bank.

STEP 2: Round up a bunch of unemployed friends to be “bankers.”

STEP 3: Raise $1 billion of equity. (This is the only tricky step. And it’s not that tricky. See below.*)

STEP 4: Borrow $9 billion from the Fed at an annual cost of 0.25%.

STEP 5: Buy $10 billion of 30-year Treasuries paying 4.45%

STEP 6: Sit back and watch the cash flow in.

At this spread, you should be earning at least 4% per year on your $10 billion of capital, or $400 million. Sure,
there’s some risk that the Fed will grow a backbone and raise short rates, but there’s not much risk. (They have an
economy to fix and banks to secretly recapitalize). And in any event, if the Fed raises short rates, making your $1
billion will just take a bit longer. (And if they REALLY raise rates, causing you to actually lose money, it will be
someone else’s problem.)

You’ll have made $400 million in a single year! So pay yourself a fat salary for all your hard work. And pay your
“bankers” fat salaries for all their hard work (But don’t worry–your bankers won’t actually have to do anything. You’ll
just need one of them to borrow the money from the Fed and buy the Treasuries, which he will be able to do
part-time.) At the end of the year, celebrate. It’s bonus time!

Don’t be greedy. Pay yourself and your bankers the industry-standard compensation ratio of 50% of revenue. Your
revenue was $400 million, so that creates a $200 million bonus pool. Pay each of your unemployed friends bankers,say, $1 million. And give yourself the rest for being such a smart entrepreneur and creating all the jobs and value.

Now, you’ve already made at least $150 million, so it doesn’t really matter what happens next. But you’re in this for
the world’s easiest $1 billion, right?

So proceed to Step 7.

STEP 7: Go public. After bonuses, your bank will be earning about $200 million a year, your capital ratio will be
super-strong (10% equity-to-debt!), and your balance sheet will be clean as a whistle (all risk-free Treasuries!). So
you ought to be able to persuade investors to pay you at least 20-times earnings, or a valuation of $4 billion. Sell
25% of the company for $1 billion.

STEP 8: Use your $1 billion of new equity to borrow another $9 billion at 0.25% from the Fed. Buy another $9 billion of Treasuries. Collect another $400 million a year. Pay yourself and your team bonuses that are twice as large as last year’s. You deserve it! And you’re now about $500 million to the good.

STEP 9: Wait for your stock
to double or triple, which won’t take long given your amazing growth trajectory and clean balance sheet. When your market cap hits $10 billion, sell another 10% of the company for $1 billion. Now you’re really ready to grow.

STEP 10: If you want to get fancy and get nice profiles written about you in business magazines, start buying branch networks from defunct banks (the FDIC will pay you to take them) and start making actual loans. Also, start hiring trading desks to gamble on things more exotic than Treasuries. Yes, all this sounds risky, but just remember–the risk isn’t yours, and you’re already $500 million to the good.

STEP 11: Sell $500 million of your stock to a “strategic investor” and let the rest ride. Don’t worry, if your traders and loan officers turn out to be idiots or the Fed suddenly raises rates, the taxpayers will handle it. And you’ve already made your $1 billion.

So, congratulations, you’re now a billionaire! Now all there is left to do is celebrate!

________________________________________________________

* If you’ve been paying attention, you will note that the only potentially tricky step in this process is the “raise $1 billion of equity.” Where, exactly, are you going to get $1 billion of equity? Well, you will have to do some selling there.

Basically, you’ll have to tell a few investors about your awesome new business plan (see above) that will earn them returns of at least 20% on their equity from Day 1. A 20% return on equity is a lot, especially when the return is largely risk free. So you should have no problem raising that $1 billion of equity.

Given the government’s desperate desire to get banks to start lending
again, you might also want to try to hit up the government for some funds. The pitch will be simple: Old banks aren’t lending because they’re hiding embedded losses and need to protect their balance sheets. You don’t have that problem. You’ll use the equity to LEND. (And you will use it to lend! You don’t have to say that you’re going to lend it to the US government. None of the other banks are saying that.)
marcus, on December 14, 2009 at 6:46 pm said:

This is in response to “Help” request::

Check these attorneys:

Dawn Rapoport: Attorney in Ft Lauderdale
Christie D. Arkovich Tampa, FL

I don’t know if they will help a Pro Se, but they know their stuff.

Contact Florida Defense Team. They specifically help Pro Se.
floridadefenseteam@comcast.net

Good Luck,

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on December 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm said:

Whack a Banker game in England big hit:

(from reuters)
Inventor Tim Hunkin says the ”Whack A Banker” machine at his pier arcade in Southwold, Suffolk, is proving a great investment.
Punters are promised a ”truly rewarding banking experience” and use a mallet to hit as many bald pop-up figures as they can in a limited time.
”You pay 40p to hit as many bankers as you can in 30 seconds as their heads pop up. It’s based on an older game called ‘Whack a Mole’,” said Mr Hunkin, 58.
”It’s proving very popular. I keep having to replace worn-out mallets.”
He added: ”The bankers are bald and all look the same because that’s how I think people see bankers – as faceless.
”And, of course, the bankers never really lose. If you win the game a banker’s voice says: ‘You win. We retire. Thank you very much to the taxpayer for paying our pensions’.”
help, on December 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm said:

I need a florida attorney to help a Pro Se person in a foreclosure case. any recommendations?
steve sinacola, on December 14, 2009 at 3:56 pm said:

Lisa E…thanks. Hopefully I can discover something regarding indispensable parties .
Deontos, on December 14, 2009 at 3:46 pm said:

Laundered Drug Money Saved Many Banks Says UN Crime Chief

Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations‘ drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.

Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.

This will raise questions about crime’s influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago.
marcus, on December 14, 2009 at 12:26 pm said:

House kills mortgage relief in Wall Street bill
Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Dec. 14, 2009 – The House has rejected an effort to expand a Wall Street regulation bill with mortgage relief that would let debt-ridden homeowners reduce their payments in bankruptcy court. The vote was 241-188 to reject.

The provision would have revived a previous bill that passed the House but later failed in the Senate.

Democrats hoped that by inserting the provision in the regulatory legislation they would have had another opportunity to make it law. Aiding homeowners through bankruptcy had been a key feature of President Barack Obama’s foreclosure fighting proposal, but the president did not push for it.

Banks and credit unions have lobbied against the bankruptcy measure. They say it would force a flood of bankruptcy filings and ultimately drive up mortgage rates.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Jason in GA, on December 14, 2009 at 12:21 am said:

New strategy, any ideas?

As you may know, GA is a non-judicial foreclosure state so a lender can foreclose without going to court. Here’s my situation in a nutshell. After sending numerous QWR letters to my lender and being blown off, I eventually sent a notice of rescission to my servicer “CitiMortgage” and to the original lender. Next I stopped making payments and waited for them to respond. They ignored my rescission notice, and sent a notice of default and acceleration instead. Next CitiMortgage sent notice of a scheduled foreclosure sale from their attorney. Then they filed a fraudulent assignment of the deed from “MERS” to CitiMortgage. I sent their attorney notice that the mortgage and note had been rescinded and that any attempt to foreclose would open their firm and CitiMortgage open to legal action. They ignored me and foreclosed anyway, then purchased the home themselves at the sherrifs sale.

Now,

I plan on pursuing damages for TILA and RESPA violations in federal court, but I am drafting a suit in State court first. So far I am bringing suit for wrongful foreclosure, theft by deception, theft by conversion, and seeking damages the price of the home itsself.

In GA, the law governing unlawful foreclosures (O.C.G.A. 51-12-5) allows you to either sue to reverse an unlawful power of sale, or to sue for damages resulting from the wrongful foreclosure. My strategy is to seek damages for the actual value of the home itsself. It’s my position that my home “which was stolen from me” was an unsecured property at the time of the sale. The security instruments that would have given CitiMortgage the legal grounds to pursue forecloseure was voided the very second I rescinded the loan. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any assignment of the note from the original lender to them anyway. So, in essence they took my home, and should be liable to me for the fair market value of the home. Of course, the foreclosure may stand on the official record, but I can live with that for a cool $180,000. If anyone has ever heard of this approach , please let me know. I am currently proceeding pro se, and would appreciate any advice here. Thank You.
Lisa E., on December 13, 2009 at 11:22 pm said:

To: steve sinacola,

Steve,

My questions to you would be:

1) When was that statute last amended?

2) Is there ANY MI case law regarding notifying indispensable parties (maybe first research in regards to foreclosures and then branch out into other areas of secured debt).

By reading the wording, I would still think one would have an argument (albeit one that requires much coddling). From my understanding (which, admittedly has lots of room to grow), MERS is neither the creditor, does not hold an interest in the property, and is not a servicer.

How I see it (and perhaps I’m wrong), MERS is a big ole’ computer database, owned by R.J. Arnold, with a bunch of confusing legalese backing up it’s (false) position as a “nominee” with the rights of land transfer and foreclosure in the event the borrower stops making payments to their servicer (despite the fact that the default does not harm MERS in the slightest).

After MERS forecloses in your state, what happens? Does a MERS rep. show up to buy the house at auction? Does MERS show as payer of taxes on the county public records after foreclosure if no buyer purchased the house? Does MERS sell it to the next (poor sap now with an unclean title) buyer? What do the county clerk records show as far as how MERS washes up that unclean title?

A little study of 10 or so foreclosed homes from early 2009 to research and follow the trail of post-foreclosure action might reveal some interesting information.

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ALLAN (with a question for eponymous ALLAN HENNESSEY), on December 13, 2009 at 8:31 pm said:

ALLAN, though BK 7 can discharge an obligation, how do you keep a creditor from going after the underlying collateral in rem?

Got a Cliff Notes’ version of your dissertation?

RSVP as I have mail meant 4 U

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Allan Hennessey, on December 13, 2009 at 5:01 pm said:

For everyone that is wondering what the silver bullet that I had was…

There isnt one!

In my personal case… I declared on my schedules of UNSECURED NON PRIORITY debts ALL parties… The Servicer, Originator, Investment bank who originator sold note to.

If you already filed BK7 and put them down as secured debts…

AMEND YOUR SCHEDULES! If you declare them secured, it doesnt matter whether they are or not. You make it so.

If any party ATTEMPTS to come back later down the road to foreclose… Hit them with a cease and desist demand, referencing the discharge of the debt, and the consequences for collecting on a discharged debt.

Only thing left is the Deed of Trust. I will not provide full details of how this is accomplished, as it requires a dissertation and your understanding of many principles of fact before understanding.

Simply put… there is a solution for correcting the public record to reflect reality… I do suppose this is the silver bullet… Correcting the Deed of Trust / Mortgage in the public record.

To be CLEAR… Bankruptcy court is not for everyone and you can arrive at the same place I have without going there!

To arrive at a place in life, where you do not have to worry about losing your home… Give me a call.

Allan

1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
usedkarguy, on December 13, 2009 at 4:54 pm said:

Lisa, you beat me to it. I found that article yesterday at work.
angry & NOT TAKING IT!, on December 13, 2009 at 4:36 pm said:

Allan Hennessey,
can you post a description of the way you scheduled the mortgages, and the titles.. ie bank, mortgage company, [the real names are not necessary ] the more info the more help it is to everyone here..
tia
totally angry!!
steve sinacola, on December 13, 2009 at 1:16 pm said:

Michigan Foreclosure law in part says “The party foreclosing the mortgage is either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness
secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage”.

It seems that the definition of “holder in due course” has been expanded to include the gaggle of actors found in securitized loans. Michigan is nonjudicial foreclosure by advertisement. Almost without exception MERS is the party that initiates foreclosures in Michigan.

My question is does this wording nullify the defences found on this site.

thanks in advance
Lisa E., on December 13, 2009 at 6:15 am said:

Perspective.

2009 Foreclosure Actions: by year’s end an estimated 3.9 million properties to receive either a default , or auction notice, or were seized by banks. There is 2.5 people per household in the U.S. Admittedly, there are empty investment houses and non-residential commercial properties and also raw land properties in that 3.9 million total. Although, some of those foreclosures are multi-family rental units affecting many more than 2.5 people. Still, I estimate at least 7.5 MILLION Americans are 2009 “Foreclosees”; all ages, both genders, children, pets, unemployed, elderly, disabled, people in all levels of the financial spectrum.

April – November 2009 Swine Flu Stats: “more than 200,000 hospitalizations… and sadly, nearly 10,000 deaths including 1,100 among children and 7,500 among younger adults. Thomas Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told reporters.

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E., on December 13, 2009 at 5:07 am said:

Let me try that link again….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704201404574590453176996032.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Lisa E., on December 13, 2009 at 5:05 am said:

Thanks to Dave L. who sent me thislink about Goldman & AIG’s torrid affair.

Gosh, reading this article shows how much fun all these investment bankers had playing around with the homes of American families; a little appraisal fraud here, a little upwards adjustment of borrower income and assets there, a little mortgage backed securities (collateralized debt obligation) here, a little credit default swap there, a little over-rated AAA bond here, a little bailout there.

Yo-Ho-Ho and a bottle of rum!
We’ll pirate a family’s home,
And have some fun!

Pardon my breaking into song. I feel like I’m going crazy as I learn more and more about the background of this Foreclosure Catastrophe.

How can this be?

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Foreclosure Hamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
M. Soliman, on December 13, 2009 at 1:18 am said:

” Christmas Day Lock Out! ”
By m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com

Reader Comments – - – Abbey ty for your response, I do not understand why he (Attorney) hasn’t filed a suit . . .I am down to my last trick up my sleeve . . . .as i have already filed my bankruptcy and it would seem that avenue is now lost to me. Sorry . . .I am about to lose my home, right before Christmas…
————————————————————————————-
December 11th 2009

Dear Reader-

You got some good advice here so if nothing else read it and do something. My input is as follows:

1) Christmas, Valentine’s Day or Ground Hog day…one thing has nothing to do with the other. Consciousness here okay.

2) What tricks up your sleeve are necessary? I will be happy to call the attorney (Abby too I am sure ) and ask this mysterious legal pundit what the hell is going on.

3) I would be interested in seeing all documents recorded and affecting title “obtained from the county recorder.

4) Forget what you already have as the stamped documents from the recorder that are the only set admissible as evidence …sometimes they slip something in there that is recorded you’ll need in your defense.

Let’s start here – I can review for integrity check all recorded instruments affecting title looking for defects.
Defects compel a trustee recovery firm to rescind or toss the sale.

You want to portray the deed as resting in a disturbed state and as such title you assigned over to the trustee is defect where the sale is prohibited in a transfer of any real property. This is due to an unenforceable conveyance that’s seen or determinable as void and not or voidable.I’m aware of at least one client a week getting the sale rescinded using this approach. In parting, a week to go is an eternity in this business. Who are the “parties” (not lender) taking you to sale anyway.

The lender does not own your home, and the claim filed under a Power of sale lacks any standing and the sale will suffer a from unlawful conveyance . The limited jurisdiction of the court forces the matter against you as a holdover and subject to an lawful detainer hearing to be dismissed in favor of the lender NOT YOU bringing the action in an unlimited civil filing.

You can do this if your smart and think it through. Stay out of U/D hearings. Superior Court dockets show backlog and first hearing pushed likely set in April for unlimited civil filings.

Remember,evidence of consideration and a mutual intent are basic element for argument supporting a lawful assignment. Sorry, it just does not exist Mr. Lender. NG called it a “pretender lender” the LL coined pharse.I am pressing this with the parties and prevailing. Why are not the rest of you?

This nonsense will result in SEC indictments filed against recovery attorneys.Look out as likely malpractice suits aginst any attorney still seeking modifications that DO NOT EXIST.

Careful here counsel, the stakes just got higher. There is no modification AVAILABLE by parties of interest who lack standing as a holder in due course. I again guarantee it. You WILL be home for Christmas. [www.foreclosureinfosearch.com]

I Guarantee it!

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
.
Allan Hennessey, on December 12, 2009 at 10:39 pm said:

Hillary… please feel free to contact me… I do not charge to tell my story… (all I can do since I do not give legal advice)

I am certain we can arrive at a course of action for you to take.

Allan
800-552-9313 Ext 111
help, on December 12, 2009 at 3:42 pm said:

FLOIRDA requirements-

in foreclosure, the bank appears to have kept the note for my loan.

1) The orginal loan was signed for us by a power of attorney, the realtor. THEN the witness, the closing agent never notarized the documents with a stamp notary. does this help us make the note not valid?

2) two later loan renewals were mailed out to us and signed out of state and also not notarized, does this help?
Abby in CA, on December 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm said:

hilary g–I’d be on the phone every single day until I got a copy of the billing charges (detailed) and I’d fax them the same request several times a day. You have every right as the consumer to know how every penny is spent that you have sent them.

I am not an attorney nor providing any legal advice, however, if I were in your shoes, I’d do one of two things at this critical juncture: keep up the payments
OR fire the attorney and file your own lawsuit(s).

I’d probably keep up the payments. If they screw up, then you file complaint with state bar and you could possibly later sue the lawyer. If you don’t keep up with the payments, then the firm will probably drop you like a hot potato and focus on all those who are paying.

You will have to decide.
Abby in CA, on December 12, 2009 at 3:03 pm said:

ANOTHER AVENUE POSSIBLY
should you find forgeries on your documents, especially with the same notary doing the notarization of the same executive or officer in different states, such as in Florida and then California—different forged signatures, then be aware, that at least in California, the notary has a bond and the information on the bond & bonding company should be filed with the county of record for the notary. Thus, since it is a felony in California for the notary to notarize forged docs, you might be able to go after the notary and recover $$ from the bonding company.

I’d seriously advise, whether or not you’d use the forgeries in your case to recover or keep your home, that you obtain certified copies of the recordings and file a complaint with your local District Attorney and the FBI office nearest you. Forgery is very serious.

You’d want to attach the certified copies to the complaint. Typically, in order for criminal charges to be filed, the DA has to do it.
hilary g, on December 12, 2009 at 10:11 am said:

abby ty for your response, I did ask for a detailed invoice over a month ago and I did not hear from him until thursday last and he put me on the phone with his “negotiator” and no mention of the billing. I have not sent my $1,000.00 for this month and my house is set to sell on Tuesday the 15th. I do not understand why he hasn’t filed a suit and got us to discovery the way Neil and Brad et al advocate. I think I am down to my last trick up my sleeve so to speak. I wish i had known what Mr. Hennesey was doing as i have already filed my bankruptcy and it would seem that avenue is now lost to me. sorry if I ramble but I am really feeling like I am about to lose my home, right before christmas…
M. Soliman, on December 12, 2009 at 10:01 am said:

The note defense is worthless and I am not sure (hm mm) what you’re interpretation is for the judges remarks. If limited jurisdiction was prevailing then no challenge to the note is customary whereby the jurisdiction is an unlimited civil matter is deemed appropriate.

The defendant filing as plaintiff is appropriate and limited jurisdiction is cause for either to throw out the current ruling either way.

It’s just a fact I come to accept and a waste of time. Limited jurisdiction and related hearings are simply procedural and not customary to affirmative defense challenges. We have three current cases of forgery, back dating and lack of chronological order all for Notice and “defect” recording information.

My recommend is staying the hell out of the limited jurisdiction and submit the lawsuit with an immediate exparte citing judicial relief. In other words no need to consolidate the matter or injunction if the court will consider in a hearing the questions of evidence for violating a power of sale under a trustees guidance.

All loans are booked and sold. Got it.
Do the accounting yourself:

Loans held $1 06,500
Loan Held – $(95,000)
————–
Cash Acct. $(11,500)

A VC of $6,500 booked at origination is not inclusive of FC (assuming a SLA) and near double the combined expense or $20,000 added to your capitalized basis. If cash offsets to the basis in assets held results in a 5% clip (haircut) – total cash outlay is over $11,000.

Compare to a securitization example:

Loans Sold $106,500
Loans Held $ 0.00
————–
Shares Acquired
At par value $106,500

The SPV offers “advantageous “crack-head” accounting for a levered opportunity at 3.5 multiples and equals off balance sheet lines of credit totaling $325,000 in working capital.

The SPV eats the warehouse line and “Liabilities” held by the FDIC bank backing the platform and deal (loops) how we know….

I wondered what they meant by a introducing a “Troubled Assets Relief Program and Assets Recovery etc. The government used a relief program to crap out three major prestigious banking turfs overnight? (thinking about forming a Citizens Consumer Bounty Hunter program and start investigating the roles of these banking morons who are scheming their next move back into South Hampton with their Grey Pompon and favorite whines (“honey I need more , bring me more excesses, scar$# the little guys, bring me more….).

Lender Loser Watch list (for executive resurfacing)
1) Dingy Savings,
2 We Mooch FSB
3 Indy Mess FSB)

What happened to Glass-Seagull*

(* enacted during the Great Depression. It protected bank depositors from the additional risks associated with security transactions. The act was dismantled in 1999. Consequently, the distinction between commercial banks and brokerage firms has blurred; many banks own brokerage firms and provide investment services.)
———————————————
“Bernie Mad off was a piker compared to the fraud found at Indy Mac Bank”
William Black (on Bill Moyer / PBS interview)
———————————————-
Best news feature of the week –

Reporter said “Some feared for Mad offs life in prison where harming him garners instant celebrity notoriety. But prison officials claim his willingness to remain silent has earned him instant admiration. He is labeled someone who did not “snitch” and gained some new fame behind bars.

.. . Where is this society going…going…gone!

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman, on December 12, 2009 at 8:57 am said:

NG and staff of Livinglies….

This site is not an easy place to survive scrutiny and that is something I admire and homeowners should welcome.

Thanks LL for showing your readers who are the real Dead Beat’s . “That’s when a lender walks on a tax payer insured “line of credit” for the amount of a mortgage but has little if anything in common left with the borrowers loan it was used to fund.

There are only two options for the informed reader. Win back your home or allow yourself to lose it back to a disinterested impostor.

Stay clear of the nay-sayer whose challenges throughout history are motivated by wrong disinterested intentions. And remember… Its true that in a foreclosure a lender may lack any rights to offer you relief and has likely lost the note to their defense. That is especially true concerning their rights to an expeditious power of sale. These facts are a corollary we must surrender too in these trying times.

This site is an attorney sponsored reference and think tank who allows the homeowner and their counsel to survive any claims to the contrary and to develop better arguments while growing with confidence each day.

Thanks Livinglies;

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Deontos, on December 11, 2009 at 2:59 pm said:

KIBOSHED LENDER DEFIES COURT ORDER?
(Indymac still demanding payment from Yano-Horoski)

Bills Homeowner For $474K
Two Weeks After Long Island Judge Wipes Out
Loan In Foreclosure For “Repugnant” Conduct
In Suffolk County, New York, Newsday reports:

* The state Supreme Court justice who last month lashed out at a bank’s dealings with an East Patchogue family facing foreclosure and canceled the mortgage on the home has ordered the bank and the homeowners back to court, records show.

* Justice Jeffrey Spinner wants the parties to return to discuss a recent letter from IndyMac Mortgage Services that says $474,936.78 still is owed, according to legal documents obtained by Newsday. Spinner’s unusual decision to cancel the mortgage generated much attention. His ruling said the lender – a division of OneWest Bank, FSB – was “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” in proceedings where the homeowners attempted to work out a loan modification.

* This week, Spinner ordered that a conference be held Dec. 18 in Riverhead to explore “at length” the bank’s letter, which was dated two weeks after his initial ruling. Homeowners Diana Yano-Horoski and husband Gregory Horoski could not be reached Thursday. After the first decision, Gregory Horoski told Newsday he was stunned that the decision essentially gave them the house outright, but that he worried the bank would appeal and prevail.

* Spinner’s latest order notes that the letter came after he “barred, prohibited and foreclosed” the bank from taking any action to enforce the mortgage and adjustable rate note on the Oakland Street house.

REMEMBER THESE GOOD LENDERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW ON ANOTHER CASE THEY
LOST.

** IT IS ABOUT TIME TO PUT A FACE ON THE FACELESS
DECISION MAKERS HERE AND INDICT THEM. **
Abby in CA, on December 11, 2009 at 12:35 pm said:

PUBLIC CITIZEN IN WASHINGTON DC

We’re getting closer.

As I write, the U.S. House of Representatives is on the verge of taking an important first step to rein in Wall Street by passing the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

Thanks in no small part to the work that we’ve done together, the bill creates a powerful financial consumer watchdog agency.

But the bill doesn’t do nearly enough. The banksters crashed our economy once, and they’ll do it again – unless we stop them.

Now, we need to get a running start as the fight moves to the Senate.

Contribute $35, $75 or $120 today to help us keep up the momentum and remind Wall Street how powerful Main Street can be!

Wall Street and the big banks know how much is at stake. That’s why they’re pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the fight.

We can overcome their money and power. But every minute counts and it’s going to take everything we’ve got. That’s why I need your help.

To take on the Wall Street banksters and keep up the momentum, can you help me raise $25,000 in the next 48 hours?

Contribute $35, $75 or $120 today to help us keep up the momentum and remind Wall Street how powerful Main Street can be!

More than a year since Wall Street brought down the national economy, Congress has finally taken a first step to re-regulate the big banks.

Now, as the fight moves to the Senate, we are gaining momentum. There Public Citizen will lead the fight to strengthen the House bill.

We’ll fight to break up the “too big to fail” banks that grow bigger every day, tax the obscene bonuses Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks are paying to their executives, and strengthen the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

But we will also encounter a ferocious assault in the Senate from powerful banking lobbyists who, to paraphrase Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Assistant Majority Leader, “own the place.”

Contribute $35, $75 or $120 today to help us keep up the momentum and remind Wall Street how powerful Main Street can be!

Robert Weissman
President, Public Citizen

P.S. It’s the dedication and loyal support of members like you who make our work possible. This campaign to take on Wall Street is impossible without your help. Please make a generous contribution of $35, $75 or even $120 today and help us raise the $25,000 we need to fight corporate power.

GO TO THIS LINK TO SUPPORT PUBLIC CITIZEN

https://secure.citizen.org/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=5502&track=w10dev1211FinRef1
steve sinacola, on December 11, 2009 at 12:32 pm said:

HOUSE REJECTS MORTGAGE CRAMDOWN LEGISLATION…

Anybody have any questions in regards to WHO their non representing representatives are in reality representing.

this ought to clear that point up for ya

here
reuters dot com/article/idUSTRE5BA3CN20091211?type=politicsNews
Abby in CA, on December 11, 2009 at 9:45 am said:

5 Year Old Boy Killed During Family’s Foreclosure Move—from wire reports’ 12/11/2009 Modesto, California A Modesto family was making funeral plans for their 5 year old son as dozens of neighbors and friends helped empty the family’s foreclosed house this week. Robert Martinez’s parents moved furniture from house to garage to stage it for loading into moving truck. The little boy opened the garage door when no relatives were around and it struck a tall cabinet which then teetered and fell on him killing him. He tried to stop the teetering. He could not be saved by paramedics. The local mortuary has offered to provide free services & burial worth $7500. The foreclosure move was completed. LET’S BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!! It is bad enough for all families to suffer stress & financial duress with this foreclosure ‘rape’…..but other dangerous things can happen and the big banks could care less!! Don’t you think the banks, lawyers and court could have shown a little respect and compassion in this situation????
Abby in CA, on December 11, 2009 at 9:37 am said:

hilary g — every attorney should be sending the client each month a detailed billing statement against any client retainers and monthly payments. The attorney should be sending copies of anything filed with respect to the case. I hope you at least have a copy of the contract or agreement signed by you and the attorney. If you are in California, I can almost guess which attorney this is, if not, it has become a common place practice for attorneys. You are a consumer of the attorney’s services. I’d also advise everyone on this site to make sure there are some clear milestones or endpoints in the contract for services. I know some attorneys are charging 1K per month, with no end dates!! Now we all know that cases take time and can be unpredictable…..but there could be some milestones, deliverables etc.. that attorney should meet and then the contract can be re-negotiated. Just a for instance: if attorney plans to file bkr, then when bkr is complete….renegotiate…..and then attorney will file a fraud complaint….etc. I can understand how fearful and helpless people feel and so they just pay the attorney ongoing the 1K per month without another thought. hillary g—-immediately request a detailed invoice/billing statement from attorney….they have to provide this to you the consumer…..else, file complaint with state bar.
hilary g, on December 10, 2009 at 10:41 pm said:

My auction date is the fifteenth of Dec. after a release of stay from my bankruptcy, and then a 60 day postponement on stipulation from their attorneys. Now my attorney wants me to pursue a loan mod w/ a principal reduction (to what I have no idea) with his “negotiator” and if they will not postpone again, then he will file tro? lawsuit and try to get a restraining order. He has been my attorney since july and I have paid him around $8,000.00 by now, which includes the bankruptcy fees. I think they want me to pay more money for the “negotiator” and I haven’t seen a bill yet for anything. Am I right to be worried?
ALLAN (with a hearty CONGRATULATIONS and HIGH FIVE to the eponymous ALLAN HENNESSEY), on December 10, 2009 at 9:26 pm said:

ALLAN, first of all CONGRATULATIONS!

Back in 2002 I too sought BK protection, and did exactly as you did, though I never sought a discharge.

Filed in 2002 a Chapter 13 BK the very afternoon vultures were gathering around my Cambridge home of 20 years and it was valued at 10 times what I bought it for initially in 1983. This was after 9/11 when the anthrax scare delayed a renter’s 3-month rent check’s NSF status by 90 days. Lender (now the Royal Bank of Scotland) refused to let me catch up despite FHA requirements that they do. Their refusal was a protracted SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) action to ‘reward’ me for my active public participation. You see, I was very involved in a civic association that targeted the corrupt county political machine that operated with the all the impunity of Tammany Hall. The party that controls patronage gets unrivaled access to the judges’ ears through the clerks they put in place, enough to influence a case’s outcome at both district and superior court levels.

I listed my second mortgage as UNSECURED, as it was obtained (as was the first) by this lender’s fraud and racketeering. My first lawyer, who should have been up to speed on foreclosure defense, wavered in his defense of my unusual and novel position. He caved over my objections, largely because my judge (chief judge at the time) had it in for him for all the appeals he took over this judge’s arbitrary rulings. For the next four years my next two lawyers fought over it. To make matters worse, one of the lawyers representing the bank knew something my attorneys couldn’t have known. As the judge’s former clerk, he knew the judge ALWAYS awarded banks their fees, no matter what they were. I ended up paying a hugely unreasonable and inflated $55,000 in legal fees directly to the bank over a $15,000 mortgage. This on top of what I had to pay my counsel. Talk about a coup de grâce! Sadly I was too tapped out to muster an appeal. Deep pockets assure unjust, sometimes corrupt, outcomes. My faith in our vaunted judicial system remains badly shaken.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
12.10.09 9:26
UsedKarGuy, on December 10, 2009 at 7:20 pm said:

Allan Hennessey! CONGRATULATIONS! You put a smile back on my face!
Allan Hennessey, on December 10, 2009 at 3:20 pm said:

Dan,

In all fairness much of the deposition/examination was regarding other debts being discharged as well.

There was a court reporter, I can get a transcript…

I submitted a few bankruptcy decisions along with my documentation, and after I explained the fraud that applied to my case, the Trustee asked me…

“Is it your position that due to the unsecured nature of these debts, and your claimed homestead exemption, that you should come out of this bankruptcy action owning your home free and clear of all debt?”

I responded with a grin… “Yes ma’am, that is in fact my position indeed!”

and that was it!

No Trial, No proceedings, no arguments, no briefings, and most importantly… NO ATTORNEY.
Dan Edstrom, on December 10, 2009 at 2:43 pm said:

Allan,
Did you have a court reporter when you talked with the Trustee for 2.5 hours? Or if you have perfect recall it would be great if you could write it up.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Allan Hennessey, on December 10, 2009 at 2:14 pm said:

Hey Folks!

To be clear… there is not a lot to work with in the BK file or the State Court Case… It was simple… I listed my Mortgages as UNSECURED Debts… There was no judges decision or dramatic citation. The servicers and pretender lenders just took a nice long walk… and let the time frame to object expire!

This is not the best method for everyone… You need to consider all your options before filing bankruptcy.

The truth is that it is much easier for many people’s situations.

Most situations require an identification of the specific fraud relevant to your situation… followed by a correction of the public record, utilizing multiple options for how to accomplish that. County Recorder/Clerk, or online(NationalRepublicRegistry.com)(Great place to record lis pendens when county won’t), Many folks just publish by newspaper, and get a notary to certify such.

The answers are here… Lets find the right one for you together.
Deontos, on December 10, 2009 at 1:47 pm said:

Dan or ANYONE,

Can anybody post access to the actual BK Case File?

Cases Report for 8/13/2009
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Western District of Washington

Gerald Allan Hennessey
09-45890-PBS bk 7
Filed: 08/13/2009
Entered: 08/13/2009
Office: Tacoma
Assets: No
Abby in CA, on December 10, 2009 at 10:57 am said:

ALLAN—wahoooo!!! Congratulations to you.
Dan Edstrom, on December 10, 2009 at 10:42 am said:

ALLAN,
CONGRATULATIONS, that is awesome! The post is probably not showing up yet because of the email address. Here it is just in case:

REAL SUCCESS STORY!

Sorry I have not posted for a bit… been off in the trenches!

Many of you have seen my previous posts providing details of my story along the way over the last 18 months. I will quickly outline my story.

Let me cover some basic facts here about MY PERSONAL HOME:

I have not paid a single mortgage payment since January 2008 after my purchase in 2006.

My loan originated with Decision One/HSBC. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is named as the nominee on MY Deed of Trust. (I emphasize MY Deed of Trust for a reason ~ See below)

A Foreclosure auction date was set, and I filed a State Civil Lawsuit in 11/2008 with a Lis Pendens that was effective at getting Recontrust (the Foreclosure Trustee) to cease the auction. After Depositions with counsel for Countrywide, Recontrust, MERS, Et. Al., ALL relevant questions and demands were sidestepped and my carefully prepared and delivered live oral arguments were ignored as the judge mysteriously reassigned the case due to Scheduling conflicts, and I became a rubber stamped victim of a CR 56 Summary Judgment Motion.

I then filed Chapter 7 in Federal Bankruptcy Court,

LISTING MY MORTGAGES(2) AS UNSECURED DEBTS.

After a 2.5 hour deposition with the U.S. TRUSTEE to explain my position, MY MORTGAGES WERE DISCHARGED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ANY PARTIES INCLUDING THE SERVICERS AND THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT PAID OFF MY LOAN AND SECURITIZED THE UNSECURED MONTHLY PAYMENT RECEIVABLES.

After a couple documents being filed with the County Recorder, to CORRECT the PUBLIC RECORD, MY Deed of Trust NOW reflects reality.

…and VOILA!

I NOW OWN CURRENTLY OWN MY HOME FREE AND CLEAR!

I have now put together a program from TRIAL and error, literally!

The next step in my process is to utilize the UCC-1 Process to establish a 1st position against my property, to prevent anything like this from ever happening again!

I have now participated in several dozen actions with other homeowners against the major players in this to arrive at the stratagem we currently use to beat the bank!

Not only CAN we beat them… WE ARE BEATING THEM!

CALL me or Email me if you would like to STAY IN Your Home PERMANENTLY!

UCC 1-207

Allan Hennessey
Author
Help @ StopForeclosureToolbox.com
1 800 552 9313 Ext 111
Luis, on December 10, 2009 at 10:06 am said:

Alan,

I’m sorry. I had a typo in the search and that is why I could not find your posting.
Luis, on December 10, 2009 at 10:02 am said:

How come I can not see Alan’s REAL SUCCESS STORY! comment on the web site?

Anyway, Alan, what state are you in?

Could you please post the case numbers for the foreclosure and BK filings?
Deontos, on December 10, 2009 at 9:46 am said:

The Fed Is (Finally) Talking About Toxic Titles
By Mary Kane 12/10/09 9:04 AM

It looks like the problem of banks walking away from distressed properties is finally getting some serious attention. Federal Reserve Board Governor Elizabeth Duke tackled the subject in a recent speech, Housing Wire reports. She detailed a disturbing trend TWI has been following since January 2008: Banks abandoning properties in severely troubled markets even before completing the foreclosure process, leaving the cities stuck with “toxic titles” and trashed vacant homes.

“In the most devastated neighborhoods, some lenders do not even complete the foreclosure process or record the outcome of foreclosure sales because the cost of foreclosing exceeds the value of the property,” Duke said.

These “toxic titles,” she added, have placed a large number of properties in legal limbo.

Complete article:
X_http://washingtonindependent.com/70383/the-fed-is-finally-talking-about-toxic-titles
Deontos, on December 10, 2009 at 9:33 am said:

Steve Sinacola,

Thank you for that “point of view”. There really is enough
blame to go around for EVERYONE. But then again
blame isn’t going to SOLVE anything.

What we have here is a system broken beyond sane
measurement and ALL us of need to contribute to
getting it functioning fairly for everyone. You and I
Steve regardless of our political persuasions or whatever
else we might see differently I think agree in that.

Ironically our common plight that binds us to the livinglies cohort
also encourages our contributions “great and small” to
an American Restoration.
steve sinacola, on December 10, 2009 at 5:51 am said:

deontos

Dont be so quick to lay the blame on the FED for the current finacial hell we, as a country, find ourselves. The FED was originally set up to protect the economy and provide cash flow, as JP Morgan did as a private bank during the panic of 1907. It has evolved into what it is today, which is a means for FISCAL IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATE INTERSTED POLITICIANS to achieve selfish goals. A perfect scapegoat, when irresponsible fiscal policy of politicians goes wrong, simply blame the FED. Now then, who elects these non representing representatives??

my apologies for being OFF TOPIC
steve sinacola, on December 10, 2009 at 5:32 am said:

VG DIAZ

That is interesing….I have read a little about the “bill of exchange” method of resolving debt. Its based on the bankruptcy of the United States of America back in 1800′s, its transformation into THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,the adoption of UCC , and the bankruptcy of the rest of the world after world War 2. Tied into all the “shamaz’ is the Brenton Woods Agreement, which explains why Marx I mean Roosevelt made it a crime to hold and confiscated all privately held gold. This entire subject is like peeling an onion. I find it difficult to grasp… teamlaw dot org for those that dare to tread. It seems to me, in that there is now such little privately held gold, that our houses are being collected instead.

my apologies for being OFF TOPIC
Deontos, on December 10, 2009 at 12:47 am said:

Link for last post FAILED..sooooo try this for the VID

Stephen Colbert Hilariously Savages The Federal Reserve
X_http://www.businessinsider.com/colbert-the-fed-is-owned-by-no-one-just-like-the-houses-in-your-neighborhood-2009-12
Deontos, on December 10, 2009 at 12:42 am said:

Trying to post a video, hope this FLIES. The lyrics are mine. A “remix”.

tHE Fed is dead?
That’s what I said…
Bernanke and Greenspan had a plan; ‘said give him a loan
and then take the home.
Their hope was a rope, and we should have known.
It’s hard to understand;
I’m sure all would agree,
why they would spread so much misery,

Now the Fed is dead?
That’s what I said…
Everybody’s misused by him;
he’s ripped them off and abused them.

We’re all built up with progress,
but sometimes I must confess,
we can deal with rockets and dreams,
but reality… what does it mean?
Ain’t nothing said.
Till the Fed is dead.

The Colbert ReportMon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'Fed’s Dead http://www.colbertnation.com Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating
Deontos, on December 10, 2009 at 12:13 am said:

Lisa E.

I have been having the same problem posting
LINKS. My comments just go into “eternal
moderation”. What I have been doing lately is
PUTTING a “X_” in front of the link, that “dummies”
the link and the post goes through OK. I’m figuring
people see it; drop the “X_” and use the url.

EXAMPLE:
X_http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-32170

Your posts are always on “target”! Please keep linkin’.
Lisa E., on December 9, 2009 at 8:33 pm said:

There was a US Congressional hearing on Dec 9th and a US Senate hearing today on “our” issues.

I posted links under latest activity on my blog.

Interesting but same-old-same-old.

I would repost the links here, but every time I try to post more than one link in a post, the post gets lost in the universe.

http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org

Lisa E
Dan Edstrom, on December 9, 2009 at 8:37 am said:

My servicer tried hard to cancel my homeowners insurance policy (they didn’t succeed) but they said they did not get proof of coverage so they put forced place insurance on my property for 3x what I am paying (and with no coverage for me). I started to pay on my own and will continue to pay it. They are just trying to rack up the fees they can charge (and make). Also, they tried VERY HARD to get my insurance company to send the refund of the cancelled insurance to THEM. Of course it wasn’t cancelled so their was no refund, but my insurance carrier wouldn’t go for it anyway. Watch out, these companies will do anything.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
marcus, on December 9, 2009 at 7:56 am said:

Kathy,
BofA paid the property tax because they’re required to by the servicing agreement. They don’t want to loose the property on a tax lien. They are not doing you a favor; they’re protecting the collateral of the loan. It is likely that they won’t answer the letter any time soon. You could request the refund or let it go to next year tax bill.
Have you sent a Qualified Written Request letter to BofA?
If not, you should.

marcus@foreclosureprose.com
ALLAN (urging fellow foreclosure activists to weigh in TODAY with Congress), on December 8, 2009 at 11:43 pm said:

Wednesday, the House Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises Hearing at 10 A.M. takes up ADDITIONAL REFORMS TO THE SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT (see it LIVE)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/CMHR_120909.shtml

Today I was forwarded this from a Sojourner for economic justice. It includes a template for a letter to send to your representative.

—– Original Message —–

From: Sojourners
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:41 AM
Subject: WALL STREET vs THE REST OF US

Dear________________________,

Bank lobbyists must not win this fight – we need real financial reform.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT CONSUMERS, NOT BANKS.

A year ago, a crisis – brought on by a financial industry hooked on greed, short-term profits, and heedless risk-taking – nearly brought the world economy to a grinding halt.

Tomorrow, Congress will vote on historic legislation that would create an independent agency charged with protecting Americans and their families from unjust financial practices.

After so many of us have seen countless families and friends harmed by this crisis while banks continue to award huge bonuses, this legislation would help restore justice to our financial system. Consumers would finally have a regulator whose only job would be to protect the American people, not the big banks.

TELL CONGRESS TO CREATE A CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, consumers would be protected from excessive bank fees, predatory subprime mortgages (and resulting foreclosures), unfair student loans, and random and abusive credit-card interest rate increases and credit-limit cuts.

We’re down to the wire on the vote, and banking lobbyists are fighting hard to stop passage of this important legislation. We need you to tell Congress to pass this reform!

ASK CONGRESS TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT RESTORES INTEGRITY AND JUSTICE TO OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND DEFENDS THE VULNERABLE.

As Judeo Christians, we can advocate for a just financial system based on the wisdom of scripture. The Bible commends “those who deal generously and lend, who conduct their affairs with justice” (Psalm 112:5), and condemns those who oppress the poor and needy for their own gain (Ezekiel 18:10-13).

As a result of this economic crisis, many of us have reformed our personal financial practices. It’s time for our financial institutions to do the same.

A return to the same old financial practices is unacceptable. Tell Congress to pass the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The voting begins tomorrow, so please take five minutes to send a message to your representative in support of this important legislation.

Peace,

The team at Sojourners”

“Speak Out

Tell Congress: Restore Integrity to our Financial System

Despite the heart-wrenching impact of the economic crisis, we still have not seen the financial regulatory system reform that is critical for preventing the same thing from happening again.

Faced with job losses, foreclosures, and failing businesses, many of us have reformed our personal financial practices. It’s time for our financial institutions to do the same.

Tell Congress to pass reform that protects American families and restores integrity and justice to our financial system. We must not allow the banking and financial industry to return to “business as usual.”

THE SUGGESTED LETTER TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:

“As a person of faith, I believe our current economic situation is not just a financial crisis, but also a crisis of integrity.

I want you to support the creation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would protect Americans from unjust and abusive financial practices; enforce consumer protection rules; and close loopholes in the existing system that led to our current financial breakdown.

Families across our country are reeling under the negative impact of this economic crisis: job loss, foreclosure, and loss of businesses. Many have reformed their personal financial practices, and our financial institutions need to do the same.

The Bible commends “those who deal generously and lend, who conduct their affairs with justice” (Psalm 112:5). Fair lending practices and the protection of the vulnerable are hallmarks of a just society.

America can do better. I urge you to support all efforts that can help bring integrity and justice back to our financial system. We cannot afford to return to “business as usual.” “

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
12.08.09 @ 11:43 P.M.
Kathy/ Oregon, on December 8, 2009 at 9:38 pm said:

Would like to know if any body could answer a question that I have, Here is a little history. We have not made any house payments in the last 12 months, we have tried to redo our loan with Bank Of America, they raised are payments a thousand dollars, that would not work, so we never signed any paper work on this, I told them they would have to redo the loan, they said that was all they had to offer. In this process our property taxes came do, we paid them quartly ,so we paid a payment. We received a letter today from the tax collector that we over paid our taxes, it said on the paper work that BOA paid the taxes for the hole year, we didn’t know they were going to do this. The letter said we or BOA was do a refund, but we needed to fill out the form and we both need to agree on who gets the refund. Each one of us received this letter. Does any body know what this is about and what we need to do with this letter. We are just asking for informtion. Thank You
VG Diaz, on December 8, 2009 at 8:51 pm said:

I found the case below extremely interesting.

It is a Florida case where one of the Defendants paid the mortgage with a bill of exchange, the court dismissed the case, but the bank refuses to take a bill of exchange as a form of payment, but the judge said, it is just as money.

THINGS ARE STARTING TO COME UNRAVELED……..LOOK AT THIS!!!!!

You have to read this url below, where a Defendant had sent a bill to the Treasury to pay for their home mortgage of over $80,000. Well the court case argument is over the ‘Bank/Lender’ wanting to accept the ledger transfer from the Treasury as payment or not??

So the court case ruling by the judge is: That since the normal business practice of the bank is ‘Ledger Entries’, the judge ruled in court that the bank had to accept the ‘Ledger Transferred Payment’ from the Treasury as a valid payment on the Defendant’s mortgage!

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Articles/BankOneVWard.pdf
Dan Edstrom, on December 8, 2009 at 8:31 pm said:

Ian,
You are entitled to a full accounting of ANY debt you incur. They are being selective in who they are showing this information to. For instance, they will account to the IRS in one way and they will account to another entity another way. Let me give you an example. The sub-servicer is making payments for homeowners when they miss their scheduled payment (this is according to the pooling and servicing agreements). They report to the master servicer that the borrowers payment was made (I know they report the servicer advances in aggregate but I do not know if they report them individually). However, they report to the homeowner that they missed their obligation and it is still due. So the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE has received payment in full. They are making a material misrepresentation or what I call fraudulent concealment to conceal what actually happened (or fraud in the execution?). The same is true for ANY payment given to the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE as credit on your account when they in fact do not disclose this to you. They are making statements every day in court that are flat out LIES using information from sources that are not reliable, are incomplete or are outright fabrications (fraud upon the court, fraud upon the borrower and/or bankruptcy fraud).

If I initiate foreclosure on my neighbors house because I know they are behind in payments and are packing up and leaving, have I done anything wrong? If I create an assignment of the note from the originator (who I can find from the recorders office) over to me (or how about my business name) is that wrong? Or, how about I hire a foreclosure company and just tell them (verbally) that I am the lender but I never recorded an assignment and I need one for the foreclosure. If they do it, have I broken any laws? If I do this and nobody says anything 999 out of 1,000 times is that OK? On the 1,000th case can I tell the judge “oops” I must have made a mistake? What if I tell the government I have a bad loan and my company cannot continue because the borrower will not pay me – and Mr Geithner and/or Mr Bernanke agree to pay me for the loan. And then I give the same loan to my good friend Charlie and let him foreclose. Is that OK?

You probably realize that if I did any ONE of the items above I would be in jail quickly – I would probably easily be convicted of a felony. But for some reason the banks are allowed to do this because it is OK for them to do it.

I am not a lawyer and I am not an accountant so maybe I am just flat out wrong. After all, I don’t know of any large bank who is not doing all of the above, therefore it must be OK.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ian, on December 8, 2009 at 8:03 pm said:

A question I haven’t seen addressed on the site- all this talk of the mortgages being paid off by CDS, TARP ;money, overcollateralization, cross collateralization, NIMS, etc.- is it actually against the law (any laws) for an entity(entities) to be paid in full for a note, and then try to collect on the note a second or third time, or sell the note to another entity so that they can collect? Or is it just rotten business? Or have they written the note off as an IRS loss or to placate the SEC, only to try and collect on the note again later? Any in-depth answeres available? Thanks!
Allan Hennessey, on December 8, 2009 at 4:15 pm said:

REAL SUCCESS STORY!

Sorry I have not posted for a bit… been off in the trenches!

Many of you have seen my previous posts providing details of my story along the way over the last 18 months. I will quickly outline my story.

Let me cover some basic facts here about MY PERSONAL HOME:

I have not paid a single mortgage payment since January 2008 after my purchase in 2006.

My loan originated with Decision One/HSBC. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is named as the nominee on MY Deed of Trust. (I emphasize MY Deed of Trust for a reason ~ See below)

A Foreclosure auction date was set, and I filed a State Civil Lawsuit in 11/2008 with a Lis Pendens that was effective at getting Recontrust (the Foreclosure Trustee) to cease the auction. After Depositions with counsel for Countrywide, Recontrust, MERS, Et. Al., ALL relevant questions and demands were sidestepped and my carefully prepared and delivered live oral arguments were ignored as the judge mysteriously reassigned the case due to Scheduling conflicts, and I became a rubber stamped victim of a CR 56 Summary Judgment Motion.

I then filed Chapter 7 in Federal Bankruptcy Court,

LISTING MY MORTGAGES(2) AS UNSECURED DEBTS.

After a 2.5 hour deposition with the U.S. TRUSTEE to explain my position, MY MORTGAGES WERE DISCHARGED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ANY PARTIES INCLUDING THE SERVICERS AND THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT PAID OFF MY LOAN AND SECURITIZED THE UNSECURED MONTHLY PAYMENT RECEIVABLES.

After a couple documents being filed with the County Recorder, to CORRECT the PUBLIC RECORD, MY Deed of Trust NOW reflects reality.

…and VOILA!

I NOW OWN CURRENTLY OWN MY HOME FREE AND CLEAR!

I have now put together a program from TRIAL and error, literally!

The next step in my process is to utilize the UCC-1 Process to establish a 1st position against my property, to prevent anything like this from ever happening again!

I have now participated in several dozen actions with other homeowners against the major players in this to arrive at the stratagem we currently use to beat the bank!

Not only CAN we beat them… WE ARE BEATING THEM!

CALL me or Email me if you would like to STAY IN Your Home PERMANENTLY!

UCC 1-207

Allan Hennessey
Author
Help@StopForeclosureToolbox.com
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
Adrienne, on December 8, 2009 at 3:16 pm said:

Thanks Usedkarguy,
You are the best! I have learned so much from you and others on this site, and for that I am grateful.
Kevin E Thomas, on December 8, 2009 at 1:09 pm said:

I have just been able to work out something with my mortgage company now my homeowner associatiion is file a petition to have me evited for non-payment of assestment. I ask them to workout a payment plan but they want all the monsyr up front or they will proceded with trying to collect.
ALLAN (with a LET ME ROGER THAT, UKG), on December 8, 2009 at 10:00 am said:

Roger P Rinaldi, AKA UKG, you stated, “I do believe the worst case scenario is on the horizon. Let us pray, and start keeping an eye out for our fellow man. If I learned anything from this site, it’s that people DO care.”

My sentiments exactly, Roger. I pray you prevail BEFORE you head to BK court, where a good strong competent lawyer makes a world of difference. Here’s wishing you good fortune.

Don’t underestimate your ability to have an impact, beyond helping whip up eye-pleasing Shakespearean omelets.

BTW, how was your Thanksgiving duck?

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
11:59 AM 12/08/09
usedkarguy, on December 8, 2009 at 9:46 am said:

I forgot to say that I, too, am very fond of the relationships established on this website. I learned it all right here!
usedkarguy, on December 8, 2009 at 9:25 am said:

Thanks, Lisa. I don’t know if you or anyone else realized, but that’s me at the post above this box you are typing in right now. The payment I made on July 4, 2008 was for $1776.00. That was the last payment I would ever make to Wells, and I knew it. I felt like a jerk afterwards for even sending it to them. 5 weeks later I found Neils’ site, and the rest, well, is history! But we learn from our mistakes, and God knows, you’re never too old to learn (nor to make mistakes).

I have struggled with the case-law side of the battle. I have one more shot: I filed a motion for reconsideration, and I’ll be blazin’ with both barrels! “Your Honor, all I have are the facts. You have the power to stop this”, wil be the last hurrah. Then it’s off to bankruptcy court.
Like Super Mario said, it will stop when the homes are destroyed and the assets disappear. Let’s just hope that we’re strong enough, as parents, humans, and especially our kids, to persevere through the worst crisis this country has ever seen.
I do believe the worst case scenario is on the horizon. Let us pray, and start keeping an eye out for our fellow man. If I learned anything from this site, it’s that people DO care.
Lisa E, on December 8, 2009 at 9:11 am said:

Sorry, link broken.

Click the link in my post below and scroll until you see this link on the mid-right side bar and see the 41 pages of Summary Judgment Hearings set for next week.

Division AW Online Docket
[posted 12/01/2009]

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Lisa E, on December 8, 2009 at 9:05 am said:

Just another Grinch-inspired week in Foreclosure Court just before the holidays.

https://15thcircuit.co.palm-beach.fl.us/web/guest/judges/sasser

No words are adequate…………

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 8, 2009 at 6:55 am said:

MERS SMACKDOWN in NEVADA!!!

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. LISA MARIE CHONG, LENARD E. SCHWARTZER, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

Dist. Ct. Case No. 2:09-CV-00661-KJD-LRL
Bankr. Ct. Case No. BK-S-07-16645-LBR

“This appeal arises from eighteen cases in which MERS filed motions for relief from stay in the Bankruptcy Court. In each case, either a party or the Bankruptcy Court raised the issue of whether MERS had standing to bring the motion. In holding that MERS did not have standing as the real party in interest to bring the motion for relief from stay, the Bankruptcy Court determined that MERS was not a beneficiary in spite of language that designated MERS as such in the Deed of Trust at issue. MERS seeks to overturn the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that it is not a beneficiary. However, the Court must affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s order under the facts presented because MERS failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that it is a real party in interest.”

4closureFraud
Lisa E., on December 8, 2009 at 4:18 am said:

Thank you Allan for alerting me to this!

US House of Representatives Hearing on The Private Sector and Government Response to the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis.

You can listen in if you wish.

See this link: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/fchr_120809.shtml

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org

P.S. UKG, I learned quite a bit from the seemingly effortless paragraph you tossed off in the post below this one! Sir, you have learned an awful lot & I thank you for sharing it with all of us!
usedkarguy, on December 7, 2009 at 10:25 pm said:

Adrienne, a 15-15d means that the trust is closed (no more loans being aggregated) and the filing stops while the trust is “seasoned”. This is a start-up period for the registrant. I think this is two years. Then the certificates (bonds) are rated. There are two 8k’s filed while the loans are collected, the 10K is the final statement of the trust value, the EX-99 is the document you’re looking for to find your loan. You may not find this under the registrant name, you may need to check “relationships” and find a master trust that holds the bonds for your trust. The EX-99 will contain the loan number, location (state, county, town, zip code),mortgage insurance purchased, rate, caps, floors, term, lock date, close date, dwelling classification (multi- or single-family), etc. The collateral term sheet is part of the EX-99.

Hope this helps. ukg
usedkarg, on December 7, 2009 at 7:16 pm said:

When a bank (sponsor)starts a mortgage-backed(or asset-backed) security “deal”, the bank obtains an identifying number and picks a name (registrant). This s the “deal name”. While the loans are collected for the trust (usually over 90 days)they file an 8K for the 2 or 3 months the loans are collected. These statements usually only shows “bulk” numbers. Once the loans are are collected and the “pools” are established, they file a “10K” statement. Again, bulk numbers reflecting the total values and breakdowns for distribution to the “tranches” or “certificates. The certificates pay different interest rates and and are subordinated from bottom to top. the top tiers (super-senior)get their money first, and the lower tranches get paid according to the “waterfall” as laid out in the “prospectus”. Your 15-15D is the notice that the trust suspends filing any more reports until it gets through “seasoning” and then the “certficates” (bonds) are “rated”. The trust is aged and then the certificates are sold. The loan amounts, zip codes, loan numbers, are in the EX-99. This will also include the rates, floors, caps, lock dates, credit insurance amount, zip, county, town, type of dwelling, etc. also look under “relationships” and you will find common deals of the same “vintage” (year)and the series number (01, 02, 03, etc.). hope this helps a little.
Adrienne, on December 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

Can anyone out there tell me what the SEC Form 15-15d “Notice of Suspension of Duty to file reports”
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 7, 2009 at 2:56 pm said:

Deontos, on December 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm Said:
Might Be Important

Just saw this on ForeclosureFraud ….. Twitter Feed:

HOMEOWNERS ARE GETTING HIT A SECOND TIME

——————————

This is important for many reasons, morally, ethically, financially, legally.

““A new foreclosure tactic, whereby lenders or debt collectors holding second mortgages freeze bank accounts or garnish pay checks of already struggling homeowners, is emerging and making it even more difficult for people to hold onto their homes.”

It isn’t supposed to work like that. See, that’s the point of a capital structure – the first (secured) lienholder gets his, and if (and only if!) there’s something left, the second gets what they can.

This is why a first mortgage is typically cheaper than a second, among other things.

If the subs are allowed to pull stuff like this then the damage to the first mortgage market could be tremendous – and result in a significant repricing of risk – and thus rates – upward.”

4closureFraud
Deontos, on December 7, 2009 at 2:39 pm said:

FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE MORTGAGE CRISIS!

We are collecting consumer complaints against certain mortgage companies and distributing them to the State Attorneys General offices. (see drop down list on the form below for a list of the Mortgage Companies included)

If you’d like to participate, please fill out the form below. Make sure you select your Mortgage Provider from the drop down list. We may display your complaint with the other complaints on our website with your personal information removed. Please do not include any personal information in the “Message Body”, instead use the form fields provided. We will make every reasonable effort to remove any potentially sensitive information from the message body before we post your complaint. Please try to keep your complaints direct and to the point, without obscene or offensive language.

What information will be displayed on our site?

The Mortgage company, Date and Time of complaint, Your City, Your State and finally your Complaint Message.

What information will go to the State Attorney General?

We will provide the individual State Attorney General with all the information collected from your original complaint with nothing removed or modified.

Consumer Warn Network Link:
X_http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/fighting-back/
Deontos, on December 7, 2009 at 1:30 pm said:

Might Be Important
Just saw this on ForeclosureFraud ….. Twitter Feed:

HOMEOWNERS ARE GETTING HIT A SECOND TIME

Homeowners are getting hit a second time
By Karen O’Shea
December 06, 2009, 9:00AM
By KAREN O’SHEA

George Apolinaris and Maria Gil……..
Their bank accounts were frozen by their
*** second-mortgage *** lender.

A new foreclosure tactic, whereby lenders or debt collectors holding second mortgages freeze bank accounts or garnish pay checks of already struggling homeowners, is emerging and making it even more difficult for people to hold onto their homes.

Lawyers for troubled Staten Island homeowners say they are beginning to see examples of clients who go to the bank to take out money and find that their accounts have been frozen or wiped out by other banks or debt collectors — the entities holding second mortgages on houses already in default on the first and primary mortgage. Some are learning the lender or debt collector has already gone to court and secured a judgment to garnish paychecks.

It’s a move more in line with the traditional debt collection industry, which typically targets credit card debt, and it’s dragging the house and what little cash reserves people often have into the foreclosure battleground. Experts say it’s an end-run by second lien holders around the traditional foreclosure process, which involves only the first mortgage holder and provides important legal protections for the homeowner.

“It’s a fast and dirty process,” Margaret Becker, lead attorney with the Homeowner Defense Project of Staten Island Legal Services in St. George, said of the new trend.

So far, she said, she’s taken on two cases and she’s heard similar stories from other attorneys.

In several emerging tales, homeowners say they learned about the garnishments only after their bank accounts dropped into the negative or paychecks diminished. And that is making it even more difficult for people to pay bills and modify the terms of the first mortgage to save homes from foreclosure. Homeowners being targeted often include the most troubled, or people who are behind on payments and whose homes are worth less than what is owed on the house.

“It just takes their money away so they don’t have any money to afford a (loan) modification,” Ms. Becker said of those who have been hit with judgments from second lien holders.

She is representing an Arden Heights woman who was talking to her bank about modifying the loan on her first mortgage. Then a debt collector, which bought the second mortgage on the house, won a judgment to garnish 10 percent of the woman’s paycheck. That has jeopardized a good shot at a loan modification, said Ms. Becker.

George Apolinaris of Graniteville said his longtime companion, Maria Gil, got an unwelcome surprise when Ms. Gil tried to withdraw some money for groceries from two small bank accounts totaling $6,000 that the two maintained. The accounts were frozen and in the red for $250,000 — twice the $126,000 owed on their second mortgage.

Apolinaris said the couple never received any notice about the court action that froze the bank accounts.

“They claim they handed a notice to somebody, but we don’t know who it is,” Apolinaris said.

Robert Brown, an attorney specializing in foreclosure and predatory lending cases, argued successfully in court that Ms. Gil had not been properly notified of judgment proceedings by attorneys for lender Citimortgage.

In court papers, Brown noted that the lender’s debt collection law firm, Forster and Garbus, had been cited by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for problems in serving legal papers to defendants in civil suits, also known as “sewer service.”

Last week, state Supreme Court Justice Judith McMahon sided with Brown and vacated the judgment, effectively unfreezing the couple’s small bank accounts.

Brown now plans to make a counterclaim under predatory lending laws. He said the couple had fallen behind on their first mortgage but foreclosure proceedings had not yet begun.

“The second mortgage is just that — it’s second in priority, so they are sort of jumping the line and making it impossible for Ms. Gil to pay her first mortgage because they’ve frozen her bank account,” said Brown.

The couple acknowledges their own financial missteps — the kind that helped fuel the housing crisis.

Apolinaris bought a house in Clifton in 2004 as an investment, refinanced several times and then fell behind on payments after his tenant stopped paying rent and he was forced to evict. That house recently entered foreclosure.

Apolinaris said he used some of the money he took out of that house during those refinancings to buy the two-family home in Graniteville with Ms. Gil.

At the time, he said, both were working and making money and the housing market was booming.

The couple bought the home for $520,000 early in 2006 with an adjustable rate subprime loan from IndyMac bank, which was shut by the government last year. Less than a year later, they said, they refinanced to lower their interest rate and took out $20,000 to pay off credit card debt.

As part of the refinancing, they took out a mortgage in the amount of $464,000 from HSBC bank with an interest rate of 6.8 percent, and a simultaneous second loan from Citimortgage for $126,000. The latter loan came with an interest rate of 9.5 percent. In all the refinancings, the couple never used an attorney.

Josh Zinner of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project in Manhattan said some lenders or trusts for banks that went out of business are selling off second mortgages today to debt collectors for pennies on the dollars. Those debt collectors are then going after the homeowners’ bank accounts or pay checks to recoup whatever money they can.

“The backdrop to that is there are real fundamental problems in the debt buyer industry,” said Zinner. “The combination of the second mortgage problem with all the abuses in the debt collection industry is toxic, and could really create havoc for homeowners who are trying to avoid foreclosure on their primary mortgage.”

Karen O’Shea is a news reporter for the Advance. She can be reached at oshea@siadvance.com.
Arpad, on December 7, 2009 at 12:15 pm said:

Hello Friends,
Lisa and I went to the local court house on Friday to hear some summary judgment hearings. Most people did not show up, and SJ was automatically granted for the plaintiff. It seemed like that the Judge was only asked if the original note was filed. So this brings up the following question I have for everyone. If they do find the original note, can we request an inspection of it to make sure that is the real one? When and how should this be done and what are the things to look for?
Also if the suing Bank is the original lender how can I prove that they sold my loan? Since most of the loans were sold or transferred in the last few years, it is a fair assumption that it is the case. I am thinking, they sold my loan and kept the servicing rights of the loan.
marcus, on December 7, 2009 at 11:24 am said:

Mortgage Insurers Denying Claims
Source: Reuters News, Al Yoon (12/04/2009)

Mortgage insurers are increasingly likely to reject claims and hold lenders responsible for bad loans, says a report by Moody’s Investors Service.

Insurers have rescinded about $6 billion in claims since January, after their reviews indicated that lenders failed to do due diligence when underwriting the loans during the peak years of the boom.

If these claims are successfully denied, the losses will be transferred to the banks, but Moody’s says that many banks have already written off the majority of these bad loans.

Marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 6, 2009 at 6:29 pm said:

Foreclosure Defense – Use the UCC

Something interesting I came across today… Thoughts???

“In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the “closing” for the respective transactions — without the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, standing in court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC).

This is the law behind — “Show Me the Note!”

Statutory Requirements For Establishing The Right To Enforce An Instrument

1. Prove status of holder of the instrument. (UCC § 3-301(i)); or

2. Prove status of non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. (UCC § 3-301(ii)); or

3. Prove status of being entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to UCC § 3-309 or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed).

UCC § 3-309, requirements.

a. Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (UCC § 3-309(a)(1)).

i. If illegality or fraud were involved in the original transaction, it cannot be proved that the person is entitled to enforce the instrument.(See UCC § 3-305. DEFENSES)

b. Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (UCC § 3-309(a)(2)).

NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

c. Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (UCC § 3-309(a)(3)).

NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

d. A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-309(b)).

****************

UCC § 3-309 Enforcement Of Lost, Destroyed, Or Stolen Instrument.

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if

(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument

(A) was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or

(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(2) the loss of possession was NOT the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

****************

An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-203(a)).

If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee. (UCC 3-203(d)).

****************

If the bank, mortgage company, etc., sold the NOTE, they have no right to enforce the NOTE, through foreclosure or court proceeding pursuant to the fact that the UCC bars such claimant from invoking the court’s subject matter jurisdiction of the case.

****************

Even if the claimant produces the original wet-ink NOTE, there is a defense to the action pursuant to UCC 3-305.

Illegality and false representation (fraud) perpetrated in the transaction. Did the bank disclose the SOURCE of the money for the transaction?

Did the bank inform the NOTE issuer that the money for the transaction was provided at no cost to the bank?

Did the bank disclose that the NOTE would be sold at the earliest possible convenience, and that such sale and receipt of money from a third party would actually pay off the NOTE? (Satisfaction of Mortgage).
Many discovery questions to be asked when a claimant initiates foreclosure proceedings.

***********

Many assume that the bank/broker/lender that begins the process is actually providing the money for making a “loan,” when in fact, the bank/broker/lender is only making an “exchange,“ of notes, at no cost, and then, coercing the issuer of the promissory note into the comprehension that he is receiving a “loan.”

The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]

“In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds.”

In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer’s promissory note as if the property and the Note already belonged to the bank/broker/lender.

So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, FRAUD.”

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advise…
Lisa E., on December 6, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

Excellent resource with links, commentary, radio and video shows.

Financial Crisis for Beginners (links,
radio shows, slide shows)

ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Abby in CA, on December 5, 2009 at 8:27 am said:

WANT TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUST YOUR LOAN WENT INTO??

Some steps below to use the SEC website to locate your loan and the trust it is in (mortgage pool).

This example uses WAMU (Washington Mutual).
Typically, Chase had JPMAC (JP Morgan Acquisition Corp) as the name of trusts.

http://www.sec.gov/

1. click on above link
2. if you have not yet created a free account and it asks you for login info…create the account
3. click on ‘search’ in upper right corner
4. in the blue area, type in WAMU in the ‘company name’ field
5. click find companies at bottom
6. this brings up all the WAMU filings
7. search around for one that is the year you got your WAMU refi
8. it will be tedious, but you have to click on each CIK number (in red) over on left, and that will take you to a whole big list of more filings for that particular trust
9. go througn an click on any ‘fwp’….read/scan to see if it lists any loan numbers….some will….check to see if your loan number is in it.
10. when you click on an ‘fwp’, which means free writing prospectus, you will see even more files…try to avoid looking at the ones that have .txt ending (the other, usually an html file, will have any infor you may need.

Note: you may want to also search around in years just prior to or just after your loan was done.

Some of these deals were set up even prior to you getting your loan.

Again, another place you may find the trust name is on your recorded docs, in MERS or on a Power of Attorney filed at the county recorder by the Securities trustee in your local county (if required by law).
Lisa E, on December 4, 2009 at 10:19 pm said:

The Global Pool of Money. NPR This American Life Radio show (or read transcript) that spells it all out.

ForeclosureHalmet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Marcus, on December 4, 2009 at 4:41 pm said:

Bias Against Pro Per Litigants: What It Is. How to Stop It.

By Stephen Elias
Copyright © Nolo Press

Posted April 4, 1997

From the moment they first contact the court system, most people who want to represent themselves, without a lawyer, encounter tremendous resistance. Within the closed universe of the courts, this bias is as pernicious as that based on race, ethnic origins or sex.

During my 17 years with Nolo Press, the nation’s leading publisher of self-help law books, I have spoken with countless competent people, including many who excelled in demanding occupations–physicians, architects, teachers, dentists, inventors, physicists–who, when using Nolo books to handle their own cases, were treated like stupid children by clerks and judges. To a person, they thought they finally understood what it must often be like to be an African-American in our society. That their perception of bias was objectively accurate cannot be doubted in the face of that most deeply insulting bromide, so popular with lawyers: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

This bias exists in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Faretta v. California. that everyone has the constitutional right to proceed without counsel. The reasoning behind that decision means that the Constitution requires our justice system to be neutral towards the self-represented litigant. That in turn means that the courts must offer a level playing field for the represented and unrepresented alike, consistent with basic principles of fairness.
The Problem

Are courts really biased against self-represented litigants? Clearly so. Here are just some of the realities non-lawyers are up against when they try to use their courts:

* Procedural requirements are often perversely difficult.
* Strange–and unnecessary–terms are tossed about. Court jargon–should we call it “lawbonics”?–serves as a means to exclude from the courts anyone who doesn’t speak the language or doesn’t pay a lawyer to translate.
* Judges and their courtroom personnel are often either condescending or downright rude.
* Court clerks withhold information from non-lawyers that they routinely give to lawyers. If a lawyer’s office calls to ask about a particular scheduling procedure, for example, the clerk provides all sorts of answers without thinking twice. But let a self-represented person ask for the same (or even much less) information, and it suddenly becomes legal advice. Many clerks’ offices feel compelled to post signs saying, “We don’t provide legal advice!” Most often, that means that they are unwilling to help unrepresented people get into court or respond to a lawsuit. (Imagine if IRS clerks refused to answer questions about how to file a tax return.)
* Even if the clerk’s office has a special “pro per” window, it’s no guarantee of real help, or even civility. Recently I saw the clerk at such a window hand out information the way some farmers slop the pigs. When I asked whether she had volunteered for the job, she looked at me as if I were crazy.
* County law libraries–in many states, supported by filing fees paid by non-lawyers–are operated almost exclusively for the convenience of lawyers. Non-lawyers are often made to feel distinctly unwelcome and again are visited with the “we don’t provide legal advice” admonition when making a normal request for reference information.
* People who show up without lawyers are singled out and labeled (in Latin, no less) as “pro per” or “pro se” litigants. As is frequently true with other group labels imposed on a group from outside it–”cult” and “handicapped” come to mind–these terms mask a deeper institutional bias.

Why are the courts so unfriendly to the self-represented? They weren’t always that way; in the first 100 years of our history, the courts dealt equally with all comers. But in the late 19th and early 20th century, the courts came to serve the needs and interests of the legal profession, which took control of them and built a monopoly over who can appear before them as advocates.

There are probably a number of reasons why lawyers and the courts they control are biased against the self-represented. Among them are:

1. Many people could pay a lawyer but choose not to. Their choice repudiates lawyers and their “special gifts” and takes money out of lawyers’ pockets.
2. Because non-lawyers are unfamiliar with court procedures that are set up by lawyers for lawyers, they tend to get in the way of smooth court administration (but no more, it should be noted, than do many lawyers).
3. People who can’t afford a lawyer are a rebuke to the organized bar’s monopoly over legal services, because that monopoly is morally–if not legally–justified only if the legal profession is able to provide affordable justice for all. The lawyer bias against the self-represented is a clear case of blaming the victim–even though for years, the ABA has admitted that 100 million Americans can’t afford lawyers.

A number of recent studies funded by the courts and the ABA have advanced the concept of the multi-door courthouse, where courts would offer potential litigants a menu of possible solutions, many of which would not require a lawyer. This concept assumes courts want to reach out to prospective users and help them resolve their disputes in a manner appropriate to the dispute and the resources of the parties.

Unfortunately, the ideal of the multi-door courthouse is at odds with how courts traditionally operate: to support and enhance the lawyer business by making it extremely difficult to get through court without a lawyer. As long as courts are institutionally biased against creating a level playing field for the self-represented, it will make no difference how many doors a court has.

Individual lawyers almost always find it difficult to actually see the bias against the self-represented that pervades our courts, just as a few years ago, judges who complimented woman lawyers on their looks were shocked when they were labeled as sexist. Few lawyers are able or willing to come to terms with the fact that a significant portion of their livelihood is based squarely on barriers to self-representation that the courts erect and enforce.
Some Solutions

Lawyers and their bar associations who do get a glimmer of the access problem tend to think that it’s strictly a money issue. They focus their efforts on pro bono services or what legal services programs still exist. This clearly confuses the forest for the trees. Poor and rich alike have a right to use the courts without an intermediary. Or to use a popular means of expressing a fundamental point: It’s the monopoly, stupid. It probably is no coincidence that by directing their efforts towards the poor, lawyers are addressing the access problem only for people who can’t afford to pay lawyers.

What to do? Here are 10 suggestions for reforming the way courts deal with self represented individuals. A few are already being implemented (usually hesitantly and on a small scale) here and there by isolated courts. And there has been one truly magnificent effort, by the Family Law Division of the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona to throw open court procedures to non-lawyers. For the most part, the suggestions set out here require not money but changes in attitude, rules and procedures.

1. Recognize that bias exists. As with other forms of bias (against women or minority lawyers, for example), the first step to eliminating bias against non-lawyers is to recognize that it exists.

The best way for a lawyer to understand bias against the self-represented litigant is to become one, an experience I recently went through in a civil proceeding. Even before the judge examined my papers or knew what I was seeking (and whether I was on track to achieve it), he expressed deep skepticism that I could competently handle the case myself. After I stood my ground, the judge warned me that I would be held responsible for meticulously complying with every court rule. Lawyers can also learn a lot by coaching a self-represented person through a judicial procedure. Very quickly, most lawyer-coaches come to appreciate how badly the self-represented are treated by court clerks and judges.
2. Accept the right of the self-represented to equal access. Because lawyers and courts are so intertwined, it seems almost reasonable to legal professionals that lawyers are needed for meaningful access. And yet, in a democracy (the rule of law, not men), lawyers should never be necessary to obtain justice.
3. Adopt the principle of helpfulness underlying the multi-door courthouse. Courts should actively help people find an appropriate resolution process. For example, a great many disputes could be sensibly and quickly settled without lawyers if courts encouraged mediation (which is happening in more and more courts).
4. Use existing community legal resources to staff the multi-door courthouse. Many retired lawyers and judges would probably volunteer to:
* help parties assess and sharpen the issues once the pleadings are on file, and
* counsel the parties on appropriate dispute resolution alternatives

Law students and paralegals could also be trained to perform these tasks.
5. Make plain-English information about how to navigate in the court available to the public. All court procedures can be explained in plain English. Nolo Press, other self-help law publishers and the Maricopa County Superior Court have proven that this is so. Unfortunately the courts systematically refuse to inform self-represented litigants about available private-sector publications, apparently on the ground that they don’t want to be seen endorsing them. Fair enough. But the courts should then follow the lead of the Maricopa County Superior Court and make plain-English guides available to all.
6. Unleash court clerks. Clerks should be free to provide the same information to the self-represented as they do to lawyers and their staffs. If clerks were retrained and instructed that their responsibilities included helping non-lawyers and dispensing procedural information, one large barrier to access would disappear.
7. Make courthouse law libraries user-friendly. Like court clerks, law librarians are often afraid to answer even simple questions from non-lawyers. Librarians, like the court clerks, should be encouraged to help non-lawyers, and should be reassured that doing so doesn’t constitute practicing law without a license.

Another step would be to fundamentally redesign the law libraries so that nonlawyers would feel more comfortable with:
* user-friendly orientation aids to the library’s resources
* special shelves and collections of materials that self-represented litigants commonly need, and
* assistance in using online resources.
8. Accept all complaints, petitions and responses filed, in whatever form, and create user-friendly forms. Among the most obvious of barriers to equal access are rules governing the form of the papers people need to start a lawsuit or defend themselves if they are sued. Complicated pleading rules definitely operate to deny equal access. In fact, a simple plain-English statement of claim (as is used in many small claims courts) or a fill-in-the-blanks, check the boxes type of complaint form used in California courts is all that’s needed in most common kinds of cases. Later, the legal and factual issues can be sorted out by a mediator or judge. The Superior Court of Maricopa County has created a number of easy-to-use forms for its Family Court, and by all accounts, people are able to handle them with little help from court personnel.

Fee waivers should be granted upon request for the purpose of filing a response and preventing a default. Later in the case, the defendant’s ability to pay can be sorted out. (This is the typical procedure used by the criminal courts when a defendant requests a court-appointed lawyer.)
9. Use small claims court techniques in bench trials. Most states have revamped court rules and procedures to accommodate non-lawyers very well in one place: their small claims courts. Small claims cases are not simple; many are conceptually difficult. (Lawyers have been willing to accommodate the small claims court system because those cases present little or no potential for fees.)

When cases go to trial before a judge, there is no reason to insist on formal procedures or evidence rules. The judge should facilitate each side’s presentation as is done in small claims court, rather than sit back and make the parties present their cases under arcane rules that take years to master. This approach would not violate due process, because judges would base their decisions on competent and relevant evidence.
10. Encourage lawyer coaching. Many self-represented litigants are willing to pay lawyers to coach them through their cases–that is, give them information about the ins and outs of court and the substantive issues–without taking the case over. Yet, few lawyers are willing to enter into this type of relationship because of ethical concerns about participating in a case they don’t control, and fear of being held liable for issues that are beyond the scope of the coaching relationship. The organized bar should address these concerns by:
* defining the ethical duties of a lawyer coach, and
* sponsoring legislation that would create a standard contract defining the rights and responsibilities of the lawyer coach and the self-represented litigant.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on December 4, 2009 at 4:35 pm said:

Jeff,

Thank you once again for pointing out very relevant NY Cases.
I hope people reading who live in New York will benefit from your efforts.

In the meantime……..
You can rename me: CALIFORNIA SCREAMIN’

CALIFORNIA JUDGES FOR GOD SAKE WTFU!!!
Kansas, Arkansas and New York are now at the
forefront of acknowledging the OBVIOUS.
There is NO Emperor, got that?
Just Naked Pretenders!

Judges….judges can’t you SEE?
They have NO CLOTHES.
They are just livinglies…..

{{{{{Rant over}}}}}
Jeff, on December 4, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

ANOTHER NY APPELLATE CASE

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore
2009 NY Slip Op 09019
Decided on December 1, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 1, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
RANDALL T. ENG
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

2008-07847
(Index No. 1578/08)

[*1]U.S. Bank, N.A., etc., appellant,

v

Adrian Collymore, respondent, et al., defendants.

Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Charles C. Martorana
and Tara N. Kamble of counsel), and Zeichner Ellman & Krause,
LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jantra Van Roy of counsel), for appellant
(one brief filed).
Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 2, 2008, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the subject note and mortgage.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In 2005, the defendant Adrian Collymore (hereinafter the defendant) executed a note to borrow the sum of $569,500 from the New Century Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter New Century). The note was secured by a mortgage on the defendant’s property located in Brooklyn. In July 2006 New Century assigned the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS), and MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank, N.A. (hereinafter the Bank) in December 2007.

On January 15, 2008, the Bank commenced this foreclosure action alleging that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, and that the defendant had defaulted upon his payment obligations as of August 1, 2007. In his verified answer, the defendant alleged lack of standing as an affirmative defense. The Bank thereafter moved, inter alia, for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the note and mortgage, and the defendant cross- moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging, inter alia, that the Bank lacked standing to commence this action. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the motion and cross motion, and the Bank appeals from so much of the order as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the subject note and mortgage. [*2]

Where, as here, standing is put into issue by the defendant, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242; TPZ Corp. v Dabbs, 25 AD3d 787, 789; see also Society of Plastics Indu. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 769). In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674; Federal Natnl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 546-547; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 414). Where a mortgage is represented by a bond or other instrument, an assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity (see Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY 44, 45; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538). Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident (see Weaver Hardware Co. v Solomovitz, 235 NY 321; Payne v Wilson, 74 NY 348, 354-355; LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d at 674; Flyer v Sullivan, 284 AD 697, 699).

Contrary to the Bank’s contentions, it failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because it did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate its standing as the lawful holder or assignee of the subject note on the date it commenced this action. The Bank’s evidentiary submissions were insufficient to establish that MERS effectively assigned the subject note to it prior to the commencement of this action (see Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208, 212), and the mere assignment of the mortgage without an effective assignment of the underlying note is a nullity (see Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY at 45; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d at 538). Furthermore, the Bank failed to establish that the note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action. The affidavit of a vice president of the Bank submitted in support of summary judgment did not indicate when the note was physically delivered to the Bank, and the version of the note attached to the vice president’s affidavit contained an undated indorsement in blank by the original lender. Furthermore, the Bank’s reply submissions included a different version of the note and an affidavit from a director of the Residential Funding Corporation which contradicted the affidavit of the Bank’s vice president in tracing the history of transfers of the mortgage and note to the Bank. In view of the Bank’s incomplete and conflicting evidentiary submissions, an issue of fact remains as to whether it had standing to commence this action. Accordingly, those branches of the Bank’s motion which were for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the note and mortgage were properly denied (see TPZ Corp. v Dabbs, 25 AD3d 787, 789).
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court
James#, on December 4, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

Abby,
I sent emails to my Senators and my Congressman.
Jeff, on December 4, 2009 at 3:13 pm said:

NY APPELLATE DIVISION

FORECLOSURE MILLS JUST DON’T GET IT

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress
2009 NY Slip Op 08989
Decided on December 1, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 1, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
RANDALL T. ENG
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

2008-09808
(Index No. 1193/07)

[*1]Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., appellant,

v

Anthony Gress, respondent, et al., defendants.

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Edward
Rugino of counsel), for appellant.
Steinberg, Fineo, Berger, & Fischoff, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y.
(Gary C. Fischoff and Jessica Anne
Gould of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated June 25, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Anthony Gress which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Anthony Gress which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action. In order to commence a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the subject mortgage (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione,AD3d, 2009 NY Slip Op 07624 [2d Dept 2009]; Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538). “Where the plaintiff is the assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced, the plaintiff has standing to maintain the action” (Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 546-547; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione,AD3d, 2009 NY Slip Op 07624 [2d Dept 2009]; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414). Here, it is undisputed that the subject mortgage was not assigned to the plaintiff until July 5, 2007, more than five months after the commencement of this action on January 22, 2007. Furthermore, although the July 5, 2007, assignment recited that it was effective retroactive to August 1, 2006, “a retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione,AD3d, 2009 NY Slip Op 07624 [2d Dept 2009]; see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court
Bob, on December 4, 2009 at 2:34 pm said:

H.R. 4173 will provide much-needed regulation of the greed and recklessness that has wreaked havoc in our economy and brought hardship to so many hard-working Americans. In particular, a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency with the ability to place limits on predatory behavior is essential, and any attempts to strip the agency of enforcement of critical consumer protections like this should be opposed.

Wait a cotton picking minute, they mean the same regulation that assured us in previous administrations and assemblies that we the consumer are protected. All this great new legislation by the same people who worked for the banks, as lobbyists, and now receive special favors to make it look like they are doing something to help the consumer.

It’s a red-herring.

With Gratitude

Bob
Abby in CA, on December 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm said:

CALL TO ACTION

From Public Citizen:

Dec. 4, 2009
The Time to Change the Rules of the Road for Wall Street Is Now!
The House of Representatives will vote this week on a major overhaul of the financial industry to ensure more accountability, stability and protections for consumers.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173) will provide much-needed regulation of the greed and recklessness that has wreaked havoc in our economy and brought hardship to so many hard-working Americans. In particular, a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency with the ability to place limits on predatory behavior is essential, and any attempts to strip the agency of enforcement of critical consumer protections like this should be opposed.

Now, the bill is fast approaching time for debate on the House floor. But the big banks are spending hundreds of millions of dollars—from the billions they got in taxpayer-funded bailouts—on lobbyists and public relations firms to oppose real consumer protections.

Use the simple form below to tell Congress to pass the financial reform package with no exemptions or loopholes in accountability. Tell your representative you want a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency and a strong economy that works for all of us. .

Learn more on our Financial Accountability and Security page.

Please take a moment to add your own words to the email below. This greatly increases the likelihood that your message will make a difference! You can also ask your representative and senators to support a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency by phone by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Let us know how it goes!

http://action.citizen.org/t/6693/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27546
Abby in CA, on December 4, 2009 at 7:01 am said:

GO HERE TO ACCESS MERS DATABASE TO CHECK IF YOUR PROPERTY IS HANDLED BY MERS

https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/
Deontos, on December 3, 2009 at 10:37 pm said:

Hope this works!(Trying to post a youtube video)

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST MERS – MID MISSOURI
WHEN THE CLASS ACTION SUIT IS FILED (HOPEFULLY WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS) THEY WILL FILE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ALL MERS FORECLOSURES UNTIL THE SUIT IS SETTLED! Hopefully the Judge will Approve the Injunction!!
X_http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/
usedkarguy, on December 3, 2009 at 8:02 pm said:

Originator Wells
Sponsor Wells
Depositor Wells
Securities Administrator Wells
Custodian Wells
Counterparty Bear Stearns
Securities Underwriter Citigroup Global Markets
Trustee HSBC

Who took the writeoff if the deal never passed seasoning and was shelved?
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 3, 2009 at 8:02 pm said:

As I await humbly for a response from M. Soliman, here is something I just came across for all to enjoy…

PRICELESS
(no pun intended)

This banksters license plate says it all…

4closureFraud
usedkarguy, on December 3, 2009 at 7:57 pm said:

Where’s the assignment to the trustee and the re-po (now a POA?)
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 3, 2009 at 7:51 pm said:

M. Soliman,

May I have three guesses???

1. Consideration for the purchase? No taxes were paid on the “sale”?

Warm or cold?

4closureFraud
mortgagelies, on December 3, 2009 at 7:22 pm said:

CASE STUDY (Actual Case)
By M.Soliman

ABC Financial originates a $500,000 loan. After 12 months pass, MERS assigns the loan to Duetsche Bank as Trustee for Indy Mac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR13. Indy Mac Bank is the issuing entity.

After 24 months total term leading to default, Indy Mac Bank purchases the property in a Trustee Sale.

Check List:
————–
Assignment from MER’S to Deutsche Bank [Yes]
Grant Deed (of Sale) from Trustee to Indy Mac [Yes]
(Missing) [ ? ]

What’s missing here? (Think – It’s not the legally correct answer we are accustomed to seeing from attorneys. (Hint) It is the argument that will have standing in an IRS examination or plaintiffs subpoena for accounting production of documents).

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 am said:

Lisa,
Sounds like a great idea. For those in California, let’s do the same thing. We can show a pattern and practice of unlawful behavior, not just within our own cases, but across the industry also. All in California email me and we can set something up to meet and/or discuss. I know my case is coming down to the wire and I know others are also. I have no particular agenda in mind, I am just thinking of a review of our cases to look at similarities. We could also get together as a group with as much evidence as possible and approach someone about criminal charges and an injunction (the state DA for instance).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on December 3, 2009 at 7:37 am said:

By FAWN JOHNSON
WASHINGTON — A broad financial overhaul bill that would give federal watchdogs new authority to audit the Federal Reserve cleared a key House committee Wednesday.

By a vote of 31-27, on party lines, the House Financial Services Committee gave its final stamp of approval to a bill to create a new council of regulators that would wind down large institutions that pose a risk to the economy.

The measure marks the cornerstone of Chairman Barney Frank’s (D., Mass.) financial regulatory agenda and is a critical part of the administration’s overhaul plan. The goal is to stave off another Wall Street meltdown. “That’s our goal — is to A, make it less likely that this will happen and B, to be able to deal with it better when it does,” Mr. Frank told reporters after the vote.

The committee vote was delayed for more than a week by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who had expressed concerns that the government wasn’t adequately addressing economic problems in their communities. Committee members on the CBC boycotted the vote. (See related article.)

Mr. Frank said the bill is slated to face a debate and vote on the House floor next week, where it will be combined with other financial regulatory measures on hedge funds, derivatives, investor protection and executive compensation.

Similar financial regulatory efforts are underway in the Senate, but a wide-ranging bill introduced by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) is on hold while committee members attempt to rework some of its provisions to attract Republican support.

In the House, meanwhile, Mr. Frank likely will attempt to tweak some of the language in the broader financial package during floor debate. He has said he will offer an amendment to remove language in an investor protection bill that would exempt small and mid-size companies from audits required under the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate-reform law.

One of the more lively discussions could involve a provision in the bill to remove restrictions on the Government Accountability Office’s auditing authority of the Federal Reserve, giving it access to every item on the Fed’s balance sheet.

The provision, introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), was approved in committee last month over the objection of Mr. Frank.

Mr. Paul for decades has championed abolishing the Fed, and he has garnered considerable bipartisan support in the House for additional auditing authority of the central bank.

After the committee vote, Mr. Frank indicated he doesn’t intend to change Fed auditing language in the bill. “Absent some change in the way the public is reacting, I don’t see any changes’ in the Fed provision, he said.

It is possible other lawmakers will raise the Federal Reserve issue on the House floor.

The committee’s bill to deal with systemic risk may be the most difficult of the administration’s financial plan because of the competing agendas of regulators and policy makers’ desire to use a deft touch with still shaky financial institutions.

The new regulatory council would be headed by the U.S. Treasury secretary. Also having votes would be the federal banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the National Credit Union Administration.

The bill includes controversial language allowing the government to break up large, risky firms pre-emptively before they falter. The council could determine whether the size, concentration or interconnectedness of an individual firm “poses a grave threat to the United States.” If the council reaches that conclusion, a company could face limits on its business practices or be required to sell or divest business units.

The measure also would direct the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to establish a special pool of funding to help dissolve large, troubled institutions.

Money for the fund would be collected through risk-based assessments on firms holding assets of $50 billion or more. Regulators would have the authority to assess payments on hedge funds with $10 billion or more in assets.

The dissolution fund would be capped at $200 billion.

In a statement, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association President Timothy Ryan Jr. said his association firmly supports a systemic risk supervisor but has some concerns with a few provisions in the bill.

Specifically, Sifma opposes a provision requiring secured creditors take a mandatory 20% loss, or “haircut” in the event a financial firm collapses. Sifma also said it thinks the measure relies too heavily on banking regulations to resolve nonbank claims.

Write to Fawn Johnson at fawn.johnson@dowjones.com
Deontos, on December 3, 2009 at 1:02 am said:

Lisa E

Would you please move to Calif?
Then I could join your study group.
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Lisa E., on December 2, 2009 at 7:44 pm said:

Florida Case Law Study Group?

I’m considering forming a study group. Participants could send me the case law that is used by the Florida foreclosure mill attorneys in their filings. I would be willing to obtain copies of those cases, scan and email them. (My costs include gas, parking, and 20cents/page to print, so donations will be warmly welcomed.)

We could set an agreed upon agenda each week, with assignments (PUN). A chat venue or a teleconference could be discussed as to the preferred method of discussion.

If interested, please send me an email so I can determine that this isn’t just one more dud expelled from my very burnt out mind.

Lisa E
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Abby in CA, on December 1, 2009 at 10:25 am said:

GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEES BUYING GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST PUBLIC UPRISINGS

Commentary by Alice Schroeder

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — “I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names.

While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an effort to burnish its image — and gain new Goldman clients. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed “God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”

Has it really come to this? Imagine what emotions must be billowing through the halls of Goldman Sachs to provoke the firm into an apology. Talk that Goldman bankers might have armed themselves in self-defense would sound ludicrous, were it not so apt a metaphor for the way that the most successful people on Wall Street have become a target for public rage.

Pistol Ready

Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful. Suppose an intruder sneaks past the doorman or jumps the security fence at night. By the time you pull the pistol out of your wife’s jewelry safe, find the ammunition, and load your weapon, Fifi the Pomeranian has already been taken hostage and the gun won’t do you any good. As for carrying a loaded pistol when you venture outside, dream on. Concealed gun permits are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain in New York or nearby states.

In other words, a little humility and contrition are probably the better route.

Until a couple of weeks ago, that was obvious to everyone but Goldman, a firm famous for both prescience and arrogance. In a display of both, Blankfein began to raise his personal- security threat level early in the financial crisis. He keeps a summer home near the Hamptons, where unrestricted public access would put him at risk if the angry mobs rose up and marched to the East End of Long Island.

To the Barricades

He tried to buy a house elsewhere without attracting attention as the financial crisis unfolded in 2007, a move that was foiled by the New York Post. Then, Blankfein got permission from the local authorities to install a security gate at his house two months before Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

This is the kind of foresight that Goldman Sachs is justly famous for. Blankfein somehow anticipated the persecution complex his fellow bankers would soon suffer. Surely, though, this man who can afford to surround himself with a private army of security guards isn’t sleeping with the key to a gun safe under his pillow. The thought is just too bizarre to be true.

So maybe other senior people at Goldman Sachs have gone out and bought guns, and they know something. But what?

Henry Paulson, U.S. Treasury secretary during the bailout and a former Goldman Sachs CEO, let it slip during testimony to Congress last summer when he explained why it was so critical to bail out Goldman Sachs, and — oh yes — the other banks. People “were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system.”

Torn Curtain

There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm’s revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses.

This slip-up let the other bailed-out banks happily hand off public blame to Goldman, which is unpopular among its peers because it always seems to win at everyone’s expense.

Plenty of Wall Streeters worry about the big discrepancies in wealth, and think the rise of a financial industry-led plutocracy is unjust. That doesn’t mean any of them plan to move into a double-wide mobile home as a show of solidarity with the little people, though.

Cool Hand Lloyd

No, talk of Goldman and guns plays right into the way Wall- Streeters like to think of themselves. Even those who were bailed out believe they are tough, macho Clint Eastwoods of the financial frontier, protecting the fistful of dollars in one hand with the Glock in the other. The last thing they want is to be so reasonably paid that the peasants have no interest in lynching them.

And if the proles really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms. If nothing else, that pistol permit might go part way toward explaining why they won’t be standing outside with the rest of the crowd, broke and humiliated, saying, “Damn, I was on the wrong side of a trade with Goldman again.”

(Alice Schroeder, author of “The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life” and a former managing director at Morgan Stanley, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Alice Schroeder at aliceschroeder@ymail.com.
Abby in CA, on December 1, 2009 at 7:39 am said:

Take a look at this new site:

http://www.wix.com/iPSSystem/Subversion_Of_Rural_Innocence

I wonder if we all did something like this and posted on Youtube…would anyone pay attention??
usedkarguy, on November 30, 2009 at 10:50 pm said:

Lisa, is that the “Ralph’s Special Omelet”? Make mine with a little feta!
Lisa E., on November 30, 2009 at 10:13 pm said:

Deontos,

Yikes! I’m just brainstorming along with the rest of us “Foreclosees”.

But here’s something on topic from my studies tonight.

Apparently the big bully banks (all guilty players at Mortgage Backed Securities Craps Table) are now yipping at each other. Who promised Who What? Who made fraudulent claims? Who pretended everything was fine when it was all going to hell in a handbag? Who defrauded Who?

Now see this here quote:

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank AG (“DB”), by and through its attorneys, Williams & Connolly
LLP, as and for its Complaint against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), as successor
in interest to LaSalle Bank, National Association,

So, let me think………..let me think………….Now, let me ponder this equation:

BOA is a successor to LaSalle Bank = Holder in Due Course in Foreclosure is a successor to the loan originator

And if that could be argued (and I have no idea if it could), then wouldn’t that show that in the financial industry, holding the original party of an agreement responsible is accepted industry practice?

Would this hold legal water?

I mean, the BANKS themselves are saying that the son (assignee/successor) has to take responsibility for the sins of the father (assignee/originator)?

So, hey, what’s a poor borrower to do when the BANKS themselves are suing each other on that premise?

It’s either the successor in interest DOES (A) or DOES NOT (B) have to answer for it’s predecessor’s actions. Can’t be A when it’s convenient but B when it’s not, can it?

Anyway, there in one night, is a (rough light bulb idea) way to kind of tie in the CT opinion in all 50 states where one was up against Deutsche Bank. Will it work? Is it proper? Will the judge throw the book at the poor Pro Se? Heck, how would I know?

Again, it’s late. I’m very, very tired. I will probably read this after a few hours of sleep and wonder what illicit substance was slipped into my sparkling water.

And with that; I think I’ll stop posting for the night!
Deontos, on November 30, 2009 at 9:20 pm said:

Lisa E.,

Thank you for that response! I will contemplate as time permits.
I already have a teacher here, Master Po(aka: Maher, et al).
So I guess you’ll be Master Kan. So you can both call me Grasshopper.
I guess again along with Abby, Dan, ukg, I feel like I am in Ivy League Professorville sometime! So MANY legally stellar intensities in the livinglies constellation.
Lisa E., on November 30, 2009 at 5:47 pm said:

Deontos,

You ask excellent questions! I WELCOME spirited debate and hope to set up some chats for exactly THIS type of discussion. Thank you!

HOPE may just be the strongest defense we have. If you are answering Motions tomorrow, good luck! I did one last week and another today myself.

You said, “The only thing I can see is to review the “decision”; then use any favorable citations and boilerplate the judges reasoning in any relevant arguments I might be trying to construct?”. And, I agree, the information gleaned from these opinions and case law from other states can not be used as foundations for our own cases in different states, but they can be used as “padding” which MAY someday help to set precedent?

Also, to be honest, I know nothing about case law, in Florida or any other state. But, I can promise you this: that is about to change. Do we really know if there is or is not case law in our own states that speak to these issues? And if there isn’t, well, then…….please, let’s figure out HOW we can use that to our advantage because somehow, someway, the law is MEANT to be used as a cool applier of justice, quenching the fires of hot heads.

Are there foreclosure defense attorneys burning the midnight oil in the law library searching for answers in case law, looking for creative ways to present preceding case law to the judges?

Is the law a little like that quote, where there’s Three kinds of lies; Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics?

Maybe, just maybe, some of these “answers” for us lie in the dusty books sitting in the law libraries of our states (or on Google Scholar). Maybe, like finding a needle in a haystack, we need to have a strong back, don magnifying glasses, put in hard labor, fire up a creative mind, and just plain get to work in projects which we would never have chosen for ourselves?

Maybe some great case law can help save us but somehow it doesn’t exactly have to do with mortgages, but some other area of the law where transfer of value was the subject of the case, where the spirit and the intent of the opinion applies very well to the thievery that is a securitized mortgage foreclosure?

Honestly, just this week, I started traveling down this new line of thought. Maybe my post here is gibberish, and I’m babbling away? Perhaps, from sheer grief and exhaustion, I’ve finally and completely lost my tenuous grasp on reality?

Anyway, tonight I start. Tonight, I start with one of the hardest thing to prove, Fraud Upon the Court. That, and I’ll read a few of the cases used by the foreclosure mill I’m up against (if I can find them on Google Scholar or Pacer).

Oh, and one more thing; do we REALLY know what the case law cited in that construction blog stated?

Lisa E
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail.com
Deontos, on November 30, 2009 at 2:08 pm said:

For the sake of SPIRITED discussion:

Lisa E.,

Regarding our exchange of views:

————————————–
me:
Xhttp://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30707
you:
Xhttp://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30716
————————————–

That Connecticut Case certainly exemplifies a burgeoning trend favorable to all of our plights! Especially considering the obvious illegalities being discovered in the public record.

However and unfortunately the status quo of the Case Law nationwide might mitigate against us as whole for the time being.

I regard your insights and views highly! So I ask, if that is one case in Connecticut and I am answering “Motions” tomorrow, how is it going to help me?

The only thing I can see is to review the “decision”; then use any favorable citations and boilerplate the judges reasoning in any relevant arguments I might be trying to construct? And then HOPE.
Marcus, on November 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm said:

Brent White paper can be download from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=661219

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on November 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm said:

For the sake of SPIRITED discussion:

Lisa E.,

Regarding our exchange of views:

————————————–
me:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30707
you:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30716
————————————–

That Connecticut Case certainly exemplifies a burgeoning trend favorable to all of our plights! Especially considering the obvious illegalities being discovered in the public record.

However and unfortunately the status quo of the Case Law nationwide might mitigate against us as whole for the time being.

I regard your insights and views highly! So I ask, if that is one case in Connecticut and I am answering “Motions” tomorrow, how is it going to help me?

The only thing I can see is to review the “decision”; then use any favorable citations and boilerplate the judges reasoning in any relevant arguments I might be trying to construct? And then HOPE.
Marcus, on November 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm said:

More underwater borrowers should walk away from mortgages, professor says

By Kenneth R. Harney
Source: Seattle Times

WASHINGTON — Go ahead. Break the chains. Stop paying on your mortgage if you owe more than the house is worth. And most important: Don’t feel guilty about it. Don’t think you’re doing something morally wrong.

That’s the incendiary core message of a new academic paper, “Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis,” by Brent T. White, a University of Arizona law-school professor.

White argues that far more of the estimated 15 million American homeowners underwater on their mortgages should stiff their lenders and take a hike.

Doing so, he suggests, could save some of them hundreds of thousands of dollars they “have no reasonable prospect of recouping” in the years ahead. Plus the penalties are nowhere near as painful or long-lasting as they might assume.

“Homeowners should be walking away in droves,” according to White. “But they aren’t. And it’s not because the financial costs of foreclosure outweigh the benefits.”

Sure, credit scores get whacked when you walk away, he acknowledges. But as long as you stay current with other creditors, “one can have a good credit rating again — meaning above 660 — within two years after a foreclosure.”

Better yet, you can default “strategically”: Buy all the major items you’ll need for the next couple of years — a new car, even a new house — just before you pull the plug on your current mortgage lender.

“Most individuals should be able to plan in advance for a few years of limited credit,” says White, with minimal disruptions to their lifestyles.

What kind of law-school professorial advice is this? Aren’t mortgages legal contracts?

In an interview, White said that in so-called anti-deficiency states such as Arizona and California, mortgage lenders have limited or no legal rights to pursue assets of a defaulting homeowner beyond the house itself.

In other states, lenders may decide it is not worth the legal expense to pursue walkaways, or consumers may be able to find flaws in the mortgage documents, disclosures or underwriting to challenge the original contract.

The main point, White says, is that too often people’s “emotions” get in the way of clear financial thinking about mortgages, turning them into what he calls “woodheads” — “individuals who choose not to act in their own self-interest.” Most owners are too worried about feelings of shame and embarrassment after a foreclosure, and ignore the powerful financial reasons for doing so.

Buttressing these emotions is a system White labels “the social control of the housing crisis” — pressures and messages continually sent to consumers by the “social control agents,” namely banks, government and the media.

The mantra these agents — all the way up to the president — pound into owners’ heads, says White, is that “voluntarily defaulting on a mortgage is immoral.”

Yet there is an inherent imbalance in the borrower-lender relationship that makes this morality message unfair to consumers: Banks set the rules during the housing boom, handing out home loans with no down payments, no income checks and inflated appraisals. Now that property values have dropped 20 to 50 percent in many areas, banks have been slow to modify troubled mortgages and reluctant to reduce principal debts.

Only when homeowners cut through the emotional fog and default strategically in large numbers, White argues, will this inequitable situation be seriously addressed.

How does his 52-page manifesto go over with mortgage lenders? Predictably, not well.

Officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — investors who fund the bulk of all new mortgages in the country — disputed White’s characterization of how quickly after foreclosure a walkaway borrower can obtain a new loan.

It’s not three years, they said, but a minimum five years, absent extenuating circumstances such as medical or employment problems that caused the foreclosure.

“Borrowers who walk away from their mortgage obligations face serious consequences” including severely depressed credit scores for extended periods, said Brian Faith of Fannie Mae. In addition, he said, “there’s a moral dimension to this as homeowners who simply abandon their homes contribute to the destabilization of their neighborhood and community.”

Lewis Ranieri, CEO of several major mortgage-related companies and one of the pioneers of the mortgage-securities industry, called White’s entire argument “incredibly irresponsible and misinformed.”

Not only is the professor urging consumers to break legally binding contracts, said Ranieri, but if large numbers did so it would send home mortgage rates soaring and “tear apart the very basis” upon which mortgage lending rests — the understanding that borrowers will honor their commitments and pay back the money they borrowed.
Search the Web on Snap.com, on November 30, 2009 at 12:35 pm said:

Deontos,
“There is no spoon”

There can be no Holder in Due Course if there is no Holder

There can be no Holder if there is no loan

There can be no loan if there are no securities

Why no securities?

In my case the reason is as follows:
The originator entered into a business relationship with the securitizer whereby the securitizer will supply a warehouse line of credit in order to securitize loans (5 years before my loan closing). This business combination is material information that was NOT DISCLOSED. The source of the money was MATERIAL INFORMATION that was NOT DISCLOSED. The fee paid to the originator from the securitizer was NOT DISCLOSED. The sub-servicing fees collected by the originator were NOT DISCLOSED. The list goes on and on.

All parties with the exception of the borrowers had complete knowledge of the relationships of the parties and the fees that would be paid BEFORE the borrowers even signed their loan applications. Because the entire purpose for issuing the loans was to securitize the loan and issue securities, the entire origination, design, offer and sale of these securities was built on fraud.

If the securities are void ab initio because of fraud in their offer and/or sale, the loans were the beginning of the securities, therefore they are void. If not for that reason, how about this: If the securities are VOID, who do you have left to make your payments to? Who is entitled to receive the money? Who can provide a satisfaction of mortgage? Who can provide a true accounting of WHERE ALL OF THE MONEY WENT? Who is entitled to the proceeds of a foreclosure sale or a short sale or a loan modification? The investors lost their security when (if) the securities are voided.

This ultimately means the the following for the originator and the warehouse lender:

– the 5 deals done in 2005 are void
– the 9 deals done in 2006 are void
– the 1 deal done in 2007 is void

There are upwards of 40,000+ properties and probably well over $5 Billion dollars worth of securities in these 15 deals.

Every assignment created after the originator went into bankruptcy is a fraudulent conveyance. At the VERY LEAST this means that they have to do a judicial foreclosure to enforce their (alleged) rights. Instead they get a 3rd party to do the fraudulent conveyance and then they MAIL and WIRE these to enforce their putative power of foreclosure. (MAIL fraud and WIRE fraud).

Hopefully, this will apply in your case and most other cases (if not all) that are out there.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is what I am looking at in my case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Mary Pro Se Florida, on November 30, 2009 at 11:27 am said:

Does a Lack of Standing defense in a Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Vacate Judgement ever trump failure to answer foreclosure liz pendens on time?
Lisa E, on November 30, 2009 at 10:44 am said:

Deontos,

I think there was a recent ruling in CT that is in contradiction to the info you posted (a GOOD thing for borrowers)!

http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/foreclosure-fraud-defense-connecticut-u-s-bank-national-association-as-trustee-v-toni-ascenzia-et-al/

Lisa E
Deontos, on November 30, 2009 at 9:43 am said:

**But the FHDC Rule foils borrowers’ and guarantors’ defenses…..**

FDIC LOANS SALES: IT’S GOOD TO BE A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

Full article: xhttp://www.constructionlawattorneyblog.com/2009/11/fdic-loans-sales-its-good-to-be-a-holder-in-due-course.html

THE FEDERAL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE RULE

The FHDC Rule is the second, and last, of D’Oench, Duhme’s companions. Like the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and Section 13(e), the FHDC Rule neutralizes many defenses that borrowers and guarantors raise in their post-bank failure attempts to avoid re-paying loans. But the FHDC Rule is separate from, and operates independent of, D’Oench, Duhme and Section 13(e). Critically, D’Oench and Section 13(e) apply only where an “agreement” hurts the FDIC. But the FHDC Rule foils borrowers’ and guarantors’ defenses even when there is no agreement. For example, when the amount of interest on a loan is usurious.

SO WHY’S IT SO GOOD TO BE A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE?

Because the HDC of a note enjoys nearly complete immunity from borrowers’ and guarantors’ defenses against payment. HDCs are immune from what lawyers call the “personal” defenses. Personal defenses include:

(These are links to Case Law Precedents. Go to the “Full article:” to click through and view them.)

• Bad faith
• Fraud, fraudulent inducement, and material alteration of the note
• Violation of unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes
• Usury
• Tortious interference
• Failure of consideration (i.e., the other side didn’t perform their part of the contract as promised)
• Waiver, estoppel, and unjust enrichment
• Accord and satisfaction, laches, release, and breach of fiduciary duty

Keep in mind this post is just a miniature primer on holder in due course law. Lawyers, judges, and professors have written volumes more. If you’re interested, try starting with The ABCs of the UCC: Articles 3 and 4
Abby in CA, on November 29, 2009 at 8:51 pm said:

Dan is absolutely correct about this ” This 3rd party took over the borrowers obligation to pay such that the borrower does not have to make payments and the “investor” lender’s payments are still “magically” made.

I’ve heard of at least one case where somebody received their annual IRS form from the mortgage company (bank) stating the amount of P&I paid for the year….and it included amounts that the homeowner/borrower had not paid. In other words, the borrowers had not been making their mortgage payments, yet the statement indicated they did. The investors were getting thier magic payments!!
Marcus, on November 29, 2009 at 8:48 pm said:

I started using Google Scholar legal search tool. It is really handy. I was able to look at cases cited by the plaintiff in response to my motion to dismiss. I am getting ready to fire back. Their citation is mostly out of context.

marcus @ foreclosureProse.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 29, 2009 at 8:16 pm said:

So the homeowner gave an unconditional promise to pay. The “investors” who purchased securities from the issuing entity (the trust) stood up as the lender and provided the money. Now is where it gets tricky. Another 3rd party sprang up between the two and became the obligor to the lender. That is, they took over the CONDITIONS for providing payments to the “investors”. As Maher just said, they sliced and diced everything up into small pieces. But one thing is for sure, the relationship between the original borrower and the ultimate lender was bifurcated. They abstracted out the borrowers obligation to pay and replaced it with another 3rd party obligation to pay that is jacked up full of all kinds of goodies that apply not only to the investors, but to the borrowers also. This 3rd party took over the borrowers obligation to pay such that the borrower does not have to make payments and the “investor” lender’s payments are still “magically” made.

What are these “goodies” and magic? Advances, credit default swaps, hedges, insurance, over-collateralization, extra pools of funds, payments from borrowers in lower level tranches, you name it. And of course this does not even include government bailouts, write-offs, charge-offs, etc. The homeowners obligation to pay has been eviscerated.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on November 29, 2009 at 8:13 pm said:

Pro Se folks—go to Google Scholar–there is functionality to look up cases and citations.

One can even ‘limit’ the search by most recent years.

Very handy to those who do not have access to Lexis or their law library.
mortgagelies, on November 29, 2009 at 7:40 pm said:

Living lies Readers;

These views are my own and seem opposed to anything I read here. they are not necessarily shared with anyone from this site.

The Treasury Department pumped $125 billion into the country’s largest financial institutions, and it promised another $125 billion — more, as necessary — to recapitalize regional and community banks.

They are vital steps and the global recapitalization of the banking system is the reason. But the job isn’t done and nothing seems to have trickled down to the homeowners….why?

Wake up America – Modifications do not exist. And the capital advances are to supplement the value for the assets these banks are stealing back for securitization deals gone wrong….very very wrong.

California said no more modification help . . . maybe they could have been a little more honest? Modifications do not exist.

Portraying foreclosure consultants as Crooks Thieves and Shakespearean web sites are a little bit of an obstruction of justice.

Even the bad ones made phone calls and talked to parties who “were not authorized to discuss the loan.” FAS 140-3 friends. THAT IS THE VIOLATION NEEDED TO ARGUE RELIEF IN COURT MORE THAN ANY OTHER ARGUMENT. That’s testimony to an “expert witness” to provide counsel AND I will go out, interview and collect the information.

They need to realize – there is no other solution to a securities deal gone bad. We played by the rules and lost in better times. Now are faced with this?

John Kennedy spoke about these secret societies and need for it elimination. Harvard University and others have authored excellent articles on opaque secretive and clandestine financing arrangements.

Look Darwin was nuts, dinosaurs did not exist, the Berlin Wall never came down and do you believe we put a man on the moon? Mr. Andy Kaufman’s gone wrestling, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 29, 2009 at 7:24 pm said:

Holy Crap,

Maher Soliman agreeing with Abby???

On top of that Maher followed up with one of the most comprehensible posts I have ever read from him. Simple, to the point, and for the most part, no condescending remarks…

The tide is starting to turn!!!

BTW, Maher, I love your slice up the bill analogy. I’m going to use it as if it were my own. Thanks for the tip!

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
mortgagelies, on November 29, 2009 at 6:48 pm said:

ASSET BACKED SECURITIZATION MEANS NO NOTE

Asset backed securitization is magic come to life. It is the transformation of a note into pieces. The pieces act like a waterfall of cash flow. Its distributed as investment, structured finance, accrual, accretion and cash flows set forth into many classes of offerings.

Take a dollar bill and slice it up and distribute it to your friends. Piece by piece. Then ask your friends to go cash it. The US Treasury will accept only greater than 51% of any legal tender to make the payer (government) honor the bill. Get it…no?

Try this- The bill you cut up…that bill was a promissory note that went bad. Now if you’re a (GE) stock holder and lose on the stock you purchased you won’t get far attacking General Electric. You cannot seize company assets now can you? The assets are still GE assets and you lose.

What’s your point? The note you gave the lender, the lender did own. But lender sliced it up and it was distributed amongst many investors. The investors lose as the certificates they hold are only valuable as the whole and not the pieces. It’s worthless.

They (investors) have an abundance of insurance they can attack related to the security and that’s it.

Hey investor – are you really going to foreclosure on a 17.8% share of a borrower’s home?

Maher, Nooooo! – You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You said in the above example GE owns the assets and you cannot attack a public company because of a bad stock deal. So the lender owns the note after all and they can foreclose… Correct?

Yes mischief makers I did say that “about the GE stock example”, correct! But these registrants offer pass through certificates.

They are portioned out and “passed through” from the lenders beneficial interest to the investors. You want me to be any clearer here. Then join me and let’s scream from the highest mountain””….HEY INVESTORS….GET IT TOGETHER AND GO COLLECT ALL YOU’RE CERTIFICATES AND PIECE THEM TOGETHER . . . And NOW you can foreclose on me!” You lender tore the LEGAL “TENDER’ into pieces and the note is lost forever to the securitization they created.

I walked away from structured finance and private placement fees because of this argument. No attorney; accountant or lewd Cop could ever overcome this argument for denying you your home on a securitization gone badly?

So who wants to call me for an audit? Need a modification? I cannot and never will do an audit or modification! If others do, then kiss them for me. What are you auditing . . . Something the lender does not own? Want to file bankruptcy – careful. Are you bringing a lender into court and re-establishing them as a creditor?

They are not a creditor and that’s why BK Trustees want no part of the bankruptcy rip-off report. Where’s the modification that California said no more attorneys or consultants can help out on?

THERE ARE NO MODIFICATIONS. THERE IS NO MODIFICATION OR SHORT SALE IF YOU’RE WAITING FOR! GOT IT.

You note is gone and that is that. Fight the security as they cannot evidence the note. What if the “The lender came to court with the note…! So…..what? The lender was not a security player or they left the loan out of a securities offering. No problems counsel, you win.

Oh wait a minute! What’s that? You booked the transaction as a sale under FAS 140-3 instead of debt on your balance sheet. That is what we call securities fraud even under FAS revisions 140-3 and for servicing arrangements under FAS115.

Its your home and an impostor, Realtor, Recovery firm, Attorney . . . Someone is trying to steal it from you.

Peace.

M.Soliman
Expert.witness@live.com
mortgagelies, on November 29, 2009 at 5:34 pm said:

Abby,

Hello, your right!
Anything is better than the current ,
but on second thought….

Your right! Great call – my error. . .

Maher
Lisa E., on November 29, 2009 at 2:05 pm said:

Servicers: Why Modify When Foreclosure is so much more profitable?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Abby in CA, on November 29, 2009 at 10:13 am said:

Maher,
while agree with you on replacing Geithner as Treasury Secretary, the CEO of Chase, Jaimie Dimon, is the wrong chap to put in there. This would be like putting the fox in the henhouse. IMHO.
Dan Edstrom, on November 29, 2009 at 9:25 am said:

Who is really in default?

This is a definition from US Bank (a big time Trustee for bondholders):

Default: The issuer’s failure to pay principal or interest when due. Default may occur as a result of bankruptcy or failure to meet non-payment obligations, such as reporting requirements.

How can a homeowner be in default if another party is obligated to make payments to the “real parties in interest” and this party has actually made ALL of the required principal and interest payments?

If the issuer makes all required payments to the “real parties in interest”, I maintain that there can be no borrower default. This goes directly with what Neil maintains about 3rd parties making your payments for you. In discovery, I would push to determine if an issuer default has occurred, and if so, provide the details.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. These are only my opnions.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
mortgagelies, on November 29, 2009 at 7:59 am said:

Upon the borrowers hitting a 60 days delinquency mark the servicing agent is obligated to assure the borrower’s right to “cure” the “arrears” amount due.

California real property law provides for extra-judicial foreclosure of a Deed of Trust (a Deed of Trust is in effect a mortgage with a power of sale). Lenders enjoy an efficient process from start to finish totaling four months. Under California Civil Code (“CC”) §§2924-2924(k) the statute offers broad framework for the oversight of non-judicial foreclosure sales.The statutory procedure maintains in a default by the borrower, the lender may declare a default.

Upon such notice the lender may proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure sale. Under CCC§2924 / 2923.5 a lender must provide the delinquency with a meaningful workout option under recently passed legislation. From the 60 days delinquency mark and thereafter the servicing records offered by the lender are uncertain as to the servicing agent’s compliance with state civil code.

Therefore it is unknown what rights the lender maintains in a foreclosure and trustees sale of the subject property for any alleged delinquency and upon denying the borrowers fundamental rights prior to conducting a Trustee’s sale.
(1) A right to cure the delinquent amount
(2) The right to a notice of intent to foreclose
(3) A right to a meaningful offer to a workout

A claim brought by the borrowers stems from plaintiff allegations made in a wrongful foreclosure claim under California’s Non-Judicial Deed of Trust Foreclosure Process.

The matter will point out the necessity for a lender to pay attention. Maintaining timeliness is not just a smart idea but it ensures both appropriate and spontaneous intelligent approaches to managing delinquency. Where the courts have made known their tendencies to not see the lender as a fiduciary the servicing agent none the less maintains a higher level of responsibility to the borrower.

The current administration in Washington has made it very clear through the office of the Secretary of the treasury the same is not true for the servicing agent.

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
mortgagelies, on November 29, 2009 at 7:56 am said:

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon potential successor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

Finally…its about time!

MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 29, 2009 at 6:15 am said:

Obama to push banks on mortgages

“While some 650,000 people have had their mortgage payments temporarily adjusted, only a fraction have received permanent modifications. More comprehensive data should be released soon, but preliminary figures show the extent of the problem.

For example, fewer than 5% of the trial adjustments on loans owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac were converted to permanent modifications as of Sept. 30, according to the mortgage finance giant.

Looking more broadly, the figures are even lower. As of Sept. 1, only 1.26% of all trial adjustments were made permanent after three months, reported the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors the government’s use of bailout funds.”

4closureFraud
4closurefraud.wordpress.com
Lisa E., on November 29, 2009 at 1:09 am said:

TUNE IN ON MONDAY: President Obama to annouce new plans encouraging lenders to help homeowners.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet@gmail.com
Lisa E., on November 28, 2009 at 6:19 pm said:

Part 2 (The link to Part 1 is a few posts down.)

One can listen or read the transcripts by clicking on the “Related Transcript” of both of these recorded sessions.

Judges listen and make queries Part 2

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet@gmail.com
ALLAN (with some of TODAY'S NEWS), on November 28, 2009 at 3:41 pm said:

Today in History, November 28, the Boston Globe reports, in 1520 Magellan reached the Pacific Ocean, having navigated the Straits now bearing his name.

In 2001 ENRON collapsed after a $8.4 billion dollar deal to take them over, fell through. There we saw corporate greed at its worst.

What most got me was the obituary of Mark Pittman. In this obit, we’ll find a treasure trove of facts, materials and resources.

Pittman brought us the FAUSTIAN BARGAIN series. Why are there so few investigative reporters of his caliber left? Are they muzzled by parent corporations? He practiced the ‘afflict the comfortable’ ethos.

Boston.com

MARK PITTMAN, 52; reporter who foresaw subprime crisis

By Bob Ivry, Bloomberg News | November 28, 2009

NEW YORK – Mark Pittman, the award-winning investigative reporter whose fight to open the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny led Bloomberg News to sue the central bank and win, died Wednesday in Yonkers, N.Y. He was 52.

Mr. Pittman suffered from heart-related illnesses. The precise cause of his death was not known, said his friend William Karesh, vice president of the Global Health Program at the Bronx-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

Mr. Pittman, a former police beat reporter who joined Bloomberg News in 1997, wrote stories in 2007 predicting the collapse of the banking system. That year, he won the Gerald Loeb Award from the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles, the highest accolade in financial journalism, for “Wall Street’s Faustian Bargain,’’ a series of articles on the breakdown of the US mortgage industry.

Mr. Pittman’s fight to make the Fed more accountable resulted in an Aug. 24 victory in Manhattan Federal Court affirming the public’s right to know about the central bank’s more than $2 trillion in loans to financial firms. Mr. Pittman drew the attention of filmmakers Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, who gave him a prominent role in their documentary about subprime mortgages, “American Casino,’’ which was shown at New York City’s Tribeca Film Festival in May.

“Who sues the Fed? One reporter on the planet,’’ said Emma Moody, a Wall Street Journal editor who worked with Pittman at Bloomberg.

“The more complex the issue, the more he wanted to dig into it. Years ago, he forced us to learn what a credit-default swap was. He dragged us kicking and screaming.’’

James Mark Pittman was born in Kansas City, Kan., where he played linebacker on the high school football team. He took engineering classes at the University of Kansas in Lawrence before graduating with a degree in journalism in 1981.

He was married soon after and had a daughter, Maggie, in 1983. The marriage ended in divorce.

Mr. Pittman’s first reporting job, covering the Police Department for the Coffeyville Journal in southern Kansas, paid so little he took a part-time job as a ranch hand across the border in Lenapah, Okla., according to an interview he gave to Ryan Chittum for the Columbia Journalism Review’s The Audit, a watchdog for the business press.

“What a funny guy – huge personality,’’ Chittum said in an e-mail message.

“Mark was my favorite reporter working. In a time when too much journalism is timid or co-opted, Mark personified the whole ‘afflict the comfortable’ tenet of the business. Mark’s passing is a huge loss for journalism at a time when we can least afford it.’’

Mr. Pittman spent a year in Rochester, N.Y., with the Democrat & Chronicle newspaper and 12 years at the Times Herald-Record in Middletown, N.Y., where he met his wife, Laura Fahrenthold-Pittman, in 1995.

“All I know is we fell in love the moment we met,’’ Fahrenthold-Pittman said in an interview yesterday.

“We moved in together a week later. He was as serious about his family life as he was about work. Mark did nothing in a small way.’’

In 2007, Mr. Pittman was writing about the securitization of home loans when subprime borrowers, who have bad or limited credit histories, began missing payments on their mortgages at a faster pace.

Mr. Pittman’s June 29, 2007, article headlined “S&P, Moody’s Hide Rising Risk on $200 Billion of Mortgage Bonds’’ was excoriated at the time by Portfolio.com for “trying to play gotcha’ with the ratings agencies.’’

Mr. Pittman’s story proved prescient. So did his reports on US banks exporting toxic mortgages overseas, on Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson’s role in creating those troubled assets while he was chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and on the US bailout of American International Group Inc.

“He’s been on this crisis since before the crisis,’’ said Gretchen Morgenson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning financial columnist for The New York Times.

“He was the best at burrowing into the most complex securities Wall Street could come up with and explaining the implications of them to readers of all levels of sophistication. His investigative work during the crisis set the standard for other reporters everywhere. He was a giant.’’

In the “Faustian Bargain’’ series, Mr. Pittman explained how 5 percent of US mortgage borrowers missing monthly payments could lead to a freeze in lending throughout the world.

Public policy would be more effective if reporters, lawmakers, and citizens understood how the financial system worked and why the crisis happened, Mr. Pittman said during the interview with Chittum in February.

“We need to know how to prevent it from happening again, and we need to know who did it,’’ he said.

“I always learned something new when I spoke with Mark,’’ said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the House Financial Services Committee.

Bloomberg’s lawsuit against the Fed, which was filed after Mr. Pittman’s requests under the US Freedom of Information Act were denied, continues without him. The central bank won a delay pending an appeal, which is scheduled for the week of Jan. 4.

At the time of his death, Mr. Pittman’s outgoing messages offered a link to a black-and-white photo of Woody Guthrie. Written on Guthrie’s guitar: “This machine kills fascists.’’

© Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Lisa E, on November 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm said:

What we are up against.

A Florida Case (skimmed and posted here)

Looks like a homeowner had a terrible lawyer and lost his house in Circuit court, which was upheld on appeal where he apparently had a better attorney who raised the post-dated assignment issues and also raised for the first time the issues of fraud & securitization standing.

Then, he took his case up to the FL Supreme Court where the following two links show attorney for homeowner’s petition and then Plaintiff’s counsel Law Office of Marshall Watson’s (foreclosure mill attorney) response.

The FL Supreme Court refused to hear this case due to lack of jurisdiction (to the best of my ability to figure out why there was no FL Supreme Court opinion was written).

I plan on reading these carefully and then pulling out the case law to study. Hmmmm, perhaps we could start a chat or teleconference study group? Wonder if any one would be interested in that?

Homeowner’s Attorney’s Petition to the FL Supreme Court

Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Mill Attorney’s Response

Lisa E (Pro SE, Florida)
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Lisa E, on November 27, 2009 at 8:28 pm said:

Judges and Lawyers (on both sides of thie issue) discuss the lost note and lack of standing issues.

FACINATING!

Judges listen and query lawyers on both sides of this issue.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
deontos, on November 26, 2009 at 8:18 pm said:

To: usedkarguy {Ph.d}

Your dissertation …….. short but direct,
“GOT IT”. I kinda had the same idea
that they were buying at pennies on the
dollar and then telling the homeowner
THEY were doing them a favor! Not so,
of course. They were doing themselves
a FAVOR making a huge spread.

YOUR COMMENT:
Comment on Homeowners by usedkarguy
by usedkarguy
Deontos, I think this is just recycling of the old bad debt being sold off the books (after the swaps are paid) and the scam just repeats itself. Remember, this is a $500Trillion BLACK HOLE. I think that was the number bantered about reflecting the total value of the MBS/ABS/Derivatives market. The more of this bad debt they can push on the taxpayers the better for them. Remember, they’ve already collected at least twice on the original principal, and possibly up to 30 times. The exception would be where the bond insurer has gone insolvent. There have been quite a few bond insurers that reached runoff status(claims exceed premiums) in the past two years. Those securities were unable to collect, so they sell off at a discount like the article says. But now the holders become DEBT COLLECTORS, SINCE THEY HAVE ACCEPTED DEFAULTED INSTRUMENTS. Now were back to getting the consumer to re-up on a debt that has been extinguished, or should have been extinguished, or is being enforced by someone who really has no right to the real estate. Kind of like a CDO squared. Bad debts layered upon bad debts. Let’s see if they can get the new mortgage recorded in the name of the guy they don’t want you to know!
JRN, on November 26, 2009 at 11:43 am said:

ATTENTION: I have scoured the internet for resources to aid me in my ongoing lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase. I have read thousands of posts and pleadings, most of which are useless. I have a legitimate fraud cause of action against my lender, and the supporting documents to prove it (which my lender accidently sent me by mistake). I have been fighting off the trustee sale of my California residence since August 2008 and keep running into inexperienced attorney’s that claim to know what they are doing and claim to have expertise with these types of cases. I have shelled out over $20k in attorneys fees to a couple of different attorneys, but I have lost confidence in each of them, and question their boiler plate pleadings. Is there a REAL mortgage fraud litigation attorney out there that knows what they are doing? One that has successfully gotten an injunction issued? One that is currently active in litigation against several lenders? One that is AV Rated by Martindale? If you fit the profile and are reading this, HELP! My property is located in Orange County,ATTENTION: I have scoured the internet for resources to aid me in my ongoing lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase. I have read thousands of posts and pleadings, most of which are useless. I have a legitimate fraud cause of action against my lender, and the supporting documents to prove it (which my lender accidently sent me by mistake). I have been fighting off the trustee sale of my California residence since August 2008 and keep running into inexperienced attorney’s that claim to know what they are doing and claim to have expertise with these types of cases. I have shelled out over $20k in attorneys fees to a couple of different attorneys, but I have lost confidence in each of them, and question their boiler plate pleadings. Is there a REAL mortgage fraud litigation attorney out there that knows what they are doing? One that has successfully gotten an injunction issued? One that is currently active in litigation against several lenders? One that is AV Rated by Martindale? If you fit the profile and are reading this, HELP! My property is located in Orange County, CA. I need someone that is competent to continue representing me. Alternatively, anyone else out there in an Option Arm from Washington Mutual? I would also like to organize a class action. This is not a frivilous TILA or HOEPA claim. Please e-mail me at: fightingback31@gmail.com. CA. I need someone that is competent to continue representing me. Alternatively, anyone else out there in an Option Arm from Washington Mutual? I would also like to organize a class action. This is not a frivilous TILA or HOEPA claim. Please e-mail me at: fightingback31@gmail.com.
usedkarguy, on November 25, 2009 at 11:44 pm said:

Deontos, I think this is just recycling of the old bad debt being sold off the books (after the swaps are paid) and the scam just repeats itself. Remember, this is a $500Trillion BLACK HOLE. I think that was the number bantered about reflecting the total value of the MBS/ABS/Derivatives market. The more of this bad debt they can push on the taxpayers the better for them. Remember, they’ve already collected at least twice on the original principal, and possibly up to 30 times. The exception would be where the bond insurer has gone insolvent. There have been quite a few bond insurers that reached runoff status(claims exceed premiums) in the past two years. Those securities were unable to collect, so they sell off at a discount like the article says. But now the holders become DEBT COLLECTORS, SINCE THEY HAVE ACCEPTED DEFAULTED INSTRUMENTS. Now were back to getting the consumer to re-up on a debt that has been extinguished, or should have been extinguished, or is being enforced by someone who really has no right to the real estate. Kind of like a CDO squared. Bad debts layered upon bad debts. Let’s see if they can get the new mortgage recorded in the name of the guy they don’t want you to know!

Happy Thanksgiving
gfaust, on November 25, 2009 at 10:05 pm said:

some say the new law has no teeth good let them think that
ca civil code 2923.5

its obvious to me the statute states more then once the
The beneficiary or beneficiary’s authorized agent must contact
the borrower —- this force’s the standing issues because the servicer and mers are not the beneficial party you just have to look for the teeth
Deontos, on November 25, 2009 at 5:10 pm said:

*usedkarguy**

REAL LOAN MODIFICATION WITH PRINCIPAL REDUCTION?

The New York Times

November 22, 2009
Back to Business
Wall St. Finds Profits by Reducing Mortgages
By LOUISE STORY

As millions of Americans struggle to hold on to their homes, Wall Street has found a way to make money from the mortgage mess.

Investment funds are buying billions of dollars’ worth of home loans, discounted from the loans’ original value. Then, in what might seem an act of charity, the funds are helping homeowners by reducing the size of the loans.

But as part of these deals, the mortgages are being refinanced through lenders that work with government agencies like the Federal Housing Administration. This enables the funds to pocket sizable profits by reselling new, government-insured loans to other federal agencies, which then bundle the mortgages into securities for sale to investors.

While homeowners save money, the arrangement shifts nearly all the risk for the loans to the federal government — and, ultimately, taxpayers — at a time when Americans are falling behind on their mortgage payments in record numbers.

For instance, a fund might offer to pay $40 million for a $100 million block of mortgages from a bank in distress. Then the fund could arrange to have some of those loans refinanced into mortgages backed by an agency like the F.H.A. and then sold to an agency like Ginnie Mae. The trick is to persuade the homeowners to refinance those mortgages, by offering to reduce the amounts the homeowners owe.

The profit comes when the refinancings reach more than the $40 million that the fund paid for the block of loans.

The strategy has created an unusual alliance between Wall Street funds that specialize in troubled investments — the industry calls them “vulture” funds — and American homeowners.

But the transactions also add to the potential burden on government agencies, particularly the F.H.A., which has lately taken on an outsize role in the housing market and, some fear, may eventually need to be bailed out at taxpayer expense.

These new mortgage investors thrive in the shadows. Typically, the funds employ intermediaries to contact homeowners and arrange for mortgages to be refinanced.

Homeowners often have no idea who their Wall Street benefactors are. Federal housing officials, too, are in the dark.

Policymakers have encouraged investors and banks to put more consumers into government-backed loans. The total value of these transactions from hedge funds is small compared with the overall housing market.

Housing experts warn that the financial players involved — the investment funds, their intermediaries and certain F.H.A. approved lenders — have a financial incentive to put as many loans as possible into the government’s hands.

“From the borrower’s point of view, landing in a hedge fund or private equity fund that’s willing to write down principal is a gift,” said Howard Glaser, a financial industry consultant and former official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

He went on: “From the systemic point of view, there is something disturbing about investors that had substantial short-term profit in backing toxic loans now swooping down to make another profit on cleaning up that mess.”

Steven and Marisela Alva say they do not know who helped them with their mortgage. All they know is that they feel blessed.

Last December, the couple got a letter saying that a firm had purchased the mortgage on their home in Pico Rivera, Calif., from Chase Home Finance for less than its original value. “We want to share this discount with you,” the letter said.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Mr. Alva, a 62-year-old janitor and father of three. “I kept thinking to myself, ‘Something is wrong, something is wrong. This sounds too good.’ ”

But it was true. The balance on the Alvas’ mortgage was ultimately reduced to $314,000 from $440,000.

The firm behind the reduction remains a mystery. The Alvas’ new loan, backed by the F.H.A., was made by Primary Residential Mortgage, a lender based in Utah. But the letter came from a company called MCM Capital Partners.

In the letter, MCM said the couple’s loan was owned by something called MCMCap Homeowners’ Advantage Trust III. But MCM’s co-founders said in an interview that MCM does not own any mortgages. They would not reveal the investor that owned the Alvas’ loan because they had agreed to keep that client’s identity confidential.

Michael Niccolini, an MCM founder, said, “We are changing people’s lives.”

In Washington, mortgage funds are lobbying for policies that favor their investments, particularly mortgages held in securitized bundles. They want more mortgage balances to be lowered, which might help mortgage bonds perform better. Big banks generally oppose such reductions, which lock in banks’ losses on the loans.

In April, about a dozen investment firms formed a group called the Mortgage Investors Coalition to press their case. One investor who is speaking out is Wilbur L. Ross, who runs a fund that buys mortgages and owns a large mortgage servicing company.

Mr. Ross said modifications that simply lower interest rates or lengthen the duration of a loan, as is typical in the government modification program, do not work well.

“They make a payment or two, but then one night the husband and wife will sit down at the table and say, ‘Do we really want to make 140 monthly payments into a rat hole?’ ” Mr. Ross said.

The Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund in New York, is one of the firms at the forefront of picking through mortgages. Fortress created a $3 billion credit fund in 2008 partly to buy loans from banks like Citigroup, which were under pressure to purge loans to raise cash.

“They’re going ahead and they are refinancing them and getting their money out right away,” said Roger Smith, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton. “What Fortress is doing is actually good for the borrower.” Congress, however, may not be happy that hedge funds are making money this way, Mr. Smith said.

Fortress, which declined to comment, typically buys batches of loans and works with other companies to evaluate which ones might qualify for F.H.A., Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac refinancing.

Sometimes Fortress works with Nationstar, a mortgage servicer and originator that it owns. Other times, Fortress uses an outside partner like Meridias Capital, a lender in Henderson, Nev., that once originated Alt-A loans, which are just above subprime.

After the mortgage market imploded, Meridias began dissecting portfolios of troubled loans for investment funds.

Because firms like Fortress purchase blocks of mortgages at distressed prices, they are able to reduce the principal amount of the loans. Nick Florez, president of Meridias, calls such transactions an “incentive refinance.” He said he would not agree to take a loan unless he could help the homeowner. He said he was able to reduce the loan amount by 11 percent on average.

“I’m giving money away,” said Mr. Florez, who is a 35-year-old Las Vegas native. “It’s really a feel-good business.”

It is too early to know how the new loans will work.

David H. Stevens, the new commissioner of the F.H.A., said he was monitoring F.H.A. lenders but did not have thorough information about which ones work with distressed investors. So far he has not seen a problem from loans coming from hedge funds.

“They’re helping to protect people in their homes and they’re refinancing people from a distressed situation,” he said.

But he acknowledged that funds have an incentive to aggressively push homeowners into federally guaranteed loans, since the investors get their money back as soon as they complete the refinancing.

Seth Wheeler, a senior adviser in the Treasury Department who specializes in housing policy, declined to say whether the investment firms that are lowering principal for homeowners are altruistic or not.

“Investors are doing it where it both benefits the investor and the borrower,” he said.

Part of the risk may be determined by how the funds compensate the F.H.A. lenders and whether the lenders are beholden to the funds for business.

David Zitting, the chief executive of Primary Residential Mortgage, the company that refinanced the Alva family’s loan, said his company did not receive fees from the hedge funds.

“They have all sorts of motivations that, frankly, we don’t understand,” he said. “We don’t do anything special for them because that’s not fair lending.”

The Alvas had to dip into their savings to qualify for their new federally insured loan, since the biggest F.H.A. mortgage they could get was for $285,000, they said. They paid off $21,000 in credit-card and car loans, and put up an additional $29,000 for their new mortgage, depleting their already meager savings.

Brian Chappelle, a mortgage consultant, said loans to people like the Alvas, with modest incomes and scant savings, could turn out to be risky.

“It does raise risk concerns for F.H.A.,” he said.

The Alvas are grateful for the help. Their home is, Marisela said, a dream come true. “I’m very happy,” she said. “We never thought this was possible.”
usedkarguy, on November 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm said:

Guys! Guys! GUYS!! (and Gals)

There is no modification. Repeat after me: There is no modification. One more time: THERE IS NO MODIFICATION! The pooling and servicing agreements forbid it. This is extortion. They are gaming you. They are collecting as much money as they can from you while they continue to collect the insurance swaps. They are trying to get you to re-affirm an obligation that has probably been extinguished (depending on the length of your default). They will come to foreclose on you at the first sign of default on the repayment plan (or while you are waiting for your “ghost” approval to come along). This is not legal advice. This is an opinion. Thank you.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
Lisa E., on November 25, 2009 at 3:34 pm said:

Mike,

Many HAMP-ers are finding that their “trial modification” period continues to be extended over and over. Anything to avoid the bank accepting writing down your loan, slowing/preventing default, and preventing that holy grail of insurance payout, oppsss they might even have to re-purchase that modified loan.

Be careful.

Save EVERY bit of proof of your payments, bank statements and if possible print out images, front and back of each cashed check. I’ve heard of stories where the HAMPed checks were cashed and “misapplied” re-defaulting the loan, rushing into foreclosure, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars! (a old reference to the monopoly game)

Good luck!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org

P.S. Just call me Ralph.
Thomas S. in Trinity,Fl., on November 25, 2009 at 2:17 pm said:

Yahoo Homepage 11-25-2009

Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt

Judge KOs 525G mortgage to slap bank
By KIERAN CROWLEY, RICH WILNER and DAN MANGAN

Last Updated: 3:34 PM, November 25, 2009

Posted: 3:46 AM, November 25, 2009

A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present — canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street
Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” actsThe bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East PatchogueSpinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest — who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money
“The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them,” Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner’s scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage divisionIt erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penaltiesThe Horoskis — who had been paying only interest on their mortgage — had no equity in the homeHoroski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, “I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta.” Dealing with the bank, he said, was “like dealing with organized crimeOneWest said, “We respectfully disagree with the lower court’s unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal
It claimed it “has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives.The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.
Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.

In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.
The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski’s health problems.

After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.
Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.
OneWest’s conduct was “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious,” Spinner wrote.

He canceled the debt because the bank “must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple].”

The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it’s trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.

kieran.crowley@nypost.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/judge_kos_mortgage_to_slap_bank_28ZS1oW8Y58z6gu1AQbWMI#comments_block#ixzz0XuKoiMBm
Deontos, on November 25, 2009 at 1:34 pm said:

from “The Nation” interview with Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur:

CAN THIS ADMINISTRATION BE TRUE PARTNERS AND ALLIES IN THIS FIGHT, OR ARE THEY AN OBSTACLE?

Well, I really think some of the president’s generals need to go. I think that the economic advisory team is very, very poor. And in the housing arena–[HUD Secretary] Shaun Donovan gets all these plaudits, but the way I see it the mortgage mess is worse now than ever. And something is fundamentally wrong, because they are not aggressively dealing with the housing–and I think the reason is because I think they made the decision that the losses are going to be on the people, and that they’re not going to make an effort to resurrect as many of these troubled loans as possible. I think that they have decided that Wall Street will be rewarded and Main Street will be penalized. I don’t agree with that but I think that’s the decision–that’s the way it looks to me.

YOU’VE BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS NOW. YOU KNOW THIS PLACE AS WELL AS ANYBODY. HOW DO YOU PERCEIVE THE POWER OF THESE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN CONGRESS AND IS IT DIFFERENT FROM WHEN YOU FIRST CAME?

It’s even worse. It was bad enough when I got here and what I’ve seen happen over the years is they’ve just gotten larger, and there’s more concentration in the financial system. Every few years another bailout by the federal taxpayer of some of their wrongdoing–whether one looks at the peso crisis after NAFTA’s passage, Long-Term Capital Management, Enron, and before that the savings and loan mess. And now this. Every single decade it just gets worse, and they keep getting away with it.
ALLAN (PROPOSING an APROPOS MOTTO for SOME TWISTED FORECLOSURE COURTS), on November 24, 2009 at 10:02 pm said:

I recently heard there is a clever sign hanging in some apothecary that reads: WE DISPENSE WITH ACCURACY.

From the research conducted by fellow foreclosure defense activists who pore through thousands of specious case files across the nation, but most especially in Florida, home of ‘rocket docket’ foreclosure courts, the sign could just as well hang in most of them.

Or, how about:
WE DISPENSE WITH JUSTICE ©

ALLAN
Brattle Research Associates
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Marcus, on November 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm said:

Mike,
It seems like you’ve been HAMPed. I don’t think they are negotiating in good faith. They may turn around and foreclose on you with no warning.
If were you, I would check weekly my county records for any Lis Pendens.
___________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Allan Hennessey, on November 24, 2009 at 12:38 pm said:

Mike…

Search for the article “Don’t get HAMP’ed” on this site…

This is just another stall tactic of the system to slow the pipeline of foreclosures temporarily so they can keep up with the Trustee Sale Filings… while they take more of your money.

Most that keep up their payments will not be approved… and are only depleting their resources prior to foreclosure… unfortunately preventing them from any REAL solutions.

The advice to all Homeowners out there is to attack your Servicer and originating lender for PROOF of what they have regarding your account.

Then you will know, where to go from there. Don’t trust a word they say… they are a sales call center that is reading from a script of what to tell you!

Spend your money on a Forensic Loan Audit.

There are many great sources out there…

Allan Hennessey
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
mike in florida, on November 24, 2009 at 6:44 am said:

I need some help! I’m in the HAMP “trial payment plan” w/Indy Mac (One West). I’m scheduled to make one more payment (due by 1/1/10) and then I’ll find out if I get a Loan Mod or not.

I asked my Loan Mod rep who I can speak to about the program and what kind of offer I might get. They added $36K in principal over 4 years through negative amortization. I want to negotiate. He says:

“1. The final mod is prepared in our loss mitigation group, I am a member of that department.
2. It is done through an automated process and is not done through manual calculation
3. There is no negotiation to this process a modification, if offered, is what we offer

There isn’t a person to speak with. Everything is done systemically according to your income. It will be explained in the information once you complete the trial plan.”

Should I just accept this or try another angle to get involved in the process? I appreciate any thoughts on how to best proceed. Thanks!
Mary Tossell Pro Se Florida, on November 24, 2009 at 1:09 am said:

Neil,

Can a Trustee for Certificate holders of Asset-Backed cetificates be Plaintiffs and sue in a judicial foreclosure?

If Countrywide was the original lender and assigned the Mortgage but NOT the NOTE to a Trustee for holders of Asset-backed certificates is that a problem for the Trustee Plaintiffs?

If the alleged assignment generated on the Plaintiff Atty’s letterhead, dated AFTER the Lis Pendens, a fraud upon the court?

shaking in my boots,Pro Se Jan 5th, Hillsborough Cty. Fl,
mary
Deontos, on November 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm said:

MANY FLOUTING LAW AT FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS

Neil, this might make a good discussion and novel legal attack?
Questionable conduct by Trustees at Foreclosure Sales?
Would a “complaint” of this sort still fall under California
Non-Judicial Statutes? Or would it be possible to gain “due process”
and an evidentiary hearing somewhere along the line forcing the
“Pretenders” to flee?

I should note the below article is about events in ARIZONA not
California. However they are pointing a finger at a Trustee FROM
California. So they may be doing something similar here in my state.
Perhaps you are aware of these Phoenix Shenanigans, I believe you
live in AZ.

ILLEGAL HOUSING BIDDING ON RISE
MANY FLOUTING LAW AT FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS

EXCERPT:
When foreclosure homes come up for public auction in Phoenix, a minimum opening bid is set and bidding is open to anyone.

At least that is the way it’s supposed to work.

But a Republic investigation into the daily public auctions held on the Maricopa County Courthouse steps and at some local law offices suggests a growing number of homes are sold for less than the posted opening bid.

Prices on some foreclosure homes are being dropped below the opening bid just hours or even minutes before the auction. Buyers aware of the “drop bids” scoop up the houses before other bidders know about the price drops.

Drop bids violate the state’s foreclosure-sale laws, say the state’s leading court-appointed foreclosure-trustee attorneys…………..

• PEOPLE LOSING HOMES WHO ARE NOT OFFERED THE LOWER “DROP BID” PRICE. A BUYER WHO LOST A HOME OWING $200,000 TO THE BANK MIGHT THEN SEE IT RESOLD FOR $50,000 BUT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO BID ON IT AT THE LOWER PRICES. ………..

In this atmosphere of little oversight and record numbers of homes going to foreclosure auction, state laws are being IGNORED, and the foreclosure process has been compromised.

“It’s common knowledge (in the foreclosure market) that a certain CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE has been lowering the minimum acceptable bid hours and sometimes minutes before the scheduled trustee’s sale,” said Tom Ruff, an analyst for the Arizona property-records research firm Information Market. “The amount by which these bids are dropped can be substantial.”

Drain, the Phoenix attorney and court-appointed trustee, was among the group of Arizona attorneys who wrote the law. She said drop bids are CLEARLY ILLEGAL………..

“………”What we have with drop bids is the potential for a class-action lawsuit over illegally conducted trustee sales,” Drain said…….”

Four page article:(Remove the “x” before the “http” to activate the link.)

xhttp://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/11/22/20091122dropbid1122.html
Marcus, on November 23, 2009 at 10:58 am said:

Deontos,
I received about a dozen emails from them. I call it spam.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
ALLAN ready to thump that BANKSTER BUSTER'S BIBLE, on November 22, 2009 at 10:04 pm said:

Yeah, we’re all apparently on their mailing list, Deontos!

I’m ready for my promotional copy for professional review. Please send it along!

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on November 22, 2009 at 2:59 pm said:

BANKSTER BUSTER’S BIBLE

I got an email with this title and it had apparently
be Broadcast to anyone who has left their email address
on livinglies

DOES ANYONE HAVE INSIGHTS ON THE SUBJECT
MATTER IN THE EMAIL? OR ON THE PERSON WHO
SENT IT?

—————————————————————————–

“No Holds Barred in the BANKSTER BUSTER’S BIBLE

Attorneys and laymen alike are praising the arrival of the Bankster Busters Bible. Many attorneys claim the Bankster Busters’ Bible is equivalent to the schematic to follow when fighting wrongful foreclosures and winning, many also claim that it is the beginning of the end for the largest Ponzi scheme in the worlds history that has brought our great nations economy to its knees while generating hundreds of thousands of illegal foreclosures. This new 668 page e-book exposes the Banksters, their crooked lawyers and provides what you need to stop them…………………… “
Deontos, on November 21, 2009 at 10:20 am said:

YOU CAN’T SQUEEZE BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP!

“uHHHH… That’s TRUE, yes. But YOU are not a turnip.” {{{smile}}}

————————————

Connecticut To Clobber Foreclosed Homeowners With Real Estate Conveyance Tax?

In Hartford, Connecticut, the Hartford Courant reports:

* Losing a property to creditors will get more painful next year: Some homeowners in foreclosure will be hit with a new tax. Foreclosures sales have been exempt from Connecticut’s real estate conveyance tax for years, but the General Assembly is ending that break Jan. 1. The state is making the change to help close gaps in its budget, and cash-strapped municipalities are eager to get their share of the new revenue, too. But several state lawmakers say they’re already dissatisfied with the change.”I really believe that this is pouring salt into the wounds,” state Rep. William Hamzy, R-Plymouth, told colleagues at a meeting of the banks committee Tuesday.(1)
Lisa E., on November 20, 2009 at 10:17 am said:

Nov 21th West Palm Beach Foreclosure Prevention Seminar
Deontos, on November 20, 2009 at 10:13 am said:

WHO CAN ENFORCE A MORTGAGE AFTER A ‘LANDMARK’ CASE?
http://bankruptcy.law360.com/registrations/user_registration?article_id=131943&concurrency_check=false

Law360, New York (November 03, 2009) — A recent Kansas Supreme Court decision, Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158 (Kan. 2009), is the most recent decision casting doubt on the ability of nonlender parties to appear in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings as a proper party in interest.

These cases encourage debtors and other parties to defensively use the mortgage securitization servicing system to prohibit servicers and other nonlending parties from enforcing rights under a mortgage……..

—————————————–

REVENGE OF THE DEBTORS:
WHO CAN LEGALLY ENFORCE A MORTGAGE
AFTER A “LANDMARK” CASE?
By
Timothy F. Nixon

EXCERPT:
Historically, lenders’ servicers or agents have been allowed by courts to assert the mortgagee’s rights. Landmark and similar recent cases coming after the August 2008 financial collapse, at minimum, suggest courts are reconsidering that historic review. At worst, they may demonstrate a backlash against the lending industry. Landmark is not an isolated case. In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) and In re Mitchell, No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR (Bankr. D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2009) reached similar conclusions. The respected Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain In the Matter of Parades, Case No. 09-22261-RDD (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. Oct. 9, 2009), went so far as to expunge the mortgagee’s claim because the
servicer could not prove who owned the mortgage. While entertaining these challenges to a party’s legal standing to assert the rights of a mortgagee may be a trend, it is not a unanimous tidal wave as evidenced by Bucci v. Lehman Bros., No. PC-2009-3888 (R.I. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2009) holding that MERS has standing to foreclose a mortgage under Rhode Island law.

On a practical level, this may be much ado about nothing. For instance, if a debtor raises these or similar defenses, it may only be necessary for the servicers and the mortgagees to complete and file the proper assignment documents.

—————————————–

Read: …” it may only be necessary for the servicers and the mortgagees to complete and file the proper assignment documents…..”

This is where the Bankster FRAUD is being committed. This article implies that it is so easy legally for them to do. Can’t we collectively dig deep and organize effective strategy around this issue?

A lot of “old news”; but some interesting nuggets in there:

http://www.gklaw.com/resources/documents/TFN_%20Article_%20REVENGE%20OF%20THE%20DEBTORS.pdf
gator, on November 20, 2009 at 9:47 am said:

For those of you interested in the FL cost bond issue.:

[6] Failure to Give Security for Costs

A nonresident plaintiff, or one who leaves the state or removes his or her effects from the state, must post a bond with surety for costs when filing an action.31 If the plaintiff does not post the required bond within 30 days after commencement of the action or removal from the state, the defendant may move to dismiss the action after 20 days’ notice to the plaintiff. Alternatively, the defendant may hold the plaintiff’s attorney liable for the costs of the action.

If the plaintiff files the bond within the 30-day period, the court has the discretion to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss. If the bond is defective, and demand is made for the bond as required by statute, the court may dismiss the case after the required notice without any attempt to conform the bond to the statutory requirements.

Be aware that this is rare for as the court has held in Eastern Invs., L.L.C. v. Cyberfile, Inc., 947 So. 2d 630 See Diaz v. Bravo, 603 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(stating that a motion to dismiss for failure to post a bond pursuant to section 57.011 can be easily remedied).

This rarely works and is easily remedied.

FYI
Alina, on November 20, 2009 at 8:12 am said:

Jeff,

the only thing to say is to quote Dan, “It’s a beautiful thing.” YEAH!!!! Kudos to the judge for examining the evidence before him and making an informed decision.
Deontos, on November 19, 2009 at 11:01 pm said:

Jeff,

All I can do is repeat Dan Edstrom’s soliloquy,

“THAT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING.”

Poetry it is certainly not but it is prose for the legal
heart.

The judge actually alluded to SOCIAL JUSTICE and PUBLIC
GOOD trumping “equity doctrine”!

I sure wish I could find similar statutes and case law for Calif.
Of course we’d need judges here with some backbone to do
what’s right.

Jeff. Thank you Man. You keep my spirits UP.
Dan Edstrom, on November 19, 2009 at 10:18 pm said:

Jeff,
That is a beautiful thing. There is nothing else to say, except READ THIS ENTIRE CASE. Be sure to have your dictionary handy.

Wow.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Jeff, on November 19, 2009 at 9:57 pm said:

This Judges decesion is incredible.

Upon the Court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $ 292,500.00 dated August 4, 2004 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, voided, avoided, nullified, set aside and is of no further force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the Mortgage in the amount of $ 292,500.00 which secures said Adjustable Rate Note given by Diana J. Yano-Horoski to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages as Page 285, as assigned to IndyMac Bank F.S.B. by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 shall be and the same is hereby vacated, cancelled, released and discharged of record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff, its successors and assigns are hereby barred, prohibited and foreclosed from attempting, in any manner, directly or indirectly, to enforce any provision of the [*7]aforesaid Adjustable Rate Note and Mortgage or any portion thereof as against Defendant, her heirs or successors; and it is further

ORDERED that the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted under this index number
jeff, on November 19, 2009 at 9:46 pm said:

NY JUDGES ROCK

Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano-Horoski
2009 NY Slip Op 52333(U)
Decided on November 19, 2009
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Spinner, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 19, 2009

Supreme Court, Suffolk County

Indymac Bank F.S.B., Plaintiff

against

Diana Yano-Horoski, Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota National Association as Trustee for Soundview Home Equity Loan Trust 2001-1 and Kimberly Horoski, Defendants.

2005-17926

Steven J. Baum P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 1291

Buffalo, New York 14240

Diana Yano-Horoski

Defendant Pro Se

8 Oakland Street

East Patchogue, New York 11772-5767

Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, J.

This is an action wherein the Plaintiff claims foreclosure of a mortgage dated August 4, 2004 in the original principal amount of $ 292,500.00 recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County, New York in Liber 20826 of Mortgages at Page 285. The mortgage secures an adjustable rate note of the same amount with an initial interest rate of 10.375%. The mortgage encumbers real property commonly known as 8 Oakland Street, East Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven, New York and described as District 0200 Section 979.50 Block 05.00 Lot 001.000 on the Tax Map of Suffolk County. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Summons, Verified Complaint and Notice of Pendency on July 27, 2005. The Notice of Pendency was extended by Order dated April 28, 2008 and a Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale was granted on January 12, 2009.

Thereafter and in accordance with the Laws of 2008, Ch. 472, Sec. 3-a and in view of the fact that the loan at issue was deemed to be “sub-prime” or “high cost” in nature, Defendant seasonably requested that the Court convene a settlement conference. That request was granted and a conference was commenced on February 24, 2009 which was continued five times in a series of unsuccessful attempts by the Court to obtain meaningful cooperation from Plaintiff. In view of Plaintiff’s intransigence in its continuing failure and refusal to cooperate, both with the Court and with Defendant’s multiple and reasonable requests, the Court directed that Plaintiff produce an officer of the bank at the adjourned conference scheduled for September 22, 2009.

At the conference held on September 22, 2009, Karen Dickinson, Regional Manager of [*2]Loss Mitigation for IndyMac Mortgage Services, division of OneWest Bank F.S.B. (“IndyMac”) appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. IndyMac purports to be the servicer of the loan for the benefit of Deutsche Bank who, it is claimed, is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage (though the record holder is IndyMac Bank F.S.B., an entity which no longer is in existence). At that conference, it was celeritously made clear to the Court that Plaintiff had no good faith intention whatsoever of resolving this matter in any manner other than a complete and forcible devolution of title from Defendant. Although IndyMac had prepared a two page document entitled “Mediation Yano-Horoski” which contained what purported to be a financial analysis, Ms. Dickinson’s affirmative statements made it abundantly clear that no form of mediation, resolution or settlement would be acceptable to Plaintiff. IndyMac asserts the total amount due it to be in excess of $ 525,000.00 and freely concedes that the property securing the loan is worth no more than $ 275,000.00. Although Ms. Dickinson insisted that Ms. Yano-Horoski had been offered a “Forbearance Agreement” in the recent past upon which she quickly defaulted, it was only after substantial prodding by the Court that Ms. Dickinson conceded, with great reluctance, that it had not been sent to Defendant until after its stated first payment due date and hence, Defendant could not have consummated it under any circumstances (Defendant, through Plaintiff’s duplicity, found herself to be in the unique and uncomfortable position of being placed in default of the “agreement” even before she had received it). Plaintiff flatly rejected an offer by Plaintiff’s daughter to purchase the house for its fair market value (a so-called “short sale”) with third party financing. Plaintiff refused to consider a loan modification utilizing any more than 25% of the income of Plaintiff’s husband and daughter (both of whom reside in the premises with her), the excuse being that “We can’t control what non-obligors do with their money” (the logical follow up to this statement is how does the bank control what the obligor does with her money?). The Court found IndyMac’s position to be deeply troubling, especially since a plethora of sub-prime loans in this County’s Foreclosure Conference Part have been successfully modified with the lender’s reliance upon the income of non-obligors who reside in the premises under foreclosure. The Plaintiff also summarily rejected an offer by both Plaintiff’s husband and daughter to voluntarily obligate themselves for payment upon the full indebtedness, thus committing their individual incomes expressly to the purpose of a loan modification. It should be noted here that Defendant did not even request any waiver or “forgiveness” of the indebtedness aside from some tinkering with the interest rate, just a modification of terms so as to enable her to repay the same. It was evident from Ms. Dickinson’s opprobrious demeanor and condescending attitude that no proffer by Defendant (short of consent to foreclosure and ejectment of Defendant and her family) would be acceptable to Plaintiff. Even a final and desperate offer of a deed in lieu of foreclosure was met with bland equivocation. In short, each and every proposal by Defendant, no matter how reasonable, was soundly rebuffed by Plaintiff. Viewed objectively, it is apparent that Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter falls within the definitions set forth in 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1( c)(2), which might well warrant the imposition of monetary sanctions.

On the Court’s own motion, a hearing was held on November 18, 2009 in order to explore the issues herein. At the hearing, Ms. Dickinson appeared as well as Mr. Horoski. IndyMac claimed a balance due, as of September 22, 2009 of $ 527,437.73 which included an escrow overdraft of $ 46,627.88 for taxes advanced since the date of default but did not include attorney’s fees and costs.. Plaintiff was unable to tell the Court the amount of the principal [*3]balance owed. Mr. Horoski advised the Court that according to two letters received from Plaintiff, the principal balance was said to be $ 285,381.70 as of February 9, 2009 and $ 283,992.48 as of August 10, 2009. Plaintiff stated was that Defendant must have made payments though it was conceded that in fact no payment had been made.Plaintiff insisted that it had remained in regular contact with Defendant in an effort to reach an amicable resolution, that it had extended two modification offers to Defendant which she did not accept and further, that due to her financial status she was not qualified for any modification, even under the Federal HAMP guidelines. Plaintiff denied that it had “singled out” Defendants, simply stating that her status was such that she fell outside applicable guidelines. All of these assertions were disputed by Defendant.

That having been said, the Court is greatly disturbed by Plaintiff’s assertions of the amount claimed to be due from Defendant. The Referee’s Report dated June 30, 2008, which has its genesis in a sworn affidavit by a representative of Plaintiff (presumably one with knowledge of the account), reflects a total amount due and owing of $ 392,983.42. The principal balance is reported to be $ 290,687.85 with interest computed at the rates of 10.375% from November 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006 ($ 25,118.62), 12.50% from September 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007 ($ 18,018.66), 12.375% from March 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 ($ 39,126.39) and 11.375% from April 1, 2008 to June 24, 2008 ($ 7,700.24) totalling $ 89,963.91. Plaintiff also claims $ 20.00 in non-sufficient funds charges, $ 295.00 in property inspection fees and $ 12,016.66 for tax and insurance advances. The Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale dated January 12, 2009 was granted in the amount of $ 392,983.42 with interest at the contract rate from June 24, 2008 through January 12, 2009 and at the statutory rate thereafter plus attorney’s fees of $ 2,300.00 and a bill of costs in the amount of $ 1,705.00. Even computing the accrual of pre-judgment interest of $ 18,299.18 (using Plaintiff’s per diem rate in the Referee’s Report) together with post-judgment interest at a statutory 9% through November 19, 2009 (an additional $ 31,740.90), the application of simple addition yields a total amount due of $ 447,028.50. This figure is $ 80,409.23 less than the $ 527,437.73 asserted by Plaintiff to be due and owing from Defendant. The Court is astounded that Plaintiff now claims to be owed an escrow advance amount of $ 46,627.88 when, under oath, its officer swore that as of June 24, 2008 that amount was actually $ 34,611.22 less. Moreover, it now appears that the elusive principal balance is either $ 290,687.85, $ 285,381.70 or $ 283,992.48.

It is the province and indeed the obligation of the trial court to assess and to determine issues regarding credibility, Morgan v. McCaffrey 14 AD3d 670 (2nd Dept. 2005). In the matter before the Court, the pendulum of credibility swings heavily in favor of Defendant. When the conduct of Plaintiff in this proceeding is viewed in its entirety, it compels the Court to invoke the ancient and venerable principle of “Falsus in uno, falsus in omni” (Latin; “false in one, false in all”) upon Defendant which, after review, is wholly appropriate in the context presented, Deering v. Metcalf 74 NY 501 (1878). Regrettably, the Court has been unable to find even so much as a scintilla of good faith on the part of Plaintiff. Plaintiff comes before this Court with unclean hands yet has the insufferable temerity to demand equitable relief against Defendant.

The Court, over the course of some six substantive appearances in seven months, has been afforded more than ample opportunity to assess the demeanor, credibility and general state [*4]of relevant affairs of Defendant and Plaintiff. Although not actually relevant to the disposition of this matter, the Court is constrained to note that Defendant is afflicted with multiple health problems which outwardly manifest in her experiencing great difficulty in ambulation, necessitating the use of mechanical supports. Moreover, Defendant’s husband, Mr. Gregory Horoski, suffers from a myriad of serious medical conditions which greatly impede most aspects of his daily existence. Nonetheless, both of these persons, together with their adult daughter who resides with them and who is substantially and gainfully employed, receive income which they are more than willing to commit, in good faith, toward repayment of the debt to Plaintiff and indeed, despite their physical challenges, they have appeared at each and every scheduled conference before this Court. At each appearance, they have assiduously attempted to resolve this controversy in an amicable fashion, only to be callously and arbitrarily turned away by Plaintiff. This has been so even in spite of the Court’s continuing albeit futile endeavors at brokering a settlement.

As a relevant aside, the scenario presented here raises the specter of a much greater social problem, that of housing those persons whose homes are foreclosed and who are thereafter dispossessed. It is certainly no secret that Suffolk County is in the yawning abyss of a deep mortgage and housing crisis with foreclosure filings at a record high rate and a corresponding paucity of emergency housing. While foreclosure and its attendant eviction are clearly the inevitable (and in some cases, proper) result in a number of these situations, the Court is persuaded that this need not be the case here. In this matter, Defendant is plainly willing to make arrangements for repayment and both her husband and daughter are likewise willing to allocate their respective incomes in order to reach the same end. Were Plaintiff amenable, she would presumably continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value. Plaintiff would receive a regular income stream, albeit with a reduced rate of interest and without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area. In short, a loan modification would result in a proverbial “win-win” for all parties involved. To do otherwise would result in virtually certain undomiciled status for two physically unhealthy persons and their daughter, leading to an additional level of problems, both for them and for society.

Since an action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage is one sounding in equity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investing Co. 274 NY 215 (1937), the very commencement of the action by Plaintiff invokes the Court’s equity jurisdiction. While it must be noted that the formal distinctions between an action at law and a suit in equity have long since been abolished in New York (see CPLR 103, Field Code Of 1848 §§ 2, 3, 4, 69), the Supreme Court nevertheless has equity jurisdiction and distinct rules regarding equity are still extant, Carroll v. Bullock 207 NY 567, 101 NE 438 (1913). Speaking generally and broadly, it is settled law that “Stability of contract obligations must not be undermined by judicial sympathy…” Graf v. Hope Building Corporation 254 NY 1 (1930). However, it is true with equal force and effect that equity must not and cannot slavishly and blindly follow the law, Hedges v. Dixon County 150 US 182, 192 (1893). Moreover, as succinctly decreed by our Court of Appeals in the matter of Noyes v. [*5]Anderson 124 NY 175 (1890) “A party having a legal right shall not be permitted to avail himself of it for the purposes of injustice or oppression…” 124 NY at 179.

In the matter of Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), Special Term stated that “The maxim of “clean hands” fundamentally was conceived in equity jurisprudence to refuse to lend its aid in any manner to one seeking its active interposition who has been guilty of unlawful, unconscionable or inequitable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks relief.” 133 NYS2d at 925, citing First Trust & Savings Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co. 98 F 2d 416 (8th Cir. 1938), cert. denied 305 US 650, 59 S. Ct. 243, 83 L. Ed. 240 (1938), reh. denied 305 US 676, 59 S Ct. 356 83 L. Ed. 437 (1939); General Excavator Co. v. Keystone Driller Co. 65 F 2d 39 (6th Cir. 1933), cert. granted 289 US 721, 53 S. Ct. 791, 77 L. Ed. 1472 (1933), aff’d 290 US 240, 54 S. Ct. 146, 78 L. Ed. 793 (1934).

In attempting to arrive at a determination as to whether or not equity should properly intervene in this matter so as to permit foreclosure of the mortgage, the Court is required to look at the situattion in toto, giving due and careful consideration as to whether the remedy sought by Plaintiff would be repugnant to the public interest when seen from the point of view of public morality, see, for example, 55 NY Jur. Equity § 113, Molinas v. Podloff 133 NYS2d 743 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954). Equitable relief will not lie in favor of one who acts in a manner which is shocking to the conscience, Duggan v. Platz 238 AD 197, 264 NYS 403 (3rd Dept. 1933), mod. on other grounds 263 NY 505, 189 NE 566 (1934), neither will equity be available to one who acts in a manner that is oppressive or unjust or whose conduct is sufficiently egregious so as to prohibit the party from asserting its legal rights against a defaulting adversary, In Re Foreclosure Of Tax Liens 117 NYS2d 725 (Sup. Ct. Kings County, 1952), aff’d on other grounds 286 AD 1027, 145 NYS2d 97 (2nd Dept. 1955), mod. on other grounds on reargument 1 AD2d 95, 148 NYS2d 173 (2nd Dept. 1955), appeal granted 7 AD2d 784, 149 NYS2d 227 (2nd Dept. 1956). The compass by which the questioned conduct must be measured is a moral one and the acts complained of (those that are sufficient so as to prevent equity’s intervention) need not be criminal nor actionable at law but must merely be willful and unconscionable or be of such a nature that honest and fair minded folk would roundly denounce such actions as being morally and ethically wrong, Pecorella v. Greater Buffalo Press Inc. 107 AD2d 1064, 468 NYS2d 562 (4th Dept. 1985). Thus, where a party acts in a manner that is offensive to good conscience and justice, he will be completely without recourse in a court of equity, regardless of what his legal rights may be, Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), York v. Searles 97 AD 331, 90 NYS 37 (2nd Dept. 1904), aff’d 189 NY 573, 82 NE 1134 (1907).

An objective and painstaking examination of the totality of the facts and circumstances herein leads this Court to the inescapable conclusion that the affirmative conduct exhibited by Plaintiff at least since since February 24, 2009 (and perhaps earlier) has been and is inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious. The Court is constrained, solely as a result of Plaintiff’s affirmative acts, to conclude that Plaintiff’s conduct is wholly unsupportable at law or in equity, greatly egregious and so completely devoid of good faith that equity cannot be permitted to intervene on its behalf. Indeed, Plaintiff’s actions toward Defendant in this matter have been harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive to the extent that it must be appropriately [*6]sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against Defendant. The Court cannot be assured that Plaintiff will not repeat this course of conduct if this action is merely dismissed and hence, dismissal standing alone is not a reasonable option. Likewise, the imposition of monetary sanctions under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 et. seq. is not likely to have a salubrious or remedial effect on these proceedings and certainly would not inure to Defendant’s benefit. This Court is of the opinion that cancellation of the indebtedness and discharge of the mortgage, when taken together, constitute the appropriate equitable disposition under the unique facts and circumstances presented herein.

After careful consideration, it is the determination of this Court that the indebtedness evidenced by the Adjustable Rate Note dated August 4, 2004 in the original principal amount of $ 292,500.00 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. should be cancelled, voided and set aside. In addition, the Mortgage which secures the Adjustable Rate Note, given to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages at Page 285, as assigned by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 should be cancelled and discharged of record. Further, Plaintiff, its successors and assigns should be forever barred and prohibited from any action to collect upon the Adjustable Rate Note. In addition, the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted on January 12, 2009 and entered on January 23, 2009 should be vacated and set aside and the Notice of Pendency should be cancelled and discharged of record. For this Court to decree anything less than the foregoing would be for the Court to be wholly derelict in the performance of its obligations.

Upon the Court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $ 292,500.00 dated August 4, 2004 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, voided, avoided, nullified, set aside and is of no further force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the Mortgage in the amount of $ 292,500.00 which secures said Adjustable Rate Note given by Diana J. Yano-Horoski to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages as Page 285, as assigned to IndyMac Bank F.S.B. by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 shall be and the same is hereby vacated, cancelled, released and discharged of record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff, its successors and assigns are hereby barred, prohibited and foreclosed from attempting, in any manner, directly or indirectly, to enforce any provision of the [*7]aforesaid Adjustable Rate Note and Mortgage or any portion thereof as against Defendant, her heirs or successors; and it is further

ORDERED that the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted under this index number on January 12, 2009 and entered in the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County on January 23, 2009 shall be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on July 27, 2005 under sequence no. 172456, which was extended by Order dated September 2, 2008 shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 29, 2008 under sequence no. 199616, shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Suffolk County shall cause a copy of this Order & Judgment to be filed in the Land Records so as to effectuate of record each and every one of the provisions hereinabove set forth with respect to cancellation of the instruments and items of record; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of Suffolk County, within ten (10) days from the date of entry hereof, any and all fees and costs required to effect cancellation of record of the Mortgage, Notices of Pendency and any other fees so levied; and it is further

ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of entry hereof, Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Clerk of Suffolk County and the Defendant.

This shall constitute the Decision, Judgment and Order of this Court.

Dated: November 19, 2009

Riverhead, New York

E N T E R:

______________________________________

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, J.S.C.
Abby in CA, on November 19, 2009 at 6:42 pm said:

Dan & Ian
I will be testing shortly what you are describing regarding the asset in bankruptcy.
Dan Edstrom, on November 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm said:

Ian,
It is my understanding that they cannot assign or transfer ANY property in bankruptcy without getting permission from the judge. They should have listed it as an asset in bankruptcy. Because of the date, which is AFTER the bankruptcy was initiated, this will be a HUGE issue. It appears to me that somebody is committing bankruptcy fraud unless it was done properly. Look at the bankruptcy filing. You probably need a bankruptcy lawyer to help – unless your lawyer knows how to do this.

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. Consult with an attorney.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ian, on November 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm said:

Anyone with any info? 6 years ago I was hit with an ttempted foreclosure on a second property I own.. My atty reviewed the mortgage itself and discovered that the lender, American Business Credit of Phila area had never applied one cent of my paymenbts to principal as per the note. (that made me feel real smart!) The judge gave us 3-6months to have my payment history recreated to see how much money should have been applied to principal and what my balance should be. About 2 months later I get a notice that the mortgage has been sold, new servicer, etc. I figured oh well. No further guidance from attorney. So here 6 years later, I get a writ of execution, just answered today, motion to open/strike, I have the same attorney, he answered that there is already an open docket on this matter from 2003. He is a capable attorney, don’t think he is up on everything on Neil’s website here. My question: does anyone know of any SPECIFIC law in regards to non-application of payments to pricipal? And the loan, while thus litigated, was sold to Security National Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-2, assignment of mortgage dated 2 weeks after originating lender (ABC) went ch11. Any thoughts or comments? Thanks. my email is isopko@sunlink.net or post here for all to see!
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm said:

November 17, 2009

A Massachusetts federal judge has upheld a bankruptcy court ruling allowing a trustee to treat a mortgage as an unsecured claim, which strips the mortgage holder of foreclosure rights, because of defective mortgage paperwork.

http://wp.me/pFWnq-5C

4closureFraud
Dan Edstrom, on November 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm said:

Marcus,
This quote is from your article:

Jumana Bauwens, a spokeswoman at Bank of America, says the bank is projecting an increase in foreclosures in part because customers will not be qualifying for existing loan-modification programs.

Maybe it is because my 9% payment is now an 18% payment for a home that is worth < 50% of what it was in 2005 when it was [fraudulently] appraised for the loan.

Oh yeah, and I am making more money now. Go figure.

Here is another interesting fact. I actually sent them probably 10 offers for a loan modification for $275,000. They never responded even though they had a BPO of $230,000. So they would rather lose $45,000 + costs of foreclosure (10's of thousands of dollars) instead of keeping me in my home.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 19, 2009 at 2:33 pm said:

Nice article Marcus.

Apparently they have never heard of (among other things) “mark to market”, impaired assets and receivership, bankruptcy, securitization, etc …

I thought the whole point of securitization was “bankrupt remote entities”, trusts, etc. Do you mean to tell me that some banks are actually holding these assets on their balance sheets? You mean in some instances they kept the asset but assigned the borrowers payments?

If this is all part of a single securities transaction can you say FRAUD? Isn’t every unlawful act a securities violation? If they violate the FDCPA by not verifying the debt before further collection, isn’t that now a securities violation? What about a fraudulent assignment? What about failure to disclose the true holder in due course?

• Asset write-downs. Banks may in part be waiting to liquidate homes through foreclosure because they don’t want to write down the value of the asset. Lenders can keep homes on the books at a higher value until they are sold at foreclosure.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Marcus, on November 19, 2009 at 2:19 pm said:

Next Wave of Foreclosures Looms
Source: USAToday

WASHINGTON – Nov. 19, 2009 – A second wave of foreclosures is poised to hit the market, potentially undermining housing recovery efforts as more homes add to the glut of inventory and drive down prices.

These homes largely represent loans that are delinquent but have not yet resulted in foreclosure sales.

About 7 million properties are destined to go into foreclosure, according to a September study by Amherst Securities Group, compared with 1.27 million properties in early 2005.

“There’s a huge supply out there,” says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. “The foreclosure process can take a long time. When it comes to (the housing recovery), we’re not home free.”

There is often a long lag time between a borrower going delinquent and the bank taking the home. Here’s why:

• Moratoriums. New state laws imposing short-term moratoriums have slowed the timeline from delinquency to foreclosure.

• Overwhelmed lenders. Banks dealing with a surge in refinancing, mortgage modifications and defaults are overwhelmed with demand, so it can take longer to initiate a foreclosure sale.

• Modifications. Many loans now are first examined to see if they might qualify for a modification. This drags out the timeline and means it is taking longer for homes to go into foreclosure.

• Asset write-downs. Banks may in part be waiting to liquidate homes through foreclosure because they don’t want to write down the value of the asset. Lenders can keep homes on the books at a higher value until they are sold at foreclosure.

“There is a lot of foreclosed property in the pipeline that will hit the market and depress prices,” says Mark Zandi at Moody’s Economy.com. Foreclosed homes often sell at prices below those on the market and can therefore drag down overall home values.

The shadow market of foreclosed homes eclipses the number of homes lost this year. Zandi anticipates there will be about 2.4 million homes lost next year through foreclosure, short sales and deeds in lieu of foreclosure. That compares with 2 million homes lost in 2009.

Jumana Bauwens, a spokeswoman at Bank of America, says the bank is projecting an increase in foreclosures in part because customers will not be qualifying for existing loan-modification programs.
James#, on November 19, 2009 at 11:36 am said:

here is the wording from my lawyers motion to dismiss:

This case should be dismissed as it fails to make the requuired jurisdictional allegations. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) requires “short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. . . . The complaint fails to allege whether Plaintiff is a resident or nonresident of Florida; whether Plaintiff has registered to do business in Fllorida: or whether Plaintiff has posted a bond as required by Florida Statutes (there is some mark here not on my keyboard) 57.011 in order to prosecute this case.
Abby in CA, on November 19, 2009 at 9:09 am said:

Arizona folks– I do not know if this AZ attorney is on the LL list, however I came across her name in a case against Aurora, MERS, Cal Western etc.

So she might be a resource in defending homewoners against foreclosure etc.

Veronica L. Manolio of Kelhoffer, Manolio & Firestone, PLC of Scottsdale, AZ.

If folks in other states are having trouble findng attorneys to assist with defending their homes and there are no resources on the LL list, then one avenue is to go down to your local civil clerk office at court and look up some recent cases on their computer (usually they have one available to public). You can see which attorneys are already defending homeowners, and see what types of results they are getting.
Abby in CA, on November 19, 2009 at 9:03 am said:

Arpad, Linda –

Check legal name of your bank/lender. If it has an N.A. or National Association in the name, then
this bank/lender can do business in any state of the USA without having to get any special registration or corporate license number in any state.

Also, you should check the parent company bank name, should your bank/lender/party is a subsidiary.
Sometimes the it is not so apparent whether the bank/lender/party is a subsidiary of a larger company.

For instance, and this is not a bank, but many folks are dealing with Cal Western Reconveyance Corp for their foreclosures. Cal Western Reconveyance Corp is actuallly a wholly owned subsidiary of Prommis Solutions, LLC, a Delaware Corporation.

In some cases, you may want to also name the parent company in your lawsuits.
Arpad, on November 19, 2009 at 7:20 am said:

Lisa, i do not know what makes a bank a resident in Florida or any state. Some say, if they have a branch in Florida they are resident. The way i read it that FS. is for private person suing and not for a corporation. But i could be wrong…
Arpad, on November 19, 2009 at 7:08 am said:

Hello,
I just got an affidavit as to attorney’s fees from FDLG. Friends…you need to check this out!! Signing attorney is LISA CULLARO, her signature is a DOUBLE LOOP, the signing notary public is ERIN CULLARO, her signature is a capital E !! This is what they filed here with Palm beach county court.
I could not believe when i got it yesterday. Unreal!
Linda, on November 19, 2009 at 6:38 am said:

Arpad and James#–your post is just sinking in–Chase is a nonresident of Florida? am I reading this right?–Chase calls us about 20 times a day (even after being sent a Cease and Desist letter)–
How do you find out the information about a business being a non-resident? Is it a big deal for the banks to post a bond? Might they just start doing that? Or is this going to slow them down.
Linda, on November 19, 2009 at 6:26 am said:

James#–congrats on dismissal–you need to take immediate action before they come back with new summons-(maybe rescission and Quiet Title?)-I had the same thing happen (case dismissed) and 20 days later I got another summons–
I also live in Florida–could you tell me what lawyer you are working with?
Lisa E., on November 18, 2009 at 10:12 pm said:

Arpad,

I filed a notice to the court that Plaintiff did not post a bond. Within a few days, my Plaintiff posted that $100 bond.

Here’s an example of one from ForeclosureProSe.com:

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Dan Edstrom, on November 18, 2009 at 7:37 pm said:

Deontos,
This law is NOT being changed to keep bondholders from notifying borrowers that they have an interest in borrowers loans. There is NO WAY they are notifying borrowers today. This law is being modified to protect the bondholders from being SUED for not disclosing this information.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 18, 2009 at 7:07 pm said:

Deontos,
That is just crazy and won’t help at all. I have discovered over 10 companies that all have an “interest” in my loan and that does not include the investors. While the Trust has alleged “legal title”, this is still a partial interest because they do not have any pecuniary interest. So this still does not disclose who has interest. HOW CAN YOU TRANSFER TITLE AND HAVE A VALID HISTORY IF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE NOT IDENTIFIED. They should make it absolutely mandatory that ALL parties with an interest have to be disclosed. Sarbanes-Oxley, securities companies, bank disclosures – these companies need to open and transparent in their dealings and they are the exact opposite. How can a title company assure title coverage if they do not know who has or who had an interest in a borrowers property?

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Deontos, on November 18, 2009 at 6:20 pm said:

Fed Proposes Changes to Mortgage Disclosure Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:57 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve is proposing to exempt some investors from a requirement that consumers receive notice within 30 days after their home loan is sold or transferred to a new mortgage company.

The requirement, included in legislation signed by President Barack Obama in May, means investors who buy mortgages now have to give consumers written notice that they are collecting payments.

Congress passed the law amid concerns that many consumers do not know who owns their home loan, especially since many are sold to investors as part of complex mortgage securities.

Under the Fed’s proposed interpretation of the rule published Monday, the disclosure requirement will apply only if an investor acquires legal title to loan. That excludes those who only acquire a partial interest, such as investors in mortgage-backed securities.

The Fed proposal is open to public comment for 60 days.
James#, on November 18, 2009 at 3:30 pm said:

Arpad
My lawyer got my case dismissed. With the Judge giving the Plaintiff 20 days to pay a $100 bond.
If the plaintiff (Chase) is not doing business in Florida they are required to post a bond.. Also the Plantiff had no standing which the Judge recognized. It’s been 2 months and the Judge has not yet posted the order giving the plaintiff 20 days to refile. I guess they are busy.
Arpad, on November 18, 2009 at 11:52 am said:

57.011 Costs; security by nonresidents.–When a nonresident plaintiff begins an action or when a plaintiff after beginning an action removes himself or herself or his or her effects from the state, he or she shall file a bond with surety to be approved by the clerk of $100, conditioned to pay all costs which may be adjudged against him or her in said action in the court in which the action is brought. On failure to file such bond within 30 days after such commencement or such removal, the defendant may, after 20 days’ notice to plaintiff (during which the plaintiff may file such bond), move to dismiss the action or may hold the attorney bringing or prosecuting the action liable for said costs and if they are adjudged against plaintiff, an execution shall issue against said attorney.

This is a FS. Can we force the banks to put up this bond?
Arpad, on November 18, 2009 at 11:46 am said:

Hello,
This just came up. The fact that the plaintiff (the Bank) in not domestic to Florida has any bearing on my case?
Lisa E, on November 18, 2009 at 8:41 am said:

Hi Alina,

Actually, I submitted two comments and got one F and one A- in response from the Florida Supreme Court.

Still, it is VERY disheartening that the main focus of this Task Force is enhancing efficiency of the judicial system in dispensing of these oh-so-burdensome foreclosure cases. Far be it from me to suggest the REAL issue is the pervasive judicial disregarding ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES that are being herding through the system like a cattle call. It’s a rodeo, and we are on the horns of a dangerous bull (PUN intended).

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Alina, on November 17, 2009 at 3:45 pm said:

Lisa E.,

The document you posted was, in part, drafted by the guy that is hawking the “Cancel the Mortgage Now” book.

btw, did you get the response to your comment from the FL Supreme Court? I received mine and it’s nice to know that the State of Florida does not care about the homeowners’ comments.

We are on our own folks. Is it too late for a Tea Party protest in front of the FL Supreme Court?
Search the Web on Snap.com, on November 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm said:

Study of Sarasota, Florida Foreclosure Cases reveal SHOCKING results: “incomplete documentation” in almost all cases!

href=”http://api.ning.com/files/bBGV9985jQ4EB*itLejgx9zLKIBCBs6KBP3kYA6N5zM_/Haste20Makes20Waste_Draft_Recommendation.pdf” target=”_blank”>Judges! Yooooooo Hoooooo! Oh custodians of Justice, where aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrree youuuu?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Dan Edstrom, on November 17, 2009 at 11:41 am said:

FDCPA violations

It is my understanding that violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act have a statute of limitations of 1 year.

The cases I have seen with foreclosure can go well over 1 year. If you do not initiate a lawsuit within 1 year of the violation, it is possible that you will lose your rights. I don’t see anyone “winning” their foreclosure case based on FDCPA violations. However, the kicker is that if you get summary judgment or “win” at trial on even 1 FDCPA cause of action, this will probably entitle you to get your legal fees covered (assuming the pleadings are done right and you are entitled to collect attorneys fees). In my opinion you should consider filing an action for your foreclosure within the appropriate time lines for including any FDCPA violations that have occurred.

I was involved in a case against an abusive debt collector in 2004/2005. We prevailed in summary judgment on 3 points and the defense on 1 point. But this means we won. This caused them to settle (a little late in my opinion). We received $4,000 but the attorneys recovered $20,000 in legal fees (this one happened to be on contingency). All of this for a debt that we had paid already paid that was under $1,000 (this case was all about the wording on the debt collection letter and the fact that they charged us numerous unlawful fees that debt collectors are not allowed to charge). The defense attorney kept insisting that we had owed the money and had paid it and they weren’t entitled to pay us anything. He gave his client very bad advice and refused to settle initially. FDCPA violations probably won’t make you rich, but the foreclosure cases are large and complex. FDCPA violations that you “win” might net you the following:

– you may get some or all of your fees back that you paid to your attorney already
– if you lose your case you may have to pay the other side’s legal fees, but with even 1 summary judgment “win” for an FDCPA violation, the other side will (probably) have to pay your legal fees (or at least some of your legal fees)

Whenever you receive any request to pay a debt from a debt collector (especially if it says it is or might be from a debt collector) ALWAYS dispute the debt and ask for verification. I always ask who the original creditor is. If the debt is under $1,000 I include a cease and desist for everything (my money, credit, personal info, credit reporting, selling, transfering, assigning or giving away the debt, etc., etc., etc) and revoke all rights which I may or may not have given them or someone else.

As always, I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is actually what I did with one of my own cases and is for educational and informational purposes. ALWAYS consult with an attorney.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 17, 2009 at 10:37 am said:

Alina, James,

I have been working on finding Cage’s (original name Coppola) files since I learned about it over the weekend. The property recorder for New Orleans does not have online access. Well it has a paid subscription of $100 a month for “inquiry only” use by the general public. The actual documents are not available. Only the indexed entries are available via the Remote Access Service.

Here is what I know so far.

Cage’s (Coppola) 10,300 sq-foot property at 1140 Royal Street went for $2.3 million, while the 13,200 sq-foot home at 2523 Prytania Street sold for $2.2 million.

Regions Bank, a Birmingham, Alabama-based lender, took two multi-million-dollar homes back.

The owner of record is Hancock Park Real Estate, a company set up so that Cage’s (Coppola) name would not appear on public records.

The auction took place at noon on November 12, 2009 at the Orleans Parish Civil District Court located at 421 Loyola Avenue.

I found the SALE BY CIVIL SHERIFF JUDICIAL ADVERTISEMENT.

Along with a copy of the federal tax lien for $625,7005.00.

Where it refrences the case number Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans No. 2009-8494

The Attorney ROBERT A. MATHIS (504) 837-9040 of Newman, Mathis, Brady & Spedale.

And the property discriptions…

LOT 3-A, SQUARE 214
FOURTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
MUNICIPAL NO: 2523 PRYTANIA STREET
ACQUIRED CIN 310095
- AND –
LOT 1, SQUARE 50
SECOND MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
MUNICIPAL NO. 1140 ROYAL STREET
ACQUIRED CIN 310095

That is a far as I can get. Can anyone access the court file or live in New Orleans to pull the property and case records?

It would be real intersting to see if the same schemes were played on him. If so, this could really help our fight.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
Dan Edstrom, on November 17, 2009 at 8:32 am said:

BT,
A Trustee is an agent for somebody else (my definition). The law firm was hired for somebody else (who may or may not have authority). It is my understanding that if they regularly collect debts they are considered a debt collector. Which state are you in? They will most likely be the ones filing an assignment from the originator to the Trustee (Trustee in securitization). Check your recordings to see if they have recorded it already. Who is the originator? Are they or have they been in bankruptcy? Do they still exist? Did another company take them over? What is the name of this company? Do some research on who is signing any documents provided since your notice of default. Send in a QWR, there are some good ones on this site, many of us have our own that we have used. Get an attorney right away to protect your rights and your property, these guys are insidious.

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Marcus, on November 17, 2009 at 8:08 am said:

BT,
The letter they sent you said it all. They are debt collectors.
I think they are correct when they said they don’t have to report the dispute to the credit bureaus. The original creditor has to do that. Alternatively, you can write to the three credit bureaus to dispute the debt.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
bt, on November 17, 2009 at 7:46 am said:

FDCPA

Can anyone clear this up?

IF a law firm is trying to foreclose in a nonjudicial state and has been appointed as Trustee by the lender, I would think that would make them a third party debt collector? yes or no

The law firm sent a FDCPA letter giving us the 30 days to dispute. WE did, but they never reported the loan in dispute to the credit reporting agencies. There attorney says they are not required to report to the credit agencies since they aren’t debt collectors?

Any help, law references or help on this?
Alina, on November 17, 2009 at 7:45 am said:

Re: Notaries

As a certified notary signing agent in both Florida and Texas, I can tell you that each state has its own rules and regulations. In Texas, a notary must keep a journal and thumbprints are required. However, that is not true for Florida. Florida law does not require a notary to keep a journal of all notarizations.

James,

I like your idea of getting someone with big money to donate to the cause. Equally important is to get the message out. I saw over the weekend on the CNN ticker that Nicholas Cage is in foreclosure. I could not find any detailed information re this. But my thought is that he’s probably in the same boat as the rest of us. Since he’s a pretty high profile celebrity, getting him to join the cause would be a tremendous asset. What do y’all think?

Alina
Rob, on November 17, 2009 at 7:20 am said:

I’m having trouble with my 2nd Lien holder. I sent the a QWR and got the following response from them:

Green Tree is in receipt of your correspondence dated November 6,2009.
The purpose of a qualified written request is to receive information, clarification or corrective
action regarding problems and disputes with the servicing1 of a loan secured by a first lien
mortgage. You are seeking information for a loan secured by a subordinate lien mortgage.
Therefore, 12 USC §2605(e) does not apply to your loan serviced by Green Tree.
Since this is not a proper qualified written request, Green Tree is not required to respond. As a
courtesy, Green Tree will respond to your servicing questions within 60 business days.
On May 1,2009, the servicing of your loan was transferred from to Green
Tree. Green Tree neither originated nor owns your loan; it merely services it for third party. It
can only provide information from May 1,2009 forward. Information requested which is not
germane to the actual servicing of your account will not provided.
Although 12 USC §2605(e) is not applicable to your correspondence, please be advised that a
qualified written request is not the appropriate vehicle assert loan origination issues.

Something stinks here….
Lisa E., on November 17, 2009 at 6:18 am said:

“=> No. Florida law does not require, nor authorize, notaries to take fingerprints from persons whose signatures they notarize.

=>Section 117.107(12), Florida Statutes, provides that you may not be the notary for a transaction in which you have a financial interest or to which you are a party.”

THIS COULD BE ADDED TO “THE LIST” FOR ALL FDLG victims! It doesn’t speak to the biggest frauds, but just one more nail to be hammered in the coffin.

Check out your AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES entered into the court file by FDLG. See the notary? Google the notary’s name and the name of your bank’s foreclosure mill firm.

Anything of interest show up?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm…………

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.Foreclosure Hamlet.org

***I am no attorney.****
floridadefenseteam, on November 17, 2009 at 5:32 am said:

=> No. Florida law does not require, nor authorize, notaries to take fingerprints from persons whose signatures they notarize.

=>Section 117.107(12), Florida Statutes, provides that you may not be the notary for a transaction in which you have a financial interest or to which you are a party.
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 17, 2009 at 4:42 am said:

Ella,

The donate button is on the top right corner of the main page of my blog.

Or you can just click the link below…

http://bit.ly/4closureFraudDonate

4closureFraud
Allan Hennessey, on November 16, 2009 at 11:19 pm said:

If anyone wants to donate, go to Paypal.com… and send a payment to Neils email address… Not sure if he has used paypal… but I am certain he or brad can figure it out… otherwise hit me up neil… I can walk you through setting it up.
James#, on November 16, 2009 at 9:41 pm said:

Re: Erica Johnson Seck,
If she were prosecuted for and found guilty of Fraud would all of the cases where she signed be thrown out or at least tainted. Maybe a campaign to put Erica in Jail would be in order. I would certainly donate to that cause. Is there a lawyer out there that would be willing to prosecute?
Ella, on November 16, 2009 at 9:21 pm said:

To Foreclosure Fraud,
Thank you for all the work you have done! I went to your site and couldn’t find where to donate. Where is it?
MSoliman, on November 16, 2009 at 8:49 pm said:

by msoliman

here it is ….a real amazing opportunity to look into the world of a genuine set of trouble makers. This moron actually thinks anyone with an Aurora loan is an automatic winner.

Aurora, counsel Jaime Siedler (a business contact of mine) has got wind of this unfair and unnecessary email considered judicial interference and now we have a name and details for our case pending for defamation and other allegations of tortous interference with an experts testimoney

You’ll love this one – please read!
————————————————————————-

From: bemoved@aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:28:18 -0500
To:
Subject: CONGRATULATIONS on your Friday the 13th

Good Luck on your UD case

Hi, Syreeta,

I am an active participant, with many embattled homeowners, of a 21st Century foreclosure defense blogsite http://www.LivingLies.WordPress.com (LL).

On LL we learned last Friday through Maher Soliman that you prevailed with a dismissal with prejudice against Aurora. Would you be willing to visit our blogsite, weigh in and tell us just how you did it?

Maher Soliman (a brilliant poster on LL) was ecstatic and claimed your victory was a vindication of arguments he used as an expert witness (supposedly on your case).

I was surprised because I was under the impression Aurora was ‘on the ropes’ in California, and that they just aren’t bothering to show up where homeowners defend their foreclosures (with or without attorneys).Could you share with us or with me how expert testimony helped, and if so, what was it?

(Mr. Garfield , me) we are all keen to learn from Maher Soliman . . . track his announced WINS (while we remain clueless!

————– look at this trash —————————

I understand Abby has contacted you. She mentioned something about the judge in this case.

RSVP

Allan O’Brien Denchfield
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 16, 2009 at 8:40 pm said:

James#

Great thought… Thanks for putting that out there…

If we had just a couple hundred dollars a week donated to what we are doing, we could really take this to the next level. We do what we do out of true passion for the greater good. People are losing their homes, their marriages, their family, there lives because of this well devised scheme.

Everything I have done so far I have published publicly for free with no expectations of getting paid. I don’t know how much longer my employer is going to keep me around when all I do when I am at work is “foreclosure fraud research” and do not get much else done.

If you, or anyone else, has contacts with Nader or someone who is “Super Rich” or would be interested in donating to what we are doing, feel free to send them our way. We could use the support.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
Abby in CA, on November 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm said:

RE: any forgeries on recorded documents with notary.

At least in California, the notary has to get a thumbprint of anyone notarizing any document to do with property.

It is kept in their notary journal.

Thus, if you have a suspected or known forgery like on a Corporate Deed of Assignment, you could prove it was a forgery by getting the fingerprint from the notary journal and comparing to the real person’s (whose name is being signed for on the document) fingerprint.

What about Florida? Does the notary have to get a fingerprint?
James#, on November 16, 2009 at 4:02 pm said:

Foreclosure Fraud,

We need a rich person to donate big money to the cause. I saw Ralf Nater giving a speech last night. He was promoting a book on don’t be afraid to ask rich people for money to help your cause. He went on to talk about how the Super Rich had helped move the Civil Rights movement forward as well as the Women’s Movement. Even a couple of million could go a long way in getting these frauds moved from civil court to criminal court.. Jail time for one of or all of these fraudsters would go a long way in getting this mess straighted out. Anyone know any SUPER RICH people? If you are out there, give the check to Neil he will know how best to use it. I know this is kind of crazy but sometimes just getting the idea out there can make things happen.
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm said:

Deontos,

The order was submitted to be dismiss WITH prejudice but the Judge denied and dismissed it WITHOUT prejudice. Regardless it was dismissed. Even with all the facts presented here the pretender lender gets another shot.

Not much of a response so far since I posted it last night. Feel free to share it with anyone who will listen. The more people that learn how corrupt this is, the better we will all be. This is not an isolated incident.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

Disclaimer
I am not an attorney. The materials I reference are for informational purposes only and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Deontos, on November 16, 2009 at 1:24 pm said:

ForeclosureFraud,

I just read the deposition you posted here:

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-28824

Has a judge ruled on this “MOTION FOR SANCTION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE”?

I wish I understood all the legal implications. But as a kno’ nothin’ layman I would say it ain’t good for MERS. And it ain’t good for Deutsche Bank either. My god! These PEOPLE! They flat out LIED in their Interrogatory and then in the deposition were forced to admit their deceits. It puts AGAIN a GLARING light on what you’ve been screaming from the roof tops about.

Has anyone else responded to you on this? It would seem this really exposes LEGALLY the culpability of MERS and these foreclosure mills NATIONWIDE who follow this pattern of fraudulent filings and assignments to illegally foreclose on homeowners.
Lisa E., on November 16, 2009 at 4:03 am said:

Now we’re talking!

This breaks it down nice and neatly.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 15, 2009 at 1:59 pm said:

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck – RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado

http://wp.me/pFWnq-4k

4closureFraud
Bryan, on November 14, 2009 at 4:51 pm said:

I’m still alive and don’t know how?

M&I Bank admitted to buying my 5 acres on wholesale from the contractor and this is another reason why I didn’t know there was a loan on my property.

After the house burned down, the bank postponed the illegal auction from Sept. 9, 2009 (already past) to December 16, 2009.

The insurance company is as fraudulent as the bank. I’ve now been living on my 5 acres for 3 months without water, electric (nothing at all) last night I almost froze to my death. NO JOKE… But at least I would have been on my land. After the 16 I won’t have a place to park my car.

Still in Arizona
Still no help
4 heart attachs now (and I keep living) WTF

My life may not be as worse as Genises but it seems like it.

The bank refuses to allow my insurance to pay off the loan and therefore the insurance refuses to pay anything, so far. and I still can’t get an attorney.

Sorry to those who have left me phone messages, I live out of range and can’t call out. I could right now but the messages faded away already and I am on a friends puter.

God Bless Us Everyone and Good luck and I pray none of you ever go through what I have been going through for 6 years.
Abby in CA, on November 12, 2009 at 4:32 pm said:

Mortgage Fraud & Closing Agents–what to look for!!

Closing Agents
• Concealed Payments
• Multiple Settlement Statements
• Conversion of Funds to Personal Use
• Multiple Conveyance
• Bogus Down Payment Sources / Seller 2nds
• Sales Contract Manipulation
• Borrower Identity Validity
• Affiliated Relationships
• Validation and Verification
Marcus, on November 11, 2009 at 4:25 pm said:

Thank you Allan. I have a person account to NCLC web site. But I could not find one exactly for the state of Georgia.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 11, 2009 at 2:04 pm said:

Deontos,
Thank you very much for the link; that’s exactly what I was looking for.
__________________________
marcus @ foreclsorueProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on November 11, 2009 at 12:33 pm said:

GOLDMAN SACHS CASTIGATES MCCLATCHY:

Letter to the editor from Goldman Sachs

Sir:

Your recent series of articles on Goldman Sachs (Goldman Sachs’ Secret Bets) is filled with unsubstantiated claims, innuendo and outright falsehoods. This is not investigative journalism but, rather, poorly researched and sensationalist fabrications presented as facts.

As your reporter knows, there is no factual basis for the theories put forward in the articles, and your claim that we misled investors is untrue.

You have done your readers a disservice.

Sincerely,

Lucas van Praag
Managing Director
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
85 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004

(Editor’s note: Van Praag is the chief spokesman for Goldman Sachs. McClatchy stands by its reporting, and rejects as untrue his allegation that the reporter knows “there is no factual basis” for the articles.)

Commenters:
#1
JimWhite wrote on 11/10/2009 07:21:49 PM:

My dear Mr. van Praag,

You and I both know that if there were indeed “no factual basis” for what McClatchy has published regarding your firm, your notification would be made to them through the court rather than through a letter to the editor. Please do try to keep up.

And you might want to keep your passport handy. You never know when you and your colleagues might just decide it’s a good time to retire to an island without an extradition treaty with the US.

In the meantime, I eagerly await the next installment of the McClatchy series.

Sincerely

Jim White

#2
FletcherFramer wrote on 11/10/2009 04:59:15 PM:

A typical attack on the messenger that we are supposed to believe is a refutation of the issues raised in the articles. It would have more credibility if it would have addressed the specific issues and shown what specific factual errors they claim.
Deontos, on November 11, 2009 at 12:24 pm said:

PATHOS

Man trying to serve legal documents shot in leg

By Kristina Davis, Karen Kucher

Originally published November 11, 2009 at 1:03 a.m., updated November 11, 2009 at 7:44 a.m.

ESCONDIDO — A 50-year-old process server trying to deliver some legal documents at an Escondido home Tuesday night was shot in the leg and a 65-year-old man was arrested, police said.

The shooting occurred near Avenida del Diablo and Red Bark Road after 9 p.m., Escondido police said. The victim ran to his car and drove away before calling 911 on Del Dios Highway.

He was taken to a hospital and is expected to recover.

The man who lived in the home also called police after the shooting. Police arrested Burk Neal Ashford on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, said Escondido police Lt. Mike Loarie. He is being held in Vista jail on $75,000 bail.

A .22-caliber revolver was recovered. Two shots were fired in the incident, Loarie said.

It was initially thought that the victim was serving an eviction notice.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/11/possible-eviction-notice-server-shot-leg/
Deontos, on November 11, 2009 at 8:47 am said:

Marcus,
——————————————————————
Marcus, on November 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am Said:

Hello,
I am looking for a sample TRO and Preliminary Injunction pleading for the state of Georgia. Can someone help?
Thanks
——————————————————————

I am not sure if you wanted a BLANK “TRO Form” to do a pleading or a sample of an actual TRO pleading that someone else has already done.

I found a pleading done regarding a foreclosure action in July 2009.

LINK:
In the state of Georgia:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18096819/Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-OrderPreliminary-Injunction
ALLAN in MA & FL (With a reply to MARCUS for pleadings and forms from NCLC ~ National Consumer Law Center), on November 11, 2009 at 8:18 am said:

MARCUS, try http://cladv.wssites.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fDefault.aspx

USERNAME: norfolklawlibrary
PASSWORD: patron

Good luck!

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
rick k, on November 11, 2009 at 8:11 am said:

just wanted to thank every one here for their contributions to helping others in their time of need. i admire everyone taking a stand to fight the good fight.fight on . what a great community.. i have been fighting for one year. i have since hired an attorney but i started my fight with info here and it was invaluable in helping me see their was hope.thanks again
i hope something i am working on will help those here who need it
Marcus, on November 11, 2009 at 7:58 am said:

Hello,
I am looking for a sample TRO and Preliminary Injunction pleading for the state of Georgia. Can someone help?
Thanks
___________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
wwwDOTforeclosureProSe.com
ALLAN in MA & FL (WITH 22 STATE FORECLOSURE MEDIATION PROGRAMS from NCLC ~ National Consumer Law Center), on November 11, 2009 at 1:09 am said:

22 PROGRAMS for FORECLOSURE MEDIATION and MANDATORY CONFERENCES

Programs for Foreclosure Mediation and Mandatory Conferences

* Summary of Programs

Summary of 22 state/local programs that establish some type of foreclosure diversion program requiring lenders to engage in mediation, conciliation, or a settlement conference. Summaries include a general program description and lender and borrower obligations under the program.

* Programs: Forms and Documents

Links to text of enabling legislation, administrative orders,court rules, forms and other information links related to programs.

* Pending Legislation

Jobs | Unreported Cases | Useful Links | Site Map | Contact Us
National Consumer Law Center, 7 Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110

© Copyright, National Consumer Law Center, Inc., All rights reserved.
National Consumer Law Center and NCLC are trademarks of National Consumer Law Center, Inc.
Joe, on November 10, 2009 at 9:48 am said:

BlackRock CEO Fink Dismisses Talk Of Possible Bubble
Last update: 11/10/2009 11:31:41 AM

By Daisy Maxey
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Laurence Fink, chairman and chief executive of BlackRock Inc. (BLK), said there’s all too much talk of a bubble being created in the equities market, and that the economy is now in a period of stability.
“I think things are playing out as they should,” Fink said in discussion Tuesday with Alan Murray, deputy managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and executive editor for the Journal Online. The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp. (NWSA), which also publishes this newswire. BlackRock is the largest public asset manager in the U.S.
“We are now seeing record amounts of cash being put to work,” with huge flows even going into hedge funds recently, said Fink, who dismissed talk of a bubble. There are too many articles in today’s newspapers about bubbles, he said, adding that crises occur when they’re not in the rearview mirror.
The financial system needs change, including increased transparency, more derivatives trading on exchanges and regulatory change, Fink said. He also said though BlackRock misjudged the commercial real-estate sector, it’s an area on which it will be refocusing and that the asset-management business is changing dramatically.
Fink also said he didn’t think the U.S. dollar would fall that far, though it will slip lower versus the yuan, the real and other countries’ currencies. “I don’t know if this is a bad thing,” he said. “Hopefully, a weakening dollar will produce more companies willing to manufacture here.”
As for the crisis, the financial system needs to be a lot more responsive to society and make sure this doesn’t happen again, Fink said. “Risk has to be a lot more transparent to investors. I think that is happening.”
The system is dialing back risk substantially, bringing down leverage, Fink said. It also needs more derivative products trading on exchanges and to make sure everything is done on balance sheet, he said. But regulatory change is also in order, Fink said, calling for global consistency in regulation and risk management.
One question that needs to be answered is “where will capital come from to finance America next year?” Fink said. The Obama administration’s theory is that if interest rates are kept low, banks may start lending in the mortgage area, he said. “I hope the private sector will come in,” he said, but noted that there’s currently a reluctance to buy mortgage securities because of the uncertainty around rights as a first lien holder.
In addition, a new ratings system is needed if there’s going to be more private-sector involvement in the mortgage sector, he said.
Fink also launched into a defense of mortgage securitization, calling it “a good thing” that went bad in this decade. “For 30 years, mortgage securitization saved American homeowners 250 basis points” on their mortgages, he said. It was not the structure, but the underwriting and the acceptance of risk which became a problem, he said.
As for commercial real estate, BlackRock “probably had an overzealous view of where real estate was going to go,” Fink said, noting that before 2006, it has been a sector where there had been “tens of years of success.” Commercial real estate hasn’t rallied much, and if you believe that tight spreads and high yields will continue and that the U.S. can grow only about 2% a year, “we are going to have slow healing,” he said.
Nevertheless, it’s an area on which BlackRock will be refocusing, he said, noting that for the first time in a year, an investor has given the asset manager money to be put into the sector “because they think values are now appealing.”
As for the asset-management business, it’s being dramatically redefined, with more and more clients seeking holistic advice and increased use of traditional beta (index-tracking) products, Fink said. BlackRock is helping clients manage large chunks of their portfolios “almost like a fiduciary outsourcing,” he said.
- By Daisy Maxey; Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2237; daisy.maxey@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
November 10, 2009 11:31 ET (16:31 GMT)
Copyright © 2009 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved.
Marcus, on November 9, 2009 at 4:44 pm said:

Housing Crisis Redefines Broker-banker Relationships
Source: Houston Chronicles
HOUSTON – Nov. 9, 2009 – In his 17 years as a mortgage broker, Edward Kampf developed long-standing relationships with banks that would provide home loans to his customers.

But when the housing crisis hit, some lenders began turning their backs on brokers – the mortgage middlemen who originated the majority of loans during the boom.

When Kampf started having trouble finding financing for his customers, he converted his business to a mortgage banking operation, joining a growing number of mortgage professionals getting out of the brokerage business and into banking.

“It’s not that it’s a utopia, but you have more confidence in underwriting, longer lines of credit and peace of mind,” he said.

Over the next two years, mortgage bankers are going to gain a significantly larger share of the market, said Scott Norman, vice president of the Texas Mortgage Bankers Association.

He expects the 250-member association to grow another 10 percent over the next year as regulations governing brokers become tighter.

But even in his role representing bankers, Norman said taking brokers out of the equation does a disservice to the marketplace.

“They bring a good sense of competition,” he said. “There’s always going to be a mom and pop mortgage broker down the street who can provide you with excellent service with good rates and good fees. I don’t think that should go away.”

A mortgage broker is someone who matches a borrower with a lender.

The broker earns a commission on the transaction, but once the loan has closed, the broker’s involvement ends.

Alternatively, a mortgage banker typically provides its own funds and therefore assumes more risk.

The number of brokers multiplied during the housing boom when lenders were eager to loan to almost anyone.

Image problems

Their ranks began tapering off when the market cratered and they were painted as greedy and untrustworthy.

To distance themselves from brokers, some large financial institutions ended their wholesale lending divisions that funded loans brought in by third-party brokers.

They began to focus exclusively on retail customers.

Kampf said borrowers seeking second homes, construction loans and jumbo financing were considered high risk – even if they were doctors or lawyers with great credit and plenty of cash in the bank.

Brokers were getting fewer referrals from real estate agents, too.

“It’s easier to market yourself to Realtors as a banker versus broker because of the perception involved,” Kampf said. “From a marketing standpoint, it’s been a benefit.”
______________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 9, 2009 at 4:10 pm said:

More Walk Away From Homes, Mortgages
Source: US TODAY
PENNINGTON, N.J. ¬– Nov. 9, 2009 – When Sharon Sakson was laid off recently from her job as a television writer and producer, she burned through her savings to pay the $2,400 monthly mortgage on her home. But she soon decided it didn’t make sense: Her home was worth thousands less than the mortgage she carried on it.

The home had been appraised at $390,000 when she refinanced in 2006, but she estimates it’s not worth the $320,000 it initially cost in 2004. So Sakson did what a growing number of homeowners are doing today: She stopped paying and decided to let the bank take her home.

“I’m walking away from my house,” says Sakson, 57, who stopped making payments about six months ago on her home in Pennington, N.J. “The bank can have it.”

What Sakson did is called a strategic default, or a voluntary foreclosure, and it’s fast becoming a major challenge to the government’s $75 billion effort to keep distressed borrowers in their homes. Walking away from a mortgage is serious business – it can knock 100 points off your credit score and make you ineligible for a new mortgage for seven years. Yet, about 588,000 borrowers walked away from homes last year, double the number in 2007, according to a recent study by credit-scoring firm Experian and management consultants Oliver Wyman. While home prices are rising, the increases pale compared with overall drops in home prices since 2005 that threaten to push millions more homeowners into Sakson’s predicament, owing more than their homes are worth and seeing little chance of rebuilding equity soon.

More will walk away, which will hamper the housing recovery, reinforce lenders’ tight credit policies and drag on the economy’s recovery, economists say.

“It’s increasingly a more important factor driving the foreclosure crisis,” says Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Economy.com. “As we move forward, the job market will stabilize, and the big thing will be strategic defaults. People are going to determine it doesn’t make financial sense to hold on to their homes. That’s going to be a significant problem. Strategic defaults mean foreclosures could be high for a long time.”

It’s not just economists who are concerned about strategic defaults.

The mortgage unit of Citigroup says one in five borrowers who defaults does so willingly, even though they’re able to pay the mortgage. “It’s a very large number, and it’s a very, very significant risk to the housing recovery,” says Sanjiv Das, CEO of CitiMortgage, adding that new government programs to curb strategic defaults may be needed.

Waiting for prices to stabilize

How bad the strategic defaults issue gets may depend on how much more home prices fall and whether the government does more to help homeowners with mortgages larger than their homes’ value. Both Zandi and Das suggest further actions to reduce mortgage principal for underwater borrowers.

“A better way to do it may be an incentive to stay current for a period, and after two years of being current, they get a principal reduction,” says Das.

The government’s current Making Homes Affordable program for mortgage modifications disqualifies borrowers whose unpaid mortgages are more than 125 percent of the home’s market value.

Nationally, median prices have fallen about 25 percent from their peak in late 2005, although prices recently have risen compared with prior months this year. The median price in the second quarter – $170,000 – was at roughly the level it was in autumn 2003.

But price declines have been worse in some markets. A closely watched barometer of home prices, the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index, shows they have fallen more than 25 percent in 12 markets and more than 50 percent in two – Phoenix and Las Vegas – from peaks hit in 2006 or 2007.

Fifteen out of the 20 metro areas saw a rise in prices from July to August, but those increases are not anywhere close to the losses that have already occurred.

The number of borrowers who walk away is expected to increase, along with the rise in homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth. An unprecedented 16 million homeowners currently are underwater, according to Moody’s Economy.com. That’s about a third of all homeowners with a first mortgage.

Moody’s Economy.com estimates the number of underwater borrowers will peak at 17.4 million in the third quarter of 2010.

An even higher estimate comes from Deutsche Bank, which predicted in an August study that the number of homeowners underwater will grow from 14 million (or 27 percent of all homeowners with mortgages) in 2009 to 25 million homeowners, or 48 percent of all those with a mortgage, by the time home prices stabilize.

Not coincidentally, strategic defaults have been highest where prices have plunged most, such as California and Florida.

From 2005 to 2008, the number of strategic defaulters went up by 68 times in California, according to the Experian-Oliver Wyman study published in September. During that same time period, the median price for existing, single-family homes in California fell from $522,670 in 2005 to $346,410, according to the California Association of Realtors.

In other geographic regions, the increase in strategic defaulters ranged between 3 times and 18 times more.

The Experian-Wyman study found borrowers with higher credit scores when they applied for their loan were 50 percent more likely than other types of borrowers to walk away from a mortgage only because they were underwater, even though they could afford to pay. The study was based on an analysis of about 12 million borrowers.

No household would default if the equity shortfall is less than 10 percent of the value of the house, according to another study this year, done by the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the European University Institute. But 17 percent of households would default, even if they could afford to pay their mortgage, when the equity shortfall reaches 50 percent of the value of their house. That means the market value of a mortgage property is that much below the amount of loan taken against it.

There also appears to be a contagion effect. Borrowers who know someone who defaulted are 82 percent more likely to declare their intention to do so.

Growing acceptance

“The most disturbing aspect of this is that it’s becoming acceptable to do,” says Joel Naroff, an economist with Naroff Economic Advisors. “What does that mean down the road for housing and the economy if people are happy to walk away and destroy their credit? They’re saying, ‘Why pay a high amount if they can get something, even a rental, for less?’ “

Because of the time and expense involved in completing a foreclosure, borrowers who decide to walk away often wind up staying in their homes for months after they stop paying their mortgage.

In most states, lenders can go after homeowners for past-due payments, but many fail to take such action when borrowers abandon their properties, because the legal costs are so high.

Short sales, in which lenders agree to the sale of a home for less than the balance of the mortgage, is an alternative to a strategic default. Many lenders are now encouraging them, but Zandi says that alternative may seem too time-consuming for borrowers who want to quickly get out from under their homes.

Janet Speer, 51, isn’t happy to be walking away from her 200-year-old home in Royersford, Pa., but she doesn’t feel ashamed. Speer says she was paying about $1,400 a month for her home, which was appraised at about $155,000.

After getting laid off last year, Speer said, she tried to modify her mortgage to more affordable terms but was denied because her unemployment benefits and alimony didn’t count as income. Speer stopped paying on her mortgage in September 2008.

She is still living in the home and waiting to be foreclosed upon. Speer is saving her unemployment benefits for an apartment once the bank takes over her home.

“I got letters and calls from the bank at first, but they stopped,” said Speer, who now earns commission income from a job in the health care industry. “I have a three-story house. It’s way too big. I just want a little two-bedroom apartment. I don’t want this place anymore. I would never have chosen to do this, but it’s going to work out.”
___________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 9, 2009 at 3:21 pm said:

I created this document to show how to search the SEC web site for documents about one mortgage trust.
All constructive comments are welcome. It is released under Creative Common License for wider distribution.

www. foreclosureprose.com/storage/forms/HowToFindATrustSECFiling.pdf

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Ella, on November 9, 2009 at 1:40 pm said:

Watchdog warns bankers they could go to jail in stinging attack on financial industry

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226430/Watchdog-warns-bankers-jail-stinging-attack-financial-industry.html#ixzz0WOf3jV98

Why can’t we even “warn” them here in the US?
M.Soliman, on November 9, 2009 at 7:25 am said:

Comments: “but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.”
——————————————————————————
Void (vs voidable) from the commencement
By M. Soliman
November 09 2009 6:08 PST

Los Angeles, CA // Filing an action is necessary for keeping your home after determining a wrongful foreclosure claim. I don’t see anyway around it as the state and federal initiatives are like going to court over and over and getting tossed by the trustee every time. (What?)

Until a court rules on the matter it may be the only way you have a way to protect your home.

Yet, real property (e.g. in California) cannot transfer from one party to another where a lien is considered to be defect.

The notion is the sale must fail whereby a transfer or conveyance or real property is near impossible. But a closer look at case law will mandate a good attorney for determining the grounds for calling a Trustees Sale void or voidable and need for understanding the remedies where a tort or material violation does exist.

Even when a fraud takes place we remind clients the court may not necessarily rule your home is yours anymore; even after determining the deed and transfer is unenforceable.

A predatory loan is something that falls under a theorem of “Mutual Consideration”. It is the shared responsibility by both sides for a willful act offered by one and accepted by the other party.

For example, you took the loan under the circumstances as a borrower from a predatory lender and now changed your mind. The courts say Ummmm! I don’t think so.

Courts also are sticking with the notion of equitable consideration. Therefore there is no one to blame according to some courts recent rulings. I don’t know about that where a cause of action can be made by an attorney and claims can be made supporting the deed is potentially defective.

Another type of claim is made where someone committing an unlawful act such as a forgery or a recorded document facilitates the sale. Where fraud or deceptive business practices is proven the deed is considered defect and therefore the sale must fail.

If the subject loan originated through unfair business practices, then your deed or mortgage maybe argued to be subject to a defect. That deed or mortgage will “rest disturbed” even where subject to substantive arguments brought in litigation. Therein your claims may make the transfer of the property impossible and that includes a UD hearing.

In other words the power of sale and right to acceleration in a non judicial matter are rendered unenforceable. You challenge the lenders security which always allows them to claim your home in a judgment. It is unenforceable from commencement or discovery and subject to a void or voidable determination by the court. Here is the catch you need to be aware of. It falls under fraudulent releases, request for reconveyance and forgeries.

Can a bona fide purchaser acquire title to property involved free of the improperly reconvened deed of trust? The answer is yes! Its a judeges call between void and voidable acts and the deeds. It suggest it’s not the forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.

Expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman
M.Soliman, on November 9, 2009 at 7:02 am said:

Motion to Dismiss…first time. Plaintiff is a no show?

Need more facts! Decision entered is final? If final ask the court to handle it. Your judgement is in favor of …? Done then ? right?

Need more info! (I am pulling for you …)

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
M.Soliman, on November 9, 2009 at 6:59 am said:

Dan

MERS is not a gang …it’s a club.

We would ship (my prior life) collateral packages for over three days. Notes and assignments do get lost in Fed Ex and the warehouse bank would lose stips or we need a new endorsement, jurat, rider, etc.

It would delay wires by a month and I had payroll worry about.

You ever see those RV’s on the road with a happy Sam sticker. Or how about triple AAA. If you join you’re a member and MERS gives members full authorization to sign away . . . and the wire is out the next day.

You can ship after the fact as MERS will insure the collateral. If they dont make every lender an honorary officer of MERS and don’t have the power of attorney ….I am confused here bubs!

Peace

M. Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
jeff, on November 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm said:

Does anyone know fo any case law regarding quiet title, specifically as it relates to securitazition. Since I won my Motion to Dismiss, I now have to clear up the cloud on my property. These pretenders caused this problem.

Can I sue for my Attorneys fees? Since they caused the problem, shouldn’t they be responsible to clean it up?

Thanks

Jeff
Dan Edstrom, on November 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm said:

Lisa E.,
That is awesome information. Among other things, the misrepresentation is NO CONSIDERATION when the assignment states “FOR VALUE RECEIVED” or similar text from the new assignee to the originator. I am sure California has something similar for recordings at the county or in court cases.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
jeff, on November 8, 2009 at 8:48 am said:

Lisa E.

Thanks for the kudos but without everyone here it would not have been possible. SO THANKS TO EVERYONE HERE.

Jeff
Dan Edstrom, on November 7, 2009 at 8:28 pm said:

Maher,
You may be correct about the power of attorney. However, my limited view is that the foreclosing attorneys are not that smart either. They do not have it because the servicer does not give it to them (they only tell them). It doesn’t mean smarter attorneys will not include references to some sort of actual “power of attorney”. In the cases I have read (only 2 I believe), the attorneys never provided proof of power of attorney to the court.

Even if they were to provide proof of a power of attorney, the court still needs to determine if the power of attorney was used as provided by the proof.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
M.Soliman, on November 7, 2009 at 7:53 pm said:

Dan – Impressed – but no cigar here.

MERS affords the power of attorney to the person assigned the task of executing the documents or instruments. Those documents are drawn on software with a special twist. Therefore the notices are pulled in advance and like some states is part of the original deed of trust.

MERS on the other hand empowers the person in charge to have endorsed the documents by jurat and assignment in blank (there’s an issue). Get MERS on your side and seek an injunction if necessary. So why attack MERS – they and trustee work for the parties’ collectively – yeah right.

Careful here, as your observations (as many attorneys do) lack onsite experience where the real world which is in violation with the procedural “other” world. That is the trustees and attorneys advantage in court.

As for affirmative defenses available to homeowners- one would never believe the vast number of procedural shortfalls and volume of errors and omission evidenced in almost every recovery effort we see. It’s a difficult decision when contemplating defending a home in foreclosure. It can be done successfully and we recommend using an attorney. The market for attorneys with this level of expertise however is concerning.

We believe it safe to assume the industry mandates maintaining tight regulatory control ensured by regulated use of approved software and dedicated documents system where certain instruments (assignment, substitution and deed of trust) shall recorded. Foreclosure recording information must be consistent to ensure valid timeliness.

Altering a document raises concerns for integrity and subjecting the trustee to impossible events and Trustor to unfair business practices and deceptive dealings. The fact most loan originated in 2004 through 2007 are predatory or in error is cause t claim the security is disturbed.

If the Trustor can show in a court of law where the deed has in fact violated civil code it may be rendered defect and therefore cannot ever convey title to real property.

Expert.witness @live.com
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.
Lisa E., on November 7, 2009 at 7:25 pm said:

Dan,

In Florida the FELONY is held in FL Statute §817.545 (2)(d). ASSignment Fraud in any of your cases?

I wonder if other states have similar statutes?

817.545 Mortgage fraud.–

(2) (d) Files or causes to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court for any county of this state a document involved in the mortgage lending process which contains a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission.

(5)(a) Any person who violates subsection (2) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (2), and the loan value stated on documents used in the mortgage lending process exceeds $100,000, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet@gmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 7, 2009 at 8:19 am said:

Steve Sinacola,
The putative assignment’s are all “FOR VALUE RECEIVED” and of course no value was received

The putative assignment’s are all done by the transferee – the transferor is not present (and in many instances is either in bankruptcy or no longer exists) – this is very much like you allegedly owing me some unknown disputed amount of approx. $100.00 and I take YOUR check and and I have my “friend” John Smith (who isn’t very bright) write it out and sign it using a power of attorney that I told him I had for you.

The putative assignment is done under color of authority

In California, using somebodys personally identifiable information to commit any unlawful act is a FELONY (with or without that persons permission). (see CPC 530.5)

Common law: No good title passes with fraud

I have heard that it is a felony to mess with title to somebodys property (I have not confirmed this)

Many other issues discussed on this site and elsewhere

Now throw into the mix disparagement of title

The judges are typically concerned about “equitable distribution” but it sure seems to me that kicking somebody out of their home and giving it to those committing fraud, felonies and other unlawful acts (fraud upon the court, bankruptcy fraud, etc) is not very equitable.

Just remember – whatever you FAIL to bring up in a lawsuit will typically not be heard or considered by the judge or a jury.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. Consult with an attorney to determine what is applicable in your circumstances.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
steve sinacola, on November 7, 2009 at 7:06 am said:

I’ve learned a new term, “Slander of Title’. From Wki:
In law, slander of title is normally a claim involving real estate in which one entity falsely claims to own another entity’s property. Alternatively, it is casting aspersion on someone else’s property, business or goods, e.g. claiming a house is infested with termites (when it is not), or falsely claiming you own someone else’s copyright (what allegedly occurred in the SCO v. Novell case). Slander of title is a form of jactitation.[1]

Slander of title is a one of the “specialized” Common law intentional torts. The State of California has adopted the definition of slander of title set forth in section 624 of the Restatement of Torts reading as follows: “One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another’s property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.”

The term slander of title is somewhat of a misnomer as slander refers to that which is spoken yet the tort slander of title requires publication. A more accurate term would be “disparagement of title”

A slander of title suit can be pursued with merit in a variety of circumstances including but not limited to” the filing of an invalid lien against real property or virtually any type of recordable instrument recorded against a property by one without privilege which is untrue….It is not a requirement that it be recorded merely published, and in the broadest sense of the word. Published can ever refer to the placement of a lawn sign in front of someone’s property upon which is conveyed an untrue disparaging statement.

I am curious to know how (if) one could use “Slander of Title” to defend their home. At any rate, due to the “defective sheriff” lawsuit,counter-claims of “Conversion and Slander of Title” are now before the court.
Lisa E., on November 7, 2009 at 6:58 am said:

JEFF!!!

May I attend your coronation as KING of LivingLies for the month? Could I perhaps finesse my way into a VIP Invitation!

WOW! That is some MAJOR impact you’ve just had on the world!

Congratulations and a HUGE heartfelt THANK YOU!

Lisa E
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
steve sinacola, on November 6, 2009 at 11:37 pm said:

Class action filed AGAINST THE SHERIFF for unlawful forclosure…

Associated Press

4:22 a.m. CST, November 5, 2009

DETROIT – A lawyer who has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit says tens of thousands of foreclosures in Wayne County are unlawful because sheriffs did not follow state law when they conducted foreclosure auctions.

The suit filed in federal court by Bloomfield Hills attorney Paul Nicoletti seeks to set aside the foreclosures of 46 plaintiffs in Wayne County and potentially hundreds of thousands of others statewide.

The suit claims former Wayne County Sheriff Warren Evans was required by law to sign the sheriff’s deeds. But, as in most Michigan counties, the undersheriff signed.

Nicoletti tells The Detroit News it’s a “hyper-technical argument, but it’s due process.”

Evans, now Detroit police chief, and current Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon declined comment
dasmom, on November 6, 2009 at 5:10 pm said:

@Alina

The foreclosure mediation program in my state has all of the stipulations you mentioned and a 60 day time limit. My attorney told me that he has heard of mediation cases taking 6 – 9 months without having a final resolution. With the mounting attorney’s fees, interest, etc. the homeowner ends up upside down on the mortgage if they weren’t upside down before. Sometimes this whole process seems hopeless, especially if the homeowner doesn’t have the funds to keep paying their own attorney.
Deontos, on November 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm said:

Urgent: GOT TO HAVE A MEMBERSHIP CARD TO GET INSIDE

From:
http://www.imfpubs.com/issues/imfpubs_ima/2009_42/news/1000012647-1.html

** Inside Mortgage Finance Publications **
Inside MBS & ABS

Some Servicers Feel Less Confident about MERS as Courts Increasingly Question Its Ability to Foreclose

Recent court cases that call into question the ownership of a mortgage loan are forcing servicers to alter their practices and making them less likely to foreclose or appear in court in the name of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, according to Moody’s Investors Service. Non-agency MBS servicers are adjusting their foreclosure and bankruptcy servicing practices due to the outcomes of…
……….. Must be a paying member to see the rest. CAN ANYBODY ACCESS THIS SITE? Could be VERY interesting info here.
bt, on November 6, 2009 at 12:43 pm said:

FANNIE MAE- Government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option of renting their homes for a year. The new “Deed for Lease” program will allow homeowners to transfer title to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease.

Isn’t this the easy way out for Fannie Mae? IF the original lender was Big Bank US, loan sold to Fannie Mae…they are trying to solidify the 90% of the public that gives up to foreclosure and avoid the Securitization issue….any thoughts?

IF in default, shouldn’t we take our chances in court, lack of standing..yadda-yadda? thoughts anyone?
Alina, on November 6, 2009 at 9:46 am said:

“If the borrower is mediating in bad faith or is really not available or able to engage in a meaningful mediation then we’ve wasted the court’s time,” Townes said.

In my comments submitted to the Florida Supreme Court, I stated the same thing with the exception that “borrower” was “bank.” I also stated that attorneys be required to attend in person the mediation along with someone with authority to negotiate and to bring with them a signed authorization giving them the authority to negotiate. Otherwise, the borrower’s time will be wasted.

I would love to get in touch with this AP reporter and give him some info regarding on who is really negotiating in bad faith.
Alina, on November 6, 2009 at 9:38 am said:

Jeff,

WAY TO GO!!!!! this is excellent.
James#, on November 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm said:

Jeff,
WELL DONE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 5, 2009 at 7:19 pm said:

CALL OUT TO LIVINGLIES READERS

Not sure if you all read the hype on Fannie Mae’s new program today but it has been all over the internet.

“This new program helps eliminate some of the uncertainty of foreclosure, keeps families and tenants in their homes DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, and helps to stabilize neighborhoods and communities,”

Translation:

Fannie won’t sell the properties immediately because then they would have to recognize the mark. Keep people in the home so it is not abandoned and have them maintained until they are SOLD. Not having to go through the foreclosure process and try to foreclose on a home THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO in the first place…

WTF?

Here is CNN’s Article on it…

CNN – Avoid foreclosure: Rent your own home…

“YOUR OWN HOME”

Fannie Mae implements deed-for-lease program that allows troubled borrowers who don’t qualify for loan modifications to stay in their homes.

You have to be kidding me!!!

There is so many levels of WRONG in this.

This is nothing other than yet another way to avoid recognition of bad paper Fannie took on their books and has a HUGE embedded loss on.

This is yet another scam, all courtesy of our government who will do anything to avoid admitting the extent of the liabilities that are now in Fannie and Freddie’s portfolio

Post comments here on CNN about the TRUTHS of what is REALLY going on w/ foreclosures that lead them back to this site, the Guide on Scribd, etc…

http://bit.ly/2WbiBF

Look at the comments by the main stream… So brainwashed… So misinformed…

This is getting RIDICULOUS…

4closureFraud
jeff, on November 5, 2009 at 7:16 pm said:

Hi to all, sorry I haven’t responded but have been very busy. The following is my case

A BIG WIN FOR ME AND ALL OF LIVINGLIES THANK YOU.

HSBC Bank USA v Miller
2009 NY Slip Op 29444
Decided on October 29, 2009
Supreme Court, Sullivan County
Meddaugh, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 29, 2009

Supreme Court, Sullivan County

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, As Trustee for WFALT 2007-PA02 3451 Hammond Avenue Waterloo, La 50704-5400, Plaintiff

against

Jeffrey F. Miller, Board of Managers, Emerald Green Property Owner’s Association, Inc., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., JOHN DOE, (said names being fictitious, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of premises being foreclosed herein, and any parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises, Defendants.

4786-2008

Steven J. Baum, P.C.

By Megan B. Szeliga, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 1291

Buffalo, New York 14240-1291

John S. Edwards, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant

317 Little Tor Road South

New City, New York 10956

Mark M. Meddaugh, J.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to for leave to reargue the Decision and Order of this Court, which granted the motion of the Defendant, Jeffrey F. Miller, dismissing the complaint in the above-referenced matter on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this foreclosure action.

The Court found, in its prior decision, that the Assignment of Mortgage attached to the Plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the original motion only referred to the assignment of the mortgage, and made no reference to the note. The Court noted that the Assignment had only the vague reference that “the said assignor hereby grants and conveys unto said assignee, the assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage ” which the Court found was insufficient to establish that both the note and the mortgage had been assigned to the Plaintiff.

Upon reargument, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that the Assignment provides in pertinent part that:

Said assignor hereby assigns unto the above named Assignee the said Mortgage, and the full benefit of all powers and of all covenants and Provisions therein contained, and the said Assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the Assignee, the Assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)

Plaintiff’s counsel then relies on language appearing in page 3 of the mortgage as follows:

BORROWERS TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY
I mortgage, grant and convey the property to MERS (solely as nominee for the lender and lender’s successors in interest) and its successors in interest subject to the terms of the Security Instrument. This means that, by signing this Security Instrument, I am giving Lender those rights that Applicable Law gives to Lenders who hold mortgages on real property. I am giving Lender those rights to protect Lender from possible losses that might result if I fail to:
(A)Pay all the amounts that I owe Lender as stated in the Note including, but not limited to, all renewals, extensions, and modifications of the Note;
(B)Pay, with interest, any amounts that lender spends under this Security Interest to protect the value of the Property and Lender’s rights in the Property;
(C)Keep all of my other promises and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)
Plaintiff counsel also refers to Page 4 of the Mortgage in the section entitled Covenants [*2]under the Mortgage which provides:

I promise and agree with the Lender as follows:
1.Borrower’s Promise to Pay. I will pay to the Lender on time Principal and Interest due under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note. I will also pay all amounts for Escrow Items under Section 3 of this Security Instrument,
Payment due under the Note and this Security Instrument shall be made in U.S. Currency . . . . . (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)

Plaintiff argues when the Assignment and Mortgage are read “as a totality they make clear that the Note was transferred along with the Mortgage by and through (sic) the Assignment in this matter.”

It is further argued that the Note holder has standing to maintain a foreclosure action so long as the mortgage and note have been delivered to that party. It is further argued that case law provides that a mortgage can be transferred by delivery, without a written assignment.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Miller, by his attorney, argues that the prior decision was correct in finding that, in the absence of proof that both the Note and the Mortgage sought to be foreclosed have been assigned to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is without standing to maintain a foreclosure action. The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiff has again failed to establish that it is the holder of both the mortgage and the underlying debt.

In reply, the Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the Court of Appeals held that where a mortgage is recorded with MERS named as the lender’s nominee and mortgagee on the instrument, the beneficial ownership and servicing rights may be transferred among MERS members, and that a reading of the Mortgage, Note and Assignment “make clear” that both the Mortgage and Note were assigned.

Conclusions of Law
The Plaintiff herein is requesting that the Court reconsider its decision that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing in this action, due to the lack of a reference to the Note in the Assignment of the Mortgage.

The Plaintiff’s Counsel is apparently abandoning the arguments which she made in opposition to the Defendant’s prior motion to dismiss, in which she first cited nonexistent language in the Assignment, claiming that the Assignment explicitly assigned the mortgage “together with the bond or obligation described in said mortgage, and the moneys due to grow thereon with interest” (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel) (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009). The second assertion made by Plaintiff’s counsel was that “[a]s a matter of course, the note also follows the mortgage,” and that “title to the Note passed upon physical delivery from MERS to the Plaintiff” (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, ¶16). The assertion that the note follows the mortgage is unsupported any law, and the assertion that the original note was transferred by physical delivery to the Plaintiff is made only in an affirmation by Plaintiff’s counsel and is unsupported by any evidentiary factual support from a person with personal knowledge of the facts.

The Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that the Note is a negotiable instrument (See, [*3]Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, ¶ 19). In Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, Inc., 147 AD2d 208, 542 NYS2d 721 [2nd Dept., 1989], the Court held that when “[t]he note secured by the mortgage is a negotiable instrument ( see, UCC 3-104) [it] requires indorsement on the instrument itself or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof’ (UCC 3-202[2] ) in order to effectuate a valid assignment’” of the entire instrument (cf., UCC 3-202[3], [4]).”

In the case at bar, the Note attached to the Plaintiff’s papers contains the following undated, unexplained indorsement on the last page thereof, “Pay to the Order of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. without recourse by: Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., Eric Hahn, Vice President.” It would appear, therefore, that the beneficial interest in the Note was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and that it is Wells Fargo, N.A. who is entitled to receive payments under the Note. No date was provided for that transfer. By contrast, in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Coakley, 41 AD3d 674, 838 NYS2d 622 [2nd Dept., 2007]), the Court outlined the history of indorsement from the original mortgage, to another transferee, followed by an indorsement in blank which was ultimately transferred and tendered to MERS. The Coakley Court concluded that it had been established that MERS was the lawful owner of the promissory note at the commencement of the action, and of the mortgage, that it had standing to bring the action.

The Court notes that the Lender listed on the Note is Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. (no reference in contained on the Note to indicate that MERS has become the nominee of the lender on the note), and the Note further provides that anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under the Note is called the Note Holder.

The Court finds no proof in the papers that the Note was transferred from the Lender described on the Note to MERS as a Note Holder, and even if there was proof of an initial transfer to MERS, there was no proof that the Note was then transferred from MERS to the Plaintiff.

The documentary proof provided by Plaintiff’s counsel supports a finding that the Note at issue was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., whereas the Assignment of Mortgage indicates that the mortgage was assigned by MERS, as nominee for Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., to the Plaintiff herein.

In Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2nd Dept., 1988] the Court held that the assignment of a mortgage without transfer of the debt is a nullity and a cause of action for foreclosure must fail. In Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY 44 [1867] the Court of Appeals held that as a mortgage is but an incident to the debt which it is intended to secure (cites omitted ), the logical conclusion is that a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is assigned by it. The security cannot be separated from the debt, and exist independently of it. This is the necessary legal conclusion, and recognized as the rule by a long course of judicial decisions.” It should be noted that in MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 NY3d 90, 828 NYS2d 266 [2006], Justice Ciparick, in her concurring opinion specifically notes that the Court’s ruling left for another day the argument made by the County of Suffolk and various amici “that MERS has violated the clear prohibition against separating a lien from its debt and that MERS does not have standing to bring foreclosure actions * * * (see, e.g., Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY44, 45 [1867]). [*4]

The Plaintiff’s counsel has argued that the transfer of the note to the Plaintiff is implied by a combined reading of the Assignment and the Mortgage itself, but the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that it is a holder of the note by indorsement at the time the foreclosure action was commenced (First Trust Nat. Ass’n v. Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 NYS2d 121 [2nd Dept., 1996]), nor did the language of the assignment explicitly assign “the note or obligation described and secured by said mortgage”(In re Stralem, 303 AD2d 120, 758 NYS2d 345 [2nd Dept., 2003]). Accordingly, the Court shall not alter its prior finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing to maintain the instant mortgage foreclosure proceeding.

Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s motion seeking reargument is denied.This memorandum shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court. The original Decision and Order, together with the motion papers have been forwarded to the Clerk’s office for filing. The filing of this Order does not relieve counsel from the obligation to serve a copy of this order, together with notice of entry, pursuant to CPLR § 5513(a).

Dated: October____, 2009

Monticello, New York

ENTER

__________________________________________

HON. MARK M. MEDDAUGH

Acting Supreme Court Justice
erlinda, on November 5, 2009 at 6:32 pm said:

because they are not the real party to modify the loan, neither have the right for make any legal arrangement. like what neil always said these are people who are the “pretenders” trying to steal our properties. i don’t make any deal with the devils. i don’t make payment to the wrong parties so the only way we could win this fight is to bring them to court. some judges and lawyers are still can’t get it because this is a new legal crisis that hit america, the biggest “fraud” of all time. believe me time will come that all those who were responsible for this “FRAUD’” and PONZI MORTGAGES WIL BE BEHIND BARS. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME.
dasmom, on November 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm said:

“If the borrower is mediating in bad faith or is really not available or able to engage in a meaningful mediation then we’ve wasted the court’s time,” Townes said.

Townes is not considering that the lender could be wasting the court’s time and the borrower’s time. My foreclosure case has been in a mandated court mediation program for over 6 months, with no progress made because the lender always promises to come back with answers or a mod agreement and never does. There are no teeth in mediation
dasmom, on November 5, 2009 at 4:04 pm said:

“If the borrower is mediating in bad faith or is really not available or able to engage in a meaningful mediation then we’ve wasted the court’s time,” Townes said.

Townes is not considering that the lender could be wasting the court’s time and the borrower’s time. My foreclosure case has been in a mandated court mediation program for over 6 months, with no progress made because the lender always promises to come back with answers or a mod agreement and never does. There are no teeth in mediation.
Marcus, on November 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm said:

Fla. Justices Consider Mediation For Foreclosures
Source: AP

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Nov. 5, 2009 – Mediation would be a good way to expedite a flood of mortgage foreclosures, members of a foreclosure task force said Wednesday, but some disagreed on the details in oral arguments before the state Supreme Court.

Florida’s courts are currently trying to cope with more than 290,000 foreclosure cases.

“What this court system has is virtually a tsunami of these filings,” said Justice Barbara Pariente.

A majority on the high court’s Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosures recommended trying mediation on owner-occupied homes before cases go to court, with lenders picking up the tab. Borrowers would be contacted by phone and mail and asked to participate. The high court did not immediately act on the proposal.

“The data that the banks have says the earlier in the process you get into mediation, the better and more likely you are to resolve the case,” task force chair Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey of Miami said in an interview. She argued for a statewide managed mediation system.

Minority members said mediation should be offered only if ordered by a judge, and the costs – an estimated $750 per case – should be split 50-50 between lenders and borrowers.

Chief Circuit Judge Lee Haworth of Sarasota said borrowers who have the means to pay should have “skin in the game.”

The Florida Bankers Association supports that option. Without making a financial commitment to the mediation process, borrowers may try to use it to delay foreclosure, association lawyer Virginia Townes said in an interview.

“If the borrower is mediating in bad faith or is really not available or able to engage in a meaningful mediation then we’ve wasted the court’s time,” Townes said.

Bailey said the value of getting the cases decided sooner will outweigh the lenders’ upfront costs. If loans can be restructured through mediation those costs would be included and ultimately paid by the borrowers.

Rebecca Storrow, alternative dispute resolution director for the 15th Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, argued for the traditional court-ordered mediation system. She said it is working well in her system and is cheaper than the task force’s proposal.

The justices also heard arguments on proposed emergency rule changes.

One would require lenders to verify they hold mortgages before going forward with cases. Many lenders initially say they have lost the note, which can result in wasted court time because the notes eventually are found in nearly every case, Bailey said.

She said the rule would tell lenders to double-check before filing. Townes argued it would be a costly and needless step.

The other contested rule would require lenders to cite a reason and get a court order to cancel a foreclosure sale. Now all they have to do is not show up at the sale.

Bailey said 65 percent of sales in Miami-Dade County are canceled that way every month, causing delays for all sales.

Marc Ben-Ezra, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who represents lenders, opposed the rule. He said it would result in unintended sales if lenders settle with borrowers at the last minute or if delayed by a flat tire.

The sale delays can be costly for borrowers who often mistakenly think they must move out before their homes are sold, Bailey said.

“They’re still on the hook for these houses,” she said. “They’re on the hook for the taxes. They’re on the hook for any code violations.”

It’s also costly for condominium and homeowner associations because no one’s paying monthly fees on those properties, Bailey said.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm said:

More info on that NY case.
Court: New York Civil Supreme
Index Number: 110214/2008
Case Name: HSBC BANK USA, N.A. vs. ANDERSON, LYDIA
Case Type: Foreclosure

Do the search by index number.

You can download the case from this link:
www. foreclosureprose.com/case-study/

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on November 5, 2009 at 1:32 pm said:

Dan–great.

And that is probably why we are seeing the ‘forgeries’ on the Corp. Deed of Assignments—it is the agents of the transferee’s.
Dan Edstrom, on November 5, 2009 at 1:17 pm said:

Abby,
In all cases I have heard of, the transferor is NOT represented. The transferee accomplishes the transfer by using “agents” of the transferee to assign the instrument from the transferor – without their knowledge, consent or even consideration (no consideration = fraud). This putative transfer occurs AFTER the transferee has initiated foreclosure proceedings, which PROVES they had PRIOR knowledge that the instrument was dishonored. In many instances, the transferee also has prior notice that the instrument was defective (for instance, if you already sent in a QWR and/or written demand and/or debt dispute where you specifically pointed out fraud or other unlawful activities).

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. This is my opinion only and how I am proceeding with my case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
mavslapp, on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm said:

A QUESTION FOR MICHAEL, LISA E. & OTHER ELITE RESEARCHERS HERE AT LL

Back in 1989 I ‘refinanced’ my 5 Fainwood Circle, Cambridge MA home of four years with Cambridgeport Bank, which later was acquired by Citizens Bank. It was a No Doc loan (but NOT a subprime, I don’t believe).

Citizens is a subsidiary of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) which was involved through another of its subsidiaries Greenwich Capital Markets with many subprime lenders (see below).

My Cambridgeport then Citizens loan may have been sold to Dovenmuehle, which serviced it. That’s where I sent my payments the last few years. I suspect Dovenmuehle only serviced it, and it may have been assigned to one of the affiliated subprime lenders. Why? Because following 9/11 when I attempted to modify it under FHA mandated guidelines, they were intent on foreclosing. I thought then their reluctance to work with me was totally counterintuitive.

In light of the recent Judge Long MA decision, I’d like to look back and reinvestigate all assignments, etc related to my loan (paid off in 2005 a year before the market topped). These facts were never produced by Citizens in my repeated requests for production of documents during a hard-fought Chap 13 BK.

The question I have is, HOW might I use assignments and MA state recording requirements to track what was denied me in discovery? My Registry of Deeds is Middlesex County (Southern). I’d like to see if Dovenmuehle was anything more than a servicer AND if my loan got securitized through RBS or its Greenwich Capital Markets.

Also, did Cambridge Trust loans ever get securitized?

THANKS
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some relevant paragraphs from ICP (Inner City Press’s release on RBS

“Update of September 6, 2004 — Annals of preemption: ICP’s review of the list of applications pending before the FDIC finds a series of applications including Charter One Bank, National Association and Citizens’ FDIC-supervised state banks in PA, MA, CT, etc..

Apparently RBS’ Citizens is moving toward an OCC charter and preemption of all states’ consumer protection laws, something for which HSBC, Morgan Chase and other have been criticized. But as usually with RBS Citizens, it’s being done stealthly — sneakily, one might even say…

Update of July 12, 2004: Better late than never, we suppose: after Inner City Press requested under FOIA the withheld portions of Royal Bank of Scotland’s list of funded subprime lenders, the Fed asked RBS to “reconsider” its withholding. Lo and behold on July 9, a longer version arrived, this time listing the following subprime lenders with which RBS does business:

Saxon Mortgage, Inc.; Aames Capital Corp.; Ameriquest Mortgage Company; Argent Mortgage Company; Asset-Backed Funding Corp; BofA, CDC Mortgage Capital; Centex Home Equity Company; CitiFinancial Mortgage Company; Clearwing Capital LLC; Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, LLC; Delta Financial Corporation; Equifirst; Equity One, Inc.; Finance America, LLC; First Franklin; GMAC; Green Tree Investment Holdings II, LLC; Long Beach Acceptance Corporation; Long Beach Mortgage Company; NovaStar Financial, Inc., Option One Mortgage Corporation; Countrywide Correspondent Lending, Fremont Investment & Loan; Washington Mutual Bank; Residential Funding Corporation, Truman Capital Investment Fund LP, etc… We’ve put in a supplemental comment, and are preparing another.

Update of July 5, 2004: from Reuters of July 1, regarding Royal Bank of Scotland’s Greenwich Capital Markets: ” As part of an effort to diversify its bond business, RBS Greenwich Capital Markets is set to raid the ranks of Banc One Capital Markets, a unit of Bank One Corp…

Consumer’s loan was originated by Cambridgeport bank which was acquired by Citizens. Loan was then sold to Dovenmuehle. Dovenmuehle told the consumer they would have to obtain insurance coverage in the amount of the loan. Citizens spoke with Dovenmuehle, who agreed to honor the original amount of flood insurance coverage.” Complaint # 105275, Page 36 of 70.”

from http://www.innercitypress.org/rbs.html
Abby in CA, on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm said:

Any comments on this regarding the promissory note and the securities trust??

Well that trust has no enforcement rights under UCC 3-203 (b) which states….

• (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.
Deontos, on November 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm said:

POWER SHIFT: Massachusetts AG Preliminary Injunction
to halt predatory loan foreclosure
AFFIRMED…….

November 03, 2009 – For immediate release:

Appeals Court Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Option One and H&R Block Mortgage, Restricting Foreclosures on Unfair Subprime Loans

BOSTON – The Massachusetts Appeals Court has affirmed a preliminary injunction obtained by Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office against Option One Mortgage Corp. (“Option One”) and H&R Block Mortgage Corp. (“H&R Block Mortgage”), subprime lenders that originated thousands of loans in Massachusetts. The preliminary injunction, issued by then Judge Ralph D. Gants in Suffolk Superior Court last November, prohibited Option One and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) from initiating or advancing foreclosures on mortgage loans that the Court found to be “presumptively unfair.” Under the order, which affects up to 9,700 Massachusetts loans originated by Option One, AHMSI must give the Attorney General’s Office advance notice before it intends to foreclose on any such loan, and if the Attorney General objects, obtain approval from the Court before foreclosing on a loan.

Rest of November 2009 Release:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_11_03_option_one_injunction&csid=Cago

Appeals Case File:
http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/2008_11_12_option_one_pi_attachment1.pdf

November 2008 Press Release
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2008_11_12_option_one_pi&csid=Cago
Deontos, on November 5, 2009 at 9:29 am said:

Jeff
By chance……
Do you have a link directly to that
Case File?
jeff, on November 5, 2009 at 7:44 am said:

Great New York Case

Possible Tila violations and Fraud

To long to post 13 pages

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Anderson
2009 NY Slip Op 32526(U)
September 25, 2009
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 110214/08
Judge: Michael D. Stallman
Republished from New York State Unified Court
System’s E-Courts Service.
Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts)
M.Soliman, on November 5, 2009 at 5:05 am said:

Where the Deed is Defect the Conveyance is Unenforcable
Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:26: GMT
By M Soliman

Stan
Your question is – “Can I still rescind the mortgage loan since I started bankruptcy?”

NO! Rescind what? Do you have the difference is cash to fund the recession? [(loan-Costs) =Net to bank)] No I am sure. Said it before and I will say it again and again and again (I don’t stutter!).

Look “Let me say this about that” (JFK). If you have a right to rescind share with me you’re thinking on what grounds (Sonic peanute butter and nuclear jelly and after how many years? The obligation is botched and that’s that due to errors, omission and negligence. Why rely on a government enforced regulation with a statute of limitations? (Who goofed I must know)

A tort or civil violation or better yet criminal act is not limited as a RESPA claim one aniticpates under ACORNCOB….I mean HUD. If there was a right to recission then your attorney should include it as an asset* in the chapter proceeding.

Differentiate yourself from the masses. The Security Instrument is Voidable due to Fraud

(1) You’re not going to get a judge to wipe out a lien. Argue the deal in trial by filing a motion.

(2)You owe the money. Let the court known that and don’t tell them you were looking for a discount of modification. Wrong and don’t forget, the predatory loan is something BK judges are especially keen on reminding us. The debtor and the lender are both parties to a mutually culpable.”bad loan”. (I heard this myself in a Meeting of the creditors with counsel and client while petitioning for an adversary.

(3) Tell the judge your desires to pay everything back to the penny. “Your Honor, problem is, they won’t work with me!”

(4) But the circumstances in the market and likelihood for a predatory loan are further complicated by the E&O , negligent closing issues and requirement for investigating fraud.

In California (most states ) the deed is resting disturbed by virtue of the courts willing nests to identify a predatory loan. This is a fact despite culpable parties and setting consideration aside. So court puts foot in its mouth.

Grasshopper; the pebbles are there four you to snatch from the judges hand. No party can rely on a defective mortgage or deed to execute a security in a recovery. zThe facts are the deed , if determined to be defect will subject the conveyance to become voidable and bank cannot convey the property back to oitself or a (controlled) thrid party. So the deed upon sale is nullified and rescinded back to the date of issuing the Notice of sale. No TRO , no injunction and no consolidation is needed here as these arguments seemed to fit nicely into a decision a Judge can easily make with no fear of being labeled a Boyco defector.

Ever hear a Judge in a detainer matter tell the holdover “great case you got and you should file your claim elsewhere….Now get out!

Well Sire, now he does the same for the creditor….nice case, , good standing…Now gets out!

The conveyance of real property cannot take place where the deed is defect. Where the deed is defect the conveyance is unenforcable and the sale must fail.

So now you owe all that money on the obligation but it is unsecured you see. And the deed can rest thereafter in its state of defectiveness however long necessary and for a life time. The creditor (lender) must bring an action against the pro se on their dime to recover the collateral . There you will have standing to question procedures and errors, demand production and call for interrogatories that can hurt .

Hopefully you will quite title prior to that time and place (24-36 months ) if the come back at all. And that’s not likley anytime soon. It’s in a separate action where if they do bring it – you’re a defendant.
Joshua, on November 4, 2009 at 10:48 pm said:

Hello guys,

I purchased a new home 2 yrs ago in a community that was still being developed at the time. When I went in I told the agent I could only afford a $1,000 a month payment, they told me use our preferred lender and we can get you very close to that number. We ended up with a payment of $1028. A year into my mortgage I am now paying $1230 a mo., because of a property tax escrow shortage. This is due to a grossly underestimated county tax assesment from when the house was first being built. Apparently, my estimated taxes were based on an undeveloped concrete slab without a home on it for only $40,000. Little did I know that this was the figure used to calculate my mortgage payment. Long story short, when the county finally realized that I had a home worth $160,000 my taxes quadrupled! I’m now paying an extra $300 a month to make up for the escrow shortage, and am in risk of loosing my home. I feel mislead and that this should have been explained to me when my mortgage payment was being calculated. How can they possibly make an estimate in “good faith” that my taxes would be around $40 a month when they knew full well that their figures were based on an empty lot of land? I feel like this is a case of predatory lending, or maybe even grounds for a rescission. Your thoughts and opinions here would be greatly appreciated here.
Lisa E., on November 4, 2009 at 9:29 pm said:

Arpad, there are many options available to you.

Make darn sure that they did not answer your Discovery (check the docket) as they may just have ……….um………..inadvertently left you off the mailing list.

IF no response at all, THAT is your answer!

You actually have the law on your side if FDLG blew off your discovery without even a kiss goodbye. In my case, I got the “kiss goodbye” meaning, “Sorry, no dice! Your questions don’t suit us so we choose not to answer, you silly Pro Se, you!”.

There’s a LOT more, but you first must be sure that there is zero response to your discovery request.

***I am not an attorney***

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Marcus, on November 4, 2009 at 9:24 pm said:

Arpad,
Don’t believe a word of what they said. File an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment. You can find a sample affidavit at this link: www. foreclosureprose.com/pleadings/
If they don’t answer your discovery, file a motion to compel, and schedule a hearing with the judge. Always bring a court reporter with you. Keep pounding them.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
rena, on November 4, 2009 at 9:16 pm said:

Some good read about WAMU/CHASE and their Predatory Lending practices and some law suits against them. Also some comments about the articles. I found them interesting hope you all will too.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010131911_wamu25.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010136506_wamu26.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010136516_simonson26.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2010147184_wamuseattletimesspecialreport.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010131947_wamuside25.html
usedkarguy, on November 4, 2009 at 8:53 pm said:

arpad, do you have any evidence of fraud? It’s hard to give answers or guidance because every case is different. You have to find a cause of action against the lender. If they are foreclosing on you “as trustee”, and somebody else originated the loan (like mine) the judge sides with the plaintiff because your claim is not against the party suing you. look up some state rulings where you live and find a law that says all the parties in interest have to be a party ot the action (FORECLOSURE LAW). If HSBC is suing you as trustee, claim that they have no pecuniary interest; they are just a figurehead, they don’t get the money, how can you have hurt THEM by not paying? If you had an ARM, are you still getting notices of intent to change interest rate letters where the payments show on time, and the note balance continues to decline? It might not matter, my friend. The judge may just say “did you pay?” You say “no”, he says “you lose”. As a pro-se litigant, the judge has no obligation to guide you through the law. YOU NEED TO GET AN ATTORNEY.
Abby in CA, on November 4, 2009 at 6:59 pm said:

Arpad-I am not an attorney and you should always consult one. This is what I did when served with MSJ.

I filed a counter motion for summary judgment along with my response and opposition to their MSJ.
(like football…go on the offensive)

I think you may have to provide your undisputed facts and supporting evidence on the counter motion for summary judgement.

Does anyone else have any legal strategy, advice or success on this?
Abby in CA, on November 4, 2009 at 6:47 pm said:

article about WAMU and judge who is not letting a multibillion dollar case go.

the employees (former/brave) are providing information about the predatory lending driven by executives.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010155585_apuswamusecuritieslawsuit1stldwritethru.html?prmid=obnetwork
Abby in CA, on November 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm said:

Angela–please check. I think criminal complaints have to be filed by the D.A..

They write them, they file them.

I think you’d have to work with your D.A.
Kalona S B, on November 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm said:

Hmmm I wonder if $3.500 is some magic number these people use to scam us again on the modifcation BS. One after the other after the other. Incredibly sneaky about it all. Bluntly lie or come up with BS like 90% gauranteed to modify and then u have ask lots of the questions to get the rest of the plan.

It’s one big trap set up over and over. The bad part is the so called company that has ur loan sends it all over the place. They won’t talk to u. So u have to figure out who is real and who isn’t and the fact is 90% are fakes. I would guess more. How do u fight the ghost and the BSers? Mean while I read these articles how home sales are on the rise. Yeah right.

I wish we had a group here in Hawaii and some legal help. Odd we have countless attorneys but none claim to be able to take these cases and if on rare chance they do, u better be rich. With the money u pay for fees, cost and attorneys, u can most likely buy another home.

OK end vent. Just had to get that out. This stuff is so out of control! So illegal, so down right dirty!
Arpad, on November 4, 2009 at 3:54 pm said:

Just received a motion for summary judgment from the HSBC’s attorney.( FDLG) They never answered my discovery motions, and they claim that my affirmative defenses are “legally insufficient” . They also claim they will have the original note at the hearing. Wondering if they are bluffing and if they do have it, what should i do?
Any input Guys?
John, on November 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm said:

STOP, in California several laws have just passed that state people cannot take your money for these false promises of fixing modifying whatever your home loan, do you see any blogs on successes, no only people looking for attorneys to help! I spent over $13,000 and I know others who have spen just as much and have nothing for it, I just lined some attorney’s pocket. Do you see any blogs or black list for attorneys that have taken our money, No of course not! lets get real here, this is all good and said but when attorney’s and even judges start out they work for these corporations do you think they don’t remeber who gave them there first jobs! Lets see successful story blogs with case numbers not just names, don;’t get scammed like I did by false promises that the title is wrong, MERS is wrong!!!!!!!!!! You get my house free and clear and I will get a new loan and gladly pay you $50,000! But I pay nothing up front, any takers let wait and see what happens?????????????
Angela Dennis, on November 4, 2009 at 3:22 pm said:

Lisa E. I agree with you 100%!!!!! I’m still waiting for an order from the Appellate court. But I’m here thinking that I should go ahead and file the criminal complaint… why the wait???? fraud has been committed. In the meantime, the sneaky attorneys motioned and obtained an order to sell ppty again… imagine that! they motioned the judge who recused himself… so I sent a motion to strike to the appellate court, as well a letter to the administrative judge. So the judge who recused himself and handed down the order voided his order saying he made a mistake. Sure enough, the appellate court vacated the order for sale also!!!!

My partner said he met you!!!! Great!

Let’s keep fighting… we MUST win… huge transfer of wealth coming back to us… right where it belongs.

angela
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Roll Out New Deal for Homeowners, on November 4, 2009 at 3:19 am said:

[...] estate front; “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have directed their network of servicers to halt all foreclosure and eviction proceedings between Nov. 26 2008 and Jan. 9, 2009, meant to give a recently announced [...]
Lisa E., on November 4, 2009 at 12:26 am said:

L Fitzgerald!

I’ve come to the same conclusion!

Let’s walk these cases out of civil court into CRIMINAL court where they rightfully belong!

The remedies for us may lie in criminal court with the tax payer funded legal assistance of the Prosecutor and the Attorneys at the Office of the Attorney General. Now, that’s a way of putting TARP funds to GREAT use!

Everyone should look at their state’s Attorney General’s website, looking for information on filing a claim in mortgage fraud or consumer fraud. Present a well reasoned, calm, unemotional (yeah……like I’m one to talk here) case with clear examples of fraud. Point to your fake assignments, forged notes, illegal witnesses signing as reps of many companies, foreclosure mill attorney “misconduct”.

This is an interesting approach!

Perhaps one that might have sharper teeth than “Produce the Note”?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Deontos, on November 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm said:

Can we benefit from Plaintiff “Discovery”
in this case”

Can we develop “causes of action”
from their RESPA violations?

Seems to be “in the mix” of fraudulent schemes
that we are here trying to defend against and
overcome.
———————————————————-

3rd Circuit Revives Class Action Against Countrywide Over Alleged Kickback Scheme

In a huge setback for Countrywide Financial Corp., a federal appeals court has revived a national class action brought by homebuyers who accused the lender of concocting a kickback scheme in which buyers were required to purchase mortgage insurance from one of a handful of companies that in turn took out reinsurance policies from one of Countrywide’s wholly owned subsidiaries.

In court papers, the plaintiffs lawyers said the suit was brought to “challenge the payment of illegal kickbacks and unearned fees” that stemmed from a scheme concocted by Countrywide Financial and its subsidiaries — Countrywide Home Loans Inc. and Balboa Reinsurance Co. — to “circumvent RESPA’s strict prohibitions on abusive practices in the provision of home purchase settlement procedures.”

The suit alleged that Countrywide set up a “captive reinsurance” scheme in which Countrywide referred buyers to one of seven primary mortgage insurers that in turn “reinsured” their policies with Balboa — thereby effectively “kicking back” a portion of the premium to Countrywide.

Article:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435014318&rd_Circuit_Revives_Class_Action_Against_Countrywide_Over_Alleged_Kickback_Scheme

Case File Appeal:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084334p.pdf
David, on November 3, 2009 at 12:33 pm said:

Just a thought – Can I Patent my house, mortgage agreement, and/or property address? Since the lender’s don’t mind rolling the dice with our mortgage loans – without our permission – why can’t we sue them for a slice of the profits earned in their cesspools?

Why couldn’t it become intellectual property rights…? It is our property…! Shouldn’t we be earning royalties or something?

Okay, so maybe it’s a bit on the outer edge, but is it doable? I think it might be kind-a funny to see how they deal with the notion of telling their investors – they owe us 50% of their earnings from the entire cesspooling agreement…?
Adrienne, on November 3, 2009 at 10:59 am said:

Goldman takes on new role: taking people’s homes

By Greg Gordon, McClatchy Newspapers Greg Gordon, Mcclatchy Newspapers
Mon Nov 2, 6:00 am ET

SAN JOSE, Calif. — When California wildfires ruined their jewelry business, Tony Becker and his wife fell months behind on their mortgage payments and experienced firsthand the perils of subprime mortgages.

The couple wound up in a desperate, six-year fight to keep their modest, 1,500-square-foot San Jose home, a struggle that pushed them into bankruptcy.

The lender with whom they sparred, however, wasn’t the one that had written their loans. It was an obscure subsidiary of Wall Street colossus Goldman Sachs Group .

Goldman spent years buying hundreds of thousands of subprime mortgages, many of them from some of the more unsavory lenders in the business, and packaging them into high-yield bonds. Now that the bottom has fallen out of that market, Goldman finds itself in a different role: as the big banker that takes homes away from folks such as the Beckers.

The couple alleges that Goldman declined for three years to confirm their suspicions that it had bought their mortgages from a subprime lender, even after they wrote to Goldman’s then-Chief Executive Henry Paulson — later U.S. Treasury secretary — in 2003.

Unable to identify a lender, the couple could neither capitalize on a mortgage hardship provision that would allow them to defer some payments, nor on a state law enabling them to offset their debt against separate, investment-related claims against Goldman.

In July, the Beckers won a David-and-Goliath struggle when Goldman subsidiary MTGLQ Investors dropped its bid to seize their house. By then, the college-educated couple had been reduced to shopping for canned goods at flea markets and selling used ceramic glass.

Theirs is an infrequent happy ending among the hundreds of cases in which subsidiaries of Goldman, better known for sending top officers such as Paulson to serve in top Washington posts, have sought to contain bondholder losses by foreclosing on properties and evicting delinquent borrowers.

Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment on individual cases or on the firm’s new role in bankruptcy courts.

Joining other Wall Street firms that bought millions of subprime mortgages, Goldman companies have gone to courts from California to Florida seeking approval to foreclose on the homes of middle- and lower-income Americans who couldn’t keep up with their loans’ soaring monthly payments.

Some borrowers were speculators or homebuyers who exaggerated their incomes on loan applications, thinking they’d always have an escape hatch because housing prices would keep rising. Others, however, were victims of fast-talking mortgage brokers who didn’t explain that the loans’ interest rates could rise to as high as 15 percent. Many borrowers who defaulted on their mortgages may never qualify for a home loan again.

In court encounters, Goldman and other Wall Street firms have faced the impact of their own wheeling and dealing. Many of the families being put on the street never would’ve gotten their big mortgages if investment banks hadn’t provided a seemingly insatiable secondary market for millions of loans to marginally qualified buyers.

Subprime borrowers were supposed to provide a safe income stream for investors who bought mostly high-grade, triple-A-rated bonds from Goldman and bigger subprime players, such as now-defunct Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch .

Now, millions of these borrowers have defaulted on mortgage payments, contributing to a historic slump in home prices and depressing the bonds’ value. Half the homes in some California neighborhoods have been subject to foreclosures or short sales, in which a home is sold for less than the mortgage balance, and either the seller or the lender takes a loss.

Earlier this year in Los Angeles , the Wall Street giant took possession of the home of Gladys Aguirre , a housecleaner who’s married to a construction worker. Together, the couple listed monthly earnings of $7,480 , including $3,480 from a job she’d held for two months.

Aguirre originally took a $444,000 subprime mortgage on Sept. 1, 2005 , from Argent Mortgage Co. , a subsidiary of big subprime lender Ameriquest Mortgage Co. , which shut down in 2007. The adjustable interest rate sent her monthly payments zooming to $3,800 from $2,479 , and Aguirre couldn’t keep pace on that loan or a $119,000 second mortgage. She filed for bankruptcy protection.

Aguirre’s Los Angeles lawyer, Eber Bayona , declined to discuss her case, but said that subprime loans amounted to “setting up the person for failure” because interest rate adjustments hit borrowers with “shock payments.”

For example, he said, loan agents promised applicants that they could buy a $600,000 house for payments of $1,200 a month, and the buyers “never read the fine print . . . (and) didn’t know their interest would increase and that eventually they would lose their house and their money.”

In San Fernando, Calif. , Dina Alfero-Pacheo qualified for two mortgages totaling nearly $500,000 , with monthly payments starting at $2,004 . By 2007, the payments had grown to $3,761 . In a bankruptcy filing early this year, Alfero-Pacheo said she was a bartender earning $3,800 a month. Goldman bought her first mortgage from Argent and recently got title to the house, which had sunk in value to $280,000 from more than $500,000 .

In Orlando, Fla. , Adela Mendez seems to be someone who would’ve known the risks when she took a $164,000 mortgage from Argent on her home in 2005 and a $75,000 second mortgage a year later. In a bankruptcy filing this year, she listed her occupation as a loan specialist for Washington Mutual , a leading subprime lender that collapsed last year.

Not only did Mendez fall 11 months behind on her mortgage payments, but her home’s value also plummeted to $100,000 . Goldman Sachs Mortgage, which bought the Argent loan, took the house — and at least a 50 percent loss.

Alfero-Pacheo and Mendez, whose cases are detailed in court records, couldn’t be reached to comment.

The Beckers charged that in their case, Goldman engaged in years of obfuscation and resistance.

“In bankruptcy court, they tried to portray us as incompetent or deadbeats,” said Celia Fabos-Becker , blinking back tears as she sat with her husband in their living room, with boxes of mortgage-related documents surrounding them.

The couple thought they’d made a safe bet in 2000 when they opened a retail jewelry business in two San Diego County areas populated mainly by military personnel.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , however, brought big military call-ups, sapping their market. After a wildfire ravaged much of the area in 2002, the Beckers refinanced their house to generate some $70,000 in cash to prop up their two stores. They wound up with an adjustable-rate, subprime loan from WMC Mortgage Corp. , an arm of General Electric’s GE Money unit, and a 10.75 percent second mortgage with the same lender.

A second wildfire in 2003 all but killed their business and left the couple reeling financially as interest-rate adjustments pushed the mortgage payments higher.

“We’d gotten to the point where I was cutting my own hair. I was cutting his on occasion,” Fabos-Becker said.

“And trolling the Goodwills,” Tony Becker said.

Tony Becker , an engineer, took short-term contract jobs amid the technology bust. Celia Fabos-Becker , meanwhile, found a provision in the mortgages that allowed the borrower to push payments to the end of the loan term in the event of a disaster such as the two fires.

When she wrote to Paulson, however, lawyers for Goldman denied that it owned the Beckers’ mortgages. So did Germany’s Deutsche Bank , a trustee that was holding thousands of subprime mortgages Goldman had converted to bonds.

To stall foreclosure, the Beckers wound up negotiating “forbearance agreements” with Ocwen Loan Servicing, a Florida company, that required the couple to pay several thousand dollars under the threat that their house would be auctioned off in a week or a month, Fabos-Becker said. Their monthly payments rose to nearly $3,300 from $2,650 .

The couple already had taken Goldman and Morgan Stanley , another Wall Street firm, to arbitration over their $325,000 in stock market losses, accusing the investment banks of misleading investors about public offerings.

On the same day in June 2006 , Goldman sued to end the arbitration, and Ocwen filed papers seeking to foreclose on the Beckers’ home.

In desperation, the couple filed for bankruptcy protection. With no money to hire an attorney, they acted as their own lawyers.

As the months dragged on, Fabos-Becker finally found a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirming that Goldman had bought the mortgages. Then, when a lawyer for MTGLQ showed up at a June 2007 court hearing on the stock battle, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California demanded to know the firm’s relationship to Goldman, telling the attorney that he hates “spin.”

The lawyer acknowledged that MTGLQ was a Goldman affiliate.

That was an understatement. MTGLQ, a limited partnership, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman that’s housed at the company’s headquarters at 85 Broad Street in New York , public records show.

In July, after U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Roger Efremsky of the Northern District of California threatened to impose “significant sanctions” if the firm failed to complete a promised settlement with the Beckers, Goldman dropped its claims for $626,000 , far more than the couple’s original $356,000 in mortgages and $70,000 in missed payments. The firm gave the Beckers a new, 30-year mortgage at 5 percent interest.

That lowered their monthly payment to $1,900 , less than half the maximum $4,000 a month their subprime loans could’ve demanded.

Fabos-Becker, 60, said that the trauma has left her hair “a lot grayer.” Much of the stress would have been alleviated, she said, if a law required lenders to identify themselves, especially to borrowers facing hardships.

“I take solace,” Tony Becker said, “in knowing that I was up against the worst possible opponent — the biggest, strongest investment bank in the world.”

( Tish Wells contributed to this article.)

(This article is part of an occasional series on the problems in mortgage finance.)
Dan Edstrom, on November 2, 2009 at 8:44 am said:

Correction to last posting:

#2 said in the list was:

– The lender proved to the judge you owed the debt

It should have been:

– The opposing attorney convinced the judge you owed the debt to the party they were representing

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 2, 2009 at 8:41 am said:

Don-CA,
I agree with this article from Patrick Pulatie 100%. You can make arguments and allegations until you are blue in the face, but when you CONCEDE or the judge DETERMINES that you are going up against your lender, your choices are minimal and your arguments are minimal. In this case you might have the ability to rescind and you might have claims, but if you OWE the money to the other side, you are an ant throwing small pebbles at a fortress. In these cases, one of 3 things happened (many other things could have happened but these are the ones I will focus on):

1) The loan was not securitized
2) The lender proved to the judge you owed the debt
OR
3) You (as PRO SE or PRO PER) or your attorney failed to property object and challange ALL “claims” by opposing counsel.

If you let opposing counsel make unsubstantiated claims without opposition, you will LOSE your case. Anyone can go into court and claim anything they want. This is how the lawyers for those filing foreclosure are winning. They make baseless claims that are not properly challanged. I believe these claims are not challenged because the alleged borrowers are to focused on the defenses raised on this site and are relying on them to get the judge to agree with you. The judge will automatically agree with the other side and will not believe you so you have to go on the offensive against everything the other side says. Objections, Motions to Strike and determining who is a competent witness with the proper foundation to testify are PARAMOUNT to you having any chance of success.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational purposes and is information on how I am working on my own case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy, on November 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm said:

Dan, change your name. Make it DanTwo or something. The fraudulent origination lends to the argument of predatory lending. If they gave you a loan that you really couldn’t afford (based on your actual income) or they used assets (real or made up) to qualify you for the loan, it is predatory. The extension of credit is not supposed to consume your assets. The “speedy closing” was their tool in obtaining your signature on documents that contained errant information. Now you’re in court and the Judge says “YOU signed it, didn’t you?”, very uncomfortable. The loan mod is a ruse. I wouldn’t sign it either. You need to start reading and get up to speed on what’s next. If you are serious about keeping your house, go file bankruptcy and and adversarial action and get your claims in front of a Federal Judge. You need an attorney.

This is just my opinion and doesn’t count for beans, much less legal advice.
Don-CA, on November 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm said:

Interesting article about TILA/RESPA:

TILA and RESPA Rescission Ineffective In Real-World Foreclosure Defense

by Patrick Pulatie

When facing foreclosure, the homeowner is always confronted with the difficult task of researching information to acquaint him or her with what to expect in the coming months. This research will include a number of different subjects covering such issues as the foreclosure process, loan modification, legal statutes, and current trends. Somewhere in the process of researching this information, the homeowner will come across the subject of forensic loan audits and TILA and RESPA. The question then becomes, “What is TILA and RESPA and how can it help me?”

TILA and RESPA are the two main pieces of Federal Legislation that govern certain processes regarding lending, and especially so in the mortgage lending arena. TILA stands for the Truth In Lending Act, and RESPA stands for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. These are specific legislative acts designed to protect the borrower.

TILA is the main effort of Congress to ensure fair lending and to protect the borrower. Its purpose is to promote the informed use of consumer credit, the costs of borrowing money, the terms of the loan and other much needed information. It requires the providing of certain disclosures of relevant information for each transaction that is considered, and it provides the legal remedies for each violation of the Act.

RESPA is the “other” main effort of Congress to regulate lending. RESPA is designed to protect the borrower by ensuring (1) fair settlement proceedings through early disclosure of settlement costs, (2) the prevention of “kickbacks” and “illegal referral fees” that increase borrowing costs to the consumer, and (3) the prohibition of certain acts that increase borrowing costs.

There is much more detail to these acts, but the purpose of this article is to provide a basic understanding of the Acts and how courts and lenders are responding to various challenges. It will focus primarily on TILA, so that the reader will better understand the legal options of any TILA violation. (Most foreclosure defenses will be based upon TILA violations.)

Under TILA, when a mortgage transaction is considered, the lender must provide a borrower within three days of receiving a loan application a number of disclosures, of which the main disclosure is the Truth In Lending Disclosure. This disclosure identifies the terms of the loan, APR, Amount Financed, Finance Charge, Total Payments, and the Payment Schedule. These disclosures are to be as accurate as possible. The purpose of providing the disclosures is so that the borrower will be better able to compare loans from different lenders.

When the loan is ready to close, and you have the “final signing”, the lender is required to provide the borrower with a Final Truth In Lending Disclosure. This disclosure, along with the final settlement statement and the Right to Cancel Notice, are the key elements in foreclose defense, when arguing a TILA violation

TILA is a technical statute. This simply means that any “material violation” can invoke the remedies as provide for in the Act. The “material” violations that most frequently invoke potential remedies are:

APR
Finance Charge
Amount Financed
Total Payments
Payment Schedule
Right to cancel violations.
Common Remedies for violations of TILA are

Attorneys’ fees and court costs for successful enforcement and rescission actions.
Statutory damages, a minimum of $200 but no more that $2,000
Actual damages
Double the correctly calculated finance charge (but not less than $100 or more than $1,000 for individual actions).

Rescission

For the homeowner in foreclosure trouble, the most important of the offered remedies is Rescission, and this article will pay particular attention to it. The other remedies do not offer any ability to stop a foreclosure as Rescission can, but Rescission is entirely misunderstood and is often used in the wrong situation.

Rescission is the process of legally canceling a loan. If a violation of material disclosures is severe enough, and the threshold for severity is quite low, then the borrower has the opportunity to “rescind” or “cancel” the loan. At that point, the confusion comes in.

In theory, this is the process of rescission:

Borrower finds violations of the TILA that offer rescission as a remedy.
Borrower notifies lender of rescission by letter.
The security interest (the Note and Deed of Trust) automatically becomes void and the lender has 20 days within which to take any and all actions necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest. The lender is obligated to return any money or property given as earnest money or down payment within those twenty days. The borrower is not liable for any finance or other charges and is entitled to recover all fees incurred in the transaction.

The borrower is obligated to return to the lender any money or property the borrower received as part of the credit transaction within twenty days, as their part of the rescission.

If the lender does not take possession of the property or money within 20 days, then the property is retained by the borrower and is held

Wow! You may get your home free and clear… at least that is what many scandalous loan modification companies and auditor firms say.

But here is the reality of rescission:

In California, since homes are underwater and the borrowers owe more than the home is worth, they cannot tender back to the lender the money that was borrowed, so rescission is not an effective course of action in California, and for that matter, most other states as well.

Courts have the ability to “change the order” in which rescission is tendered, meaning that the borrower must show the ability to make a valid tender, before the security interest in the loan is cancelled.

No ability to tender the amount due means that there is no valid rescission.

In other words, rescission does not do what the homeowner probably wants the most – to remove any financial obligation connected to the house (as before they purchased it) – since the lender is only obligated to take back the original money lent, minus fees, and tear up the contract.

What to Expect when you rescind a loan

When you go to rescind a loan, you need to be aware of what will actually happen. What I write is based upon the experience of having done over 1000 audits, and working with attorneys who do attempt loan rescissions. (In this period of time, I have seen one offer of rescission, and a number of “talks” with lenders about rescission, always after a Restraining Order is granted to a homeowner trying to stop an auction. These “talks” have usually gone nowhere.)

When you and your attorney rescind a loan, here is the actual process:

Your attorney will usually send a “Demand Letter” to the lender. The purpose of the letter is to notify the lender that violations of the TILA have been found in your loan and you are invoking rescission rights as remedy.

The lender will respond in one of two ways: (a) ignore the letter altogether, or (b), send a reply where they deny that there are any violations of TILA and that they refuse to honor rescission.

At this point, the homeowner has only one real option left. That will be to file for a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the sale of the property, and to request a Preliminary Injunction to be granted stopping the sale on a more permanent basis, until the lawsuit that has been filed at the same time can be heard.

When the lawsuit is filed, and prior to the Preliminary Junction Hearing, if there is one Federal Charge alleged in the complaint, the lender will usually have the lawsuit remanded to Federal Court and away from State Court. The purpose will be to request a dismissal of all charges. They have a simple reason for doing this.

The lenders know that Federal Court judges tend to be more receptive to the lender’s side and often will dismiss the case. This appears to happen more often than not. As a result, it is beneficial for lenders to have the case remanded to Federal Court.

If the lawsuit is not dismissed, then the Preliminary Injunction Hearing will be held. This is actually a “mini-hearing” of the case before a judge. Based upon what is presented as evidence, the judge will determine the likelihood of the homeowner prevailing at trial, and if he finds that there is a likelihood of the borrower winning the case, he grants the injunction. Once the Injunction is granted, the lender will usually begin to talk seriously with the homeowner and attorney about resolving the issue.

If talks do not work out, then the homeowner is going to trial. This is a process that will take months to years to reach a conclusion and will become very expensive, especially to the homeowner. (I currently have one client that has been in settlement hearings over a year, and her lawsuit began in Dec 07.)

The homeowner must understand that the lender has a very specific goal in mind during this phase of the lawsuit. The lender wants to stall the entire process, causing extensive costs to the homeowner. It is hoped that the homeowner will simply run out of money or give up and let the home be foreclosed upon, which happens quite often.

It should also be noted that Truth In Lending and RESPA lawsuits have been regularly filed since the mid 1990’s. Case Law is extensive and often contradictory. The lenders know the cases and the rulings and taper their arguments to fit those rulings. Most of the attorneys who are taking on cases do not know these cases, so many of the arguments that they make, the lenders already have the counter arguments ready.

The way to take on the lenders is to use different plans of attack, using statutes other than TILA and RESPA. The problem is that often a lender will attempt to raise the defense of Federal Preemption, whereby Federal Law takes precedent over state law.

Federal Preemption can be fought. In most states, the statutes exist to counter Federal Preemption claims. These statutes are versions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5, which identifies Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP). Lenders will claim that that these are not applicable, however, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC have all at one time or another, in guidance letters, have asserted that even National Banks could be subject to such state statutes. Case law does indeed support such actions in many instances.
Dan Edstrom, on November 1, 2009 at 4:49 pm said:

Dan,
Yes absolutely. Of course this assumes you are within the rescission period and/or you have claims that can “toll” the rescission past this period.

Rescission can be used in BKR and/or foreclosure. When you rescind, by operation of law the original mortgage is extinguished. The debt becomes unsecured. Once unsecured, it can be dealt with in bankruptcy. There is lots of information on this blog regarding rescission. Look it up and post back with any specific questions. Here is a great document you can read regarding Truth in Lending:

Truth-In-Lending
Disclosure Requirements, Violations, and Remedies
By Leslie B. Ng
Dated June 13, 2007

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is information provided for educational purposes and based on what I am doing in my case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan, on November 1, 2009 at 3:59 pm said:

Hello Every One,
Would any body know this, I’m in the prccess of filing bankruptcy, its all in the lawyers hands right now we file in a week or so with the courts. My question is can I still recind the mortgage loan since I started bankruptcy? If I can, how do I get the paper work to do this, and what are the steps in doing this? I started with Countrywide now with BoA. They gave me a loan mod. and up my payment $1,000.00, that doesn’t help. I never signed the doc’s. I’m under water in the mortgage. I also was looking through my original doc’s and found out that the lender at the time changed and up my income, which I was not aware of, they rushed us through signing at that time and it slipped past us? But since we did all the paper work through the Fax I have the original app. that I submitted. That’s were I found they changed my income. Any help would be grateful. Thanks
dasmom, on November 1, 2009 at 2:55 pm said:

CIT Group Files for Bankruptcy

After months of efforts to stay alive, the company filed for
Chapter 11 — but under a so-called prepackaged bankruptcy
plan that will enable it to emerge from court protection by
the end of the year.

Read More:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/cit-to-file-for-bankruptcy-soon?emc=na
L.Fitzgerald, on November 1, 2009 at 2:53 pm said:

HomeOwner comrades ,

Neil Garfield has explained many times in this wonderful blog …about securitization ….and how it is a separate transaction ….from us the innocent borrower .

We borrowed from a ” lender ” not knowing all the facts.behing the deal .
The high commissions , and high sale value that kept on giving to the Wall St. casino players.
They stole, lied ,cheated from everybody… while stuffing their off shore accounts to the rim.Their Banks deposits are so heavy ..they could sink the Island they’re sitting on.

This whole securizitation was fabricated for one thing only .
To Steal ….and get away with it.

So why ? Why are so many people looking inside the Pool and Service agreements , The Depositor, The Server ,the Main server,…the prospectus…on and on and on….Searching for a silver bullet to kill the werewolf.

In my opinion everything concerning this securizitation was a Ponzi scheme made by the Wall Street and is stained with criminal crap.

So why are we looking for a solution’s inside criminal scheme, contracts,agreements ….who cares what the Pool Sevice agreement says ..its all fabricated by ” Tony Soprano” and the Bankers .

To me … Federal ,State Statutes ..the law of the land, the common sense law is supreme here. Black law …..

The same thing happened with MERS. Bankers making their own rules for their own benefit. Cheating the States of the filing fees we all have to pay….but not them..oh no ….

These P.S.A’s and all the other hocus pocus B.S. was made to confuse us and the investors. and They have !??

To me …Federal & State Law are supreme …Public Property Records, Liens,Assignments, Chain of Title …
A Public record office ..where documents can’t be pre dated and fabricated . Its there ..!! Or its Not !!

My opinion is based on my own personal experience ,and is not legal advice ..only my opinion ..

Wall Street Investment Bankers contracts /agreements/ servicers/ etc. etc.

” their… “” Game is Fixed”" ….at the ” Sopranos Casino ” .

LF.
angry&not taking it, on November 1, 2009 at 8:37 am said:

Don & Dan
psa..pooling and servicing agreement is where this info is ;

as per Neils statement “NOTICE OF DEFAULT: REAL OR FAKE?”
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/notice-of-default-real-or-fake/#comments

(Don’t remember off hand which document this is in):
One of the documents discusses the fact that the Trustee has NO knowledge of default on their own. They can only know about a default when notified from the master servicer (or depositor I believe). If this is the case, and the alleged Trustee is foreclosing on you, who is providing the affidavit showing your payments have not been made? My guess is it is the sub-servicer (it was in my case anyway). If this is so, the SEC filings show that this is not enough information to prove the loan is in default. It has to come from the master servicer.
Dan Edstrom, on November 1, 2009 at 1:31 am said:

Don,
You said:

Can you elaborate on specifically what kind of information will be useful in me saving my home? Causes of Action? There’s alot of info, but does it apply to saving ones home?

THE ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
– this shows who they bought the loan from and who they passed it on to. In the old days this would all be recorded with the county. Typically these are true sales (or at least they say this) but mine also says that “even though we said we sold it, we really used seller financing” (meaning they didn’t actually sell it). This would be VERY IMPORTANT to know for saving your house. This section also shows that the assignment they recorded after foreclosure is NOT valid. Much more here also …

THE POOLING AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
Shows the servicers and their responsibility – such as if you don’t make your payments the sub-servicer has to. If the sub-servicer doesn’t make your payments the master servicer has to. If the master servicer doesn’t make your payments, the successor master servicer (Trustee) has to. Don’t you want to know if somebody made your payment WITHOUT your permission and authorization? If they did (up to and past the time foreclosure was filed, how can you be in foreclosure? Much more here also …

THE PROSPECTUS
LOTS of information including issues that could cause the investors to not receive payment – or receive a delayed payment. Such putting the Trust into receivership, problems with MERS, etc. I would use these as defenses on my lawsuit. TONS more information here.

(Don’t remember off hand which document this is in):
One of the documents discusses the fact that the Trustee has NO knowledge of default on their own. They can only know about a default when notified from the master servicer (or depositor I believe). If this is the case, and the alleged Trustee is foreclosing on you, who is providing the affidavit showing your payments have not been made? My guess is it is the sub-servicer (it was in my case anyway). If this is so, the SEC filings show that this is not enough information to prove the loan is in default. It has to come from the master servicer.

As far as I can tell they try to use the securitization to show they can foreclose, then forget everything else and use your mortgage and promissory note to foreclose (and probably with MERS also). But the SEC filings show that they are NOT following the proper procedures and using the correct chain of assignments.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
steve sinacola, on October 31, 2009 at 11:19 pm said:

HR 1123
Abby thanks for the info. I would suggest “we” do a little more then write a letter, although thats a good start to your “call for action”. In addition that bill (avail here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1123)needs to be faxed, and emailed to every state atty general, every state congress person, and the Governor within your state. May as well email it to your address book as well. Property law is the domain of the state. The above mentioned state elected servants need to start doing a more then expressing feighned concern.

A simple fax which states “We need U.S. House Bill 1123 enacted on a STATE LEVEL. Please read the bill online here
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1123 and start the process”, or something to that effect.

fax for free at https://faxzero.com/
M.Soliman, on October 31, 2009 at 7:08 pm said:

SO WHY ARE WE READING A THREE YEAR OLD REGISTRATION OR OLD FIINANCIALS (10K) INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT ANNUAL REPORT?
Maher Soliman / October31st 2009 GMT

REALLY, NOT AN INSULT. . .ARE YOU CONSIDERING A RECIEVERSHIP PLAY ? OR DERECOGNITION OF PAST EARNING STATEMENTS?

Lon said – it is suppose to be in LEHMAN XS TRUST SERIES 2006 GP-1. (Q) Why do you care – it’s just a registration. Label registered for a Shelf?

You also say the sponsor and seller: LEHMAN BROTHER’S HOLDINGS INC.
Who Cares If In Receivership / Bankrupt? Immaterial.

DEPOSITOR: STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION (RED HEARING)
TRUSTEE: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
It’s a figurative office and solely administrative position. Desk at a bank

MASTER SERVICER: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC
Now you’re getting somewhere. Aurora and good friend Jaime s (lead counsel aurora) will share with you it was acquired by Lehman. ..Then bought it back and is once again healthy. TMI is good for you!

Don’t miss this advantage – their web site brags about aurora are still strong and not part of the Lehman collapse. …. .Here you go…make them pay!

SERVICER(S): GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC., AURORA LOAN SERVICES AND GAME MORTGAGE CORPORATION. Your smorgasbord of servicers is listed for a reason is for a reason. They got hip to 1122AB TO CONTEND WITH, SARBANNES OXLEY AND GAAP ISSUES UNDER COMMISSION ENFORCMENT. **Servicing the loans made by a less than arms ownership.

Now AURORA SERVICES GREEN STAIN and GREENSTEIN SERVICES AURORA where compliance is fickle these days? You see all three are potentially lacking Joinder (counsel in the house) and participate – don’t believe their stand alone at all. (Check that).

ORIGINATOR(S): GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC. FIGHTING BANKRUPT STRIKE TWO!
CUSTODIAN(S): US. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Ah yes…US NATIONAL BANK…. What’s another word for CUSTODIAN? “WAREHOUSE LENDER” Winner!! Celebration time come on! There is your holder in due course.

Warehouse lender holds the collateral and safeguards the notes …but don’t tell anyone bubba – just say their lost. And Who Collects The Payments – The Servicers For The Trustee, TRUST MASTER SERVICER? No. It Is For the Warehouse Bank to collect – Got It.

How else do they get paid if the cash flow from the note is sold forever to investors – joke does not work? It’s the depositors that makes the payments every month to the master servicers -got it. So let me say in parting the following:

Those are not mortgage payments – there “pillows” I mean “dividends “on preferred and a waterfall of derivatives having no asset base.

One more thing –take Indy Mac bank

Who recieves a security intterest in your home at closing ? ____trustor ____trustee____ beneficiary ____none

You grant title to whom (?) at closing? ____trustor ___trustee___ beneficiary ___none
Don-CA, on October 31, 2009 at 6:01 pm said:

Thanks for the info Abby.

Here’s one more for the committee:

No more deed of trusts and discontinue the non-judicial foreclosure procedure. With the advent of securitized mortgages, the non-judicial process should be eliminated.
Abby in CA, on October 31, 2009 at 5:32 pm said:

Maybe we should all write letters to get this bill approved and out of the committee!!

Proposed Bill H.R. 1123 “Produce the Note Act of 2009″ would help Prevent Illegal Foreclosures

By Denise Richardson on August 10, 2009

U.S. Representatives John Conyers, Jr (D) Michigan and Marcy Kaptur (D) Ohio recently introduced H.R. 1123, currently dubbed the “Produce the Note Act of 2009″ which if passed would essentially prohibit lenders/servicers from initiating a foreclosure without first proving they are the holder of the homeowner’s note.

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress;

Produce the Note Act of 2009 – Prohibits commencement of any foreclosure in connection with certain residential mortgages unless the person commencing the foreclosure complies with specified prerequisites, including identification of the actual holder of the mortgage note, the originating mortgage lender and all subsequent assignees, and other all parties who have an interest in the real estate subject to the mortgage or in the mortgage or its proceeds.
Requires the person commencing the foreclosure to: (1) notify the mortgagor, in writing, not less than five days before any action is taken to commence foreclosure; and (2) certify to the court, in the case of a judicial foreclosure, or to the office of the state to which notice is required under state law, that such notice has been provided.

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services on February 23, 2009.

To find the full text, related legislation and track the progress of H.R. 1123, visit GovTrack.us -a civic project to track Congress.
Abby in CA, on October 31, 2009 at 5:05 pm said:

Don

I wish I could give a boiler plate answer, but I cannot as each person’s facts are different.

However, a very good and basic place to start is to
review the SEC filings and understand all the ‘players’ as they relate to your loan–for instance, which is the entity identified as the securities trustee? which is the ‘issuing entity’ etc. What is their role with my loan?

You may find, as I did, that the securities trustee, U.S. Bank, N.A. suddenly appears on the NOD, NOS etc. It took me many months before I figured out why this previously unknown entity had appeared on my recordings when I had no prior business dealing with them. At that point I did not even know my loan had been securitized.

The securities trustee, per the pooling and servicing agreement (at SEC), has a role in the foreclosure once the securities have been sold to investors (which includes your loan).

Subsequently, I examined my county recordings carefully and found them to be out of sequence and with forgeries and handwritten backdating.

Thus, as a result of understanding the securities trust and SEC filings, I have a fairly solid count for wrongful foreclosure or set aside illegal foreclosure.

Additionally, one needs to focus on which entity in the securitization schema has the original note and is it the same entity which is foreclosing? Equally important is when the entity had actual physical possession of the original note. ‘Who had it and When did they have it?’

After you get the basic understanding of those areas, then you can delve deeper into things like—were any of the recordings, such as corporation deed of assignment done after the ‘closing’ or ‘cut off’ date of the trust? If so, they may be invalid.

Understand the basics first & how it applies to your loan.

When you have those down pat, then go for a more sophisticated understanding of usury, FASB, UETA, FINRA etc…..

Read a lot!!
Don-CA, on October 31, 2009 at 4:05 pm said:

Abby:

“look in the FWPs (free writing prospectus) and the 424B’s (prospectus) and look in the larger sized files.

a wealth of information!!”

Can you elaborate on specifically what kind of information will be useful in me saving my home? Causes of Action? There’s alot of info, but does it apply to saving ones home?
Don, on October 31, 2009 at 4:05 pm said:

It is suppoae to be in Lehman XS Trust Series 2006 GP-1.

SPONSOR AND SELLER: LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC.

DEPOSITOR: STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION

TRUSTEE: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

MASTER SERVICER: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC

SERVICER(S): GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC., AURORA LOAN SERVICES AND GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

ORIGINATOR(S): GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

CUSTODIAN(S): U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

I think the loans should be here but it states:
SCHEDULE A

MORTGAGE LOAN SCHEDULE

[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]

I’ve looked through the 8K & 10K numerous times but can’t seem to pinpoint any specific loan information.
Abby in CA, on October 31, 2009 at 3:49 pm said:

When looking at your trust docs at the SEC website

look in the FWPs (free writing prospectus) and the 424B’s (prospectus) and look in the larger sized files.

a wealth of information!!
Abby in CA, on October 31, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

Dan & all

re: loans securitized

my loan was securitized in early 2006. some of the SEC docs did not include my name, but did include
my loan #, my zip, amount of loan, current amount due, my credit rating at time of loan, LTV etc.. Actually quite a bit of personal detailed data!!

once i got the trust name, my loan details was easy to find and there were over 4200 loans in the pool
Dan Edstrom, on October 31, 2009 at 2:19 pm said:

Rik,
When you say the ink smears are you talking about what you allegedly signed or the actual form itself? This should have been a pre-printed form and that part should NOT smear (my opinion). If the original form smears, I would (almost) guarantee this is a forged document. In that case think about hiring a pro to look at it as part of your court case. Be sure to consult with an attorney to see if you can go after FDLG for fraud (and probably other violations such as identity theft, mortgage fraud, mail fraud, failure to provide a sufficiency of pleadings, etc).

Of course I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, just what I am doing or would do if that happened to me.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on October 31, 2009 at 2:14 pm said:

Rik,
Your loan wasn’t securitized. At least that is what it indicates. I find that highly unlikely. The document is obviously a forgery if it is even slightly off. Who was the originator? When Wells Fargo is foreclosing it could be one of the following (not all inclusive):

– Wells Fargo originated
– Wells Fargo assigned
– Wells Fargo as Trustee
– Wells Fargo as sub-servicer
– Wells Fargo as master servicer (?)

What year did your loan close?

Did you get a substitution of Trustee?
Did you get an assignment?

If you are in a judicial state and they did not mail you a substitution of Trustee or an assignment, did you go to the recorders office to get a copy of all recordings? (or I guess in some cases this is the court house??)

Is MERS on your note? If so it was almost CERTAINLY securitized. If not, securitization is less possible but still could have happened.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Rik, on October 31, 2009 at 2:07 pm said:

Hi UsedKarGuy,

Point by point:

What is the title of the foreclosing entity? – Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Party Foreclosing)

FDLG – Florida Default Law Group (Charlatans)

Made Up Note – The document looks TOO clean and has no folds or anything to indicate that is is a even few years old or was ever filed.

I do have the closing docs, and it looks similar, but not a perfect match, which makes me suspicious. Also the ink smears very easily.

The documents only have the “Original” blue stamp and the “Pay to the Order” stamp to Wells Fargo. No other marks or elements are added, front or back.

Thanks
Dan Edstrom, on October 31, 2009 at 2:05 pm said:

I found mine without knowing the trust. My originator (Mortgage Lenders Network) and investor (GMAC) are named together in SEC filings. I found the investor by accident when I was trying to get a loan mod from the servicer (they actually said the investor was GMAC).

I did a search on Mortgage Lenders Network and GMAC and I found 5 securitizations for 2005:

RASC Series 2005-EMX1
RASC Series 2005-EMX2
RASC Series 2005-EMX3
RASC Series 2005-EMX4
RASC Series 2005-EMX5

EMX1, EMX2 and EMX3 closed BEFORE my loan closed (my loan closed on 9/7/2005). So I knew it was EMX4 or EMX5. They ALL had US Bank as the Trustee. It took me 3 months to find my actual loan number. It did not contain my name or address. It did have the loan number, city, original principle balance, interest rate and other information. For some reason this file was NOT indexed and not searchable. I had to find the file and open it to locate this information. That took me 3 months. The SEC filing was from the depositor, not the sponsor or the Trust. I have since heard that 2005 was just about the last year where this was possible. From 2006 and later they did not include this information (I have not been able to substantiate that claim). So, if your loan is 2006 or later you may not be able to easily locate this information.

If all you have is the originator, this is where you start:

– Search google with the following (in quotes):

“secinfo” “Mortgage Lenders Network”

Replace Mortgage Lenders Network with your originator. This may start you on your way. You can find all SEC filings for the year you closed. Hopefully it wil be like mine and there will be only a few entries.

My loan closed on 9/7/2005 and the “securitization” closed on 11/17/2005. So yes it is usually a couple of months. For my car loan, they only do 2 securitizations a year and so the securitization closing was approx. 6 months after I signed my car loan.

Hope this helps. Abby, usedkarguy and others have more info that will help also.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy, on October 31, 2009 at 2:01 pm said:

some of those pages left blank contain graphics, logos, etc. How old is your loan, Don? how old is the trust? did you search the 8k and 10k’s? I forgot what filing I found mine in, but I had to go to ownership relationship (WFAssetSecur.Corp)and found all four vintage (2005-1-2-3-4) loan trusts were all depositied to that 1999 trust.
Don, on October 31, 2009 at 1:34 pm said:

I was supposedly told the name of the trust the loan is in but when I go to the sec.info site and look up the trust I find MANY pages where the loan numbers should be with pages that state “pages intentionally left blank” How do you get past that short of discovery?
usedkarguy, on October 31, 2009 at 12:40 pm said:

RE: Abby–Thanks, but I already found my loan.
RE: Rik–What is the title of the foreclosing entity. Wells Fargo Who? FDLG is a law office, right? Who is the party foreclosing? blahblahblah as trustee for blah asset backed/trust 200?-?? What do you mean by “made-up” note? Is it an exact copy of it or not? Do you have your closing documents (copies from the closing) that you can compare? I’m in Wisconsin, they are (so far) allowed to present a copy of the not. Recorder’s office only has the mortgage (deed of trust, in my state)from Wells and a Lis Pendens from HSBC recorded. You cannot find your loan until you have the trust name. then you can search the “relationships”. therein you will find the actual loan recorded, along with the default insurance purchased, your score, classifications, etc. It took me a while. But throughout the 16 months leading up to the foreclosure they would not disclose the name of the securitization. And I KNOW that MY LOAN TRUST has been shelved (not sold to investors yet), so they are lying to everybody (whose loans are in those trusts) when they say it “didn’t meet investor guidelines”. THERE IS NO INVESTOR! It’s a dead deal in there write-off bucket. But you can’t find anything without a trust name and series. Some states require the foreclosing attorney to act as trustee (right? substitution of trustee? anyone? Buehler?).
ALLAN in MA (with a response to Maher Soliman this week AKA SecondaryTradeDesk), on October 31, 2009 at 12:19 pm said:

ALLAN in MA (with a response to Maher Soliman this week AKA SecondaryTradeDesk), on October 29th, 2009 at 10:56 pm Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

TO: “Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m

Dear Allan

Well Sir, I do appreciate your comments. The time and effort spent to verify our market leading findings is appreciated. It must take away from the valuable time otherwise spent with family, kicking your dog and loved ones.However, we cannot fulfill your request for assistance at this time. Please contact HUD for additional help or ACORN if your in need of counseling. Have you also considered your county’s mental health ward? We look forward to your submissions in the future and ask you to include a return address and contact information.

You will do fine inyour endeavors. And as a judge said in a matter I attended concerning handing down an eight year sentence . . .

“Good bye and good luck”.

expert witness”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Maher,

It fails me why Neil Garfield doesn’t moderate or block your mean-spirited ad hominem attacks passing as ‘postings.’ Who hurt you, and why are you making everyone here so publicly pay for it? Why so many personae?

As someone who passes himself off as an expert witness, you must be well aware of what is termed PROJECTION, e.g. “Have you also considered your county’s mental health ward?” OR ” It must take away from the valuable time otherwise spent with family, kicking your dog and loved ones.”

Should you be as self-aware as befits the vaunted role you claim to play for others, then you might consider answering your own rhetorical question. I’d gladly find institutional care for you, Maher, as I have extensive experience as a counselor and guardian ‘pink-slipping’ schizophrenics (especially paranoid) and others ‘who’ve lost it.’ Can you believe, one in 25 Americans are sociopaths (have no conscience)? Then, there are psychopaths, who carry their enmity to vile extremes!

This blogsite is a serious place where people are thoughtfully engaged in heroic fights to preserve their homes or get at the truth of what they are experiencing. Why can’t you show some decency and a modicum of respect for this positively engaged and supportive community? Why the slights? Why the ad hominem attacks? Why especially do you attack “Ladies”? Misogyny gone rampant? Forgive the stereotype, is this your cultural heritage?

If you were to re-read my posts, you’d observe I have offered you mostly constructive criticism, though I have been open about my shared annoyance with your defensive hostility and hogging the bully pulpit to pander your unproven services.

Could you furnish a list of and contact info for attorneys who have called upon and successfully implemented your expertise? You can even include those you admitted were wrong to characterize you as a ‘fool.’

Could you provide a list of cases we can view that document your expert testimony? Surely as a businessman out to win more business, you can provide these.

By your irresponsible postings, you invite discord and enmity within a community with little tolerance for either. Why so destructive? This informs how this community perceives your character, and takes away from your possibly worthwhile contributions in the area of securities and accounting expertise.

Is it possible you’re mixing me up with someone else when you state, “However, we cannot fulfill your request for assistance at this time”? Thanks for plugging ACORN and for affirming “You will do fine inyour endeavors.”

Try not to get too close to these criminal cases to which you seem to gravitate. Blurring the lines may come too easily for you. Something might rub off. One may take perverse pleasure in seeing another be punished for transgressions one oneself has committed.

Fittingly, “Good bye and good luck.”

ALLAN

B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m (in case you missed it when you – assuming the imperial ‘we’ – stated: “We look forward to your submissions in the future and ask you to include a return address and contact information.”)
Abby in CA, on October 31, 2009 at 11:09 am said:

UsedCarGuy — read my post of oct. 29…an easier way to find name of trust your loan may be in. At some point prior to foreclosure the securities trustee is recording a power of attorney to the loan servicer. They record this POA at your county recorder. You will never receive a copy of it. It will not have your name on it, but it will have your property id. An example would be securities trustee U.S. Bank, N.A. does a power of attorney to Chase (the servicer) (and this is related to any stamps you may see on your other recordings saying ‘attorney in fact’). At the recorders office you will have to search on U.S. Bank etc….it will never come up under your name. Within the POA recording will be the name of your trust!!! So you may be able to find out cheaply and prior to having to do any discovery.
Rik, on October 31, 2009 at 9:47 am said:

Hi UsedKarGuy (All),

I have Wells Fargo / FDLG foreclosing on me, and they have filed what I think is a “made up” note with the court. There are no assignments or allonge attached to it, so I am still in the dark about the Trust, or if there was acutally an assignation.

I have a fixed rate VA loan, which I do not know if this makes any difference, but I was under the impression that all mortgage loans are assigned to a trust or similar type of setup.

I have not been able to find any references to my loan in the SEC filings which I thought by searching by the loan number or my name or address should yield at least some reference.

My loan was closed in Nov 2007, so I assume that the details would be rolled in the reporting for either Nov or Dec 2007?

Any guidance? FDLG is using all of the tactics, and I mean all of them…. that I have read about here and on other sites.

Thanks in advance,

Rik
M.Soliman, on October 31, 2009 at 9:20 am said:

COMMENTS: You won’t know the name of the Trust until they foreclose on you.

October 31st 2009 PST
msoliman

Stop please -Stop it …what the …..THERE IS NO TRUST….STOP! GET IT. ITS A REGISTRATION- THATS ALL- GET IT. “FIGURATIVE”, “LISTED” ” SYMBOLIC”, A “REFERENCE” / THATS ALL. IT IS ! THE PRIVATE LABLE FOR AN INVESTMENT. GOT IT. C*O*V*E*R*A*G*E* STOP PLEASE …A TRUST IS A VEHICLE TO PAY DIVIDENDS… GET IT. DIVIDENDS…GOT IT…! STOP NO TRUST… ITS A FICTIONAL ENTITY…STOP… IT IS FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSES ONLY …GET IT.

LOAN FUNDS – Conduit GabbyAsS Inc
HOLDER IN DUE COURSE – unknown -defer to MERS
SUCCESSOR ASSIGNS – GMAC
SERVICER – Homecomings
WAREHOUSE BANK – (GMAC Lines of Credit)
TRUSTEE TO INDENTURE Who Cares!
———————————————————————
DO YOU SEE A TRUST HERE …? WAIT THREE YEARS AND THEN , MAYBE AN ASSIGNEMENT TO A INSIDE “LENDER” SETTLEMENT AGENT ON BEHALF OF A TRUST INVESTMENT (TRUSTEE) WHO KICKS THE BACK TO ITSELF – …….GMAC GOT IT WHERE IT STARTS AND STOPS SO STOP- ABBY -PLEASE!

MSOLIMAN
Admin@borrowerhotline.com
usedkarguy, on October 31, 2009 at 8:42 am said:

You won’t know the name of the Trust until they foreclose on you. Once you have the trust name, you can (hopefully) find your loan listed in the SEC recording. But you still don’t know who owns the certificates. My QWR included default provisions, but this has not been tested yet in court (by me).
Deontos, on October 31, 2009 at 8:24 am said:

bt,

The Loan Servicers act as a de facto SHIELD to other trust entities.

A few will cooperate and abide by the law. Others ignore YOU and the LAW. You can identify what trust your loan is in by doing research, but you’ll be going into Rabbit Hole trying to get any one to talk to you besides your current loan servicer.

That’s my opinion from reading the experience of the commenters here.

Please share any success you may have

Good luck in your search.
bt, on October 31, 2009 at 8:07 am said:

RESPA QWR question?

The servicer for my loan will not tell me the name and contact information of the Securitized Trust that owns my loan. They said it is the Bank of New York and will not provide the exact name of the trust or contact information. We are trying to work a short sale, and they said they will not provide my claims to the investor as the BIG BANK have the decision making control. Trying to avoid a Quiet title suit and do a short sale and move on.

DOES anyone know where it says in the RESPA QWR act that I can request the name and contact information for the owner of my loan and they have to provide it?

FDCPA- I would think as a servicer/third party they are required under the FDCPA to provide the name and contact information for the owner of my loan?

ANY HELP ON THIS FOLKS?
Dan Edstrom, on October 30, 2009 at 10:08 am said:

Abby,
That is great information, I will have to go to the recorders office and see what I can find out. Did you actually find this document in your case?

Also be sure to read California Penal Code Section 530.5 and determine if it applies in your case.

I view this as applying because the parties involved are using my identity in an attempt to steal my property. They or others totally messed up on the loan / securities side of the transaction (failure to perfect title, failure to acquire directly or indirectly perfected title) and now they are attempting to unlawfully “fix” what was screwed up. They are committing illegal acts directly or using subornation to get others to do it for them.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on October 29, 2009 at 7:13 pm said:

There may be an easy way to find out the securiites trust name of your mortgage.

Check with your county recorder for any power of attorney’s recorded for your property. Now this recording may not even have your name on it.

It may be between say, U.S. Bank and Chase. So the recorder may have to do a search using the property number, like an APN. This power of attorney recording was more than likely not sent to you ever.

If you get a copy, you should see the name of the securities trust. Then you can go to the SEC website and look it up and search for the Pooling & Servicing Agreement.

These POAs are typically from the securities trustee, say U.S. Bank, granting POA to the servicer, such as Chase.

These POAs usually are notarized.

Sometimes there is an Indemnification clause like:

Servicer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and its directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses blah blah blah………

Anyways, this might be a very easy way to find out the name of the securities trust which your mortgage may be in….on your own, without discovery.
UsedKarGuy, on October 29, 2009 at 5:59 pm said:

Hello Jeff and good evening fellow travelers. I want to share another NEW experience in this excursion. Got another letter from HOPE NOW, and instead of throwing it away, I opened it to humor myself.
Dear Homeowner,
“HOPE NOW” is a partnership between mortgage companies and non-profit housing counselors. Our mission is simple: we reach out to and attempt to assist homeowners who may be having difficulty paying their mortgages. Your mortgage company, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, is a member of this alliance.

Through this alliance, homeowners can easily find out about relief options that may include repayment plans, changes that can be made to the terms of the loan, and other alternatives for which homeowners may be eligible. There is NO COST to explore these solutions.

To learn more, a servicing representative is available Monday through Friday from 8 .am. EST to 10 p.m. EST at:

866-480-5004

The announcer starts with:
“In accordance with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act…..” (I’m thinking….Hmmmmm, that voice sounds familiar) and any information obtained (like my phone number?) will be used to….

It’s BLEEPING Wells Fargo special servicing! WTF! “Uh, excuse me. Who do you represent?” I asked. “This is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage”, she replied. I said goodbye.

Back to the letter….

You may also call the Homeowner’s HOPE HOTLINE (they have applied for a Federally Registered Trademark on this one, REALLY FOLKS, they DID, they’re gonna trademark this stupid hotline name), where representatives are available to speak with you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at : 1888-995-HPOE (4673). Please call today.

Ringgggg. “Hope Now Alliance, what is your name?”
I gave it to her and asked who she represented. She said they are a nonprofit association helping homeowners obtain loan modifications.
I asked her if they “were having any success?”
“Well, I don’t really know. You would need to speak to a counselor…..” and I said “and supply all my financial information and expense information?”.
“Why, yes, sir. Would you like to speak to a counselor?”
I said: “I have your letter in my hand, YOUR LETTERHEAD, offering help, and I call the first number and it goes right to Wells Fargo. Does that sound like “Unfair Debt Collection Practices to YOU?” “Well, I don’t know about that, sir. Would you like to speak to a counselor?”

I asked if there were any attorneys there.
“No, sir. We don’t offer legal advice”
I said to her “I have loan in foreclosure with lots of fraud claims and predatory lending claims. Do you have anyone I could talk to, like, a lawyer?”
“No, sir. Would you like to speak to a counselor?”
click.

Now, Jeff, I filed an online complaint with the OCC regarding the origination (see previous posts) and the securities violations regarding the appraisal, reworked loan documents, underwriting documents (obtained in discovery), among other things. I was pretty hot when I wrote the complaint (it was the day we lost in court). The OCC assigned a case number and contacted HSBC. They responded as follows:

“Please be aware that HSBC Bank, U.S.A. acts as trustee for certain loan securitization trusts in connection with the issuance of mortgage backed securities. As trustee, the bank has only a nominal role with respect to the properties owned by the trust. Under the agreements that establish the trusts, other companies are designated as the servicers of the loans and those servicers handle matters such as mortgage foreclosures, loan modifications, evictions and sales of foreclosed trust properties. This matter has been forwarded to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage for handling who is the servicer of the trust that owns this property. You may contact Wells Fargo Home Mortgage directly at….

So, you see, I have this letter here, Judge, that says…they hold a “nominal” role, as in NOMINEE. Now, Judge, may I bring your attention to the recent rulings by…..and my question is, Judge, who was the Plaintiff’s counsel really working for? The guys who I have stated my causes of action against? That you dismissed? Because the Plaintiff HSBC Bank, U.S.A., doesn’t seem to want to foreclose on me, according to this letter…….wouldn’t you agree?

Where’s the real party in interest here, Judge? It’s sure not HSBC Bank, U.S.A., now is it, Judge?

We’ll see what happens
Robert, on October 28, 2009 at 6:38 pm said:

Finally, a homeowner gets their home free and clear..now if I can just find a good attorney in AZ …

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/27/who-owns-your-home-lost-paper-trail-allows-borrower-to-keep-her/?icid=main|htmlws-sb-n|dl3|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2F2009%2F10%2F27%2Fwho-owns-your-home-lost-paper-trail-allows-borrower-to-keep-her%2F
jeff, on October 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm said:

Usedkarguy,

Is there a chance you could expound on your OCC complaint. What specifically did you ask for. HSBC trustee is also the Plaintiff in my case.

Thank you.
jeff, on October 28, 2009 at 5:08 pm said:

Deontos,

Thanks for the clarification.

Used car guy, my apoligizes.

How did you get HSBC to give you that answer.

Thank you.

Jeff
Deontos, on October 28, 2009 at 4:01 pm said:

Jeff,

I think the communication threads are getting a bit confused.

I believe rather than your inquiry regarding a “copy of the letter”; “usedkarguy” was making reference to a prior Maher Soliman post,

likely the one at this
link: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/

Titled:
“MSoliman, on October 28th, 2009 at 3:19 am Said:

MERS IS A RECORDING VEHICLE – OK! “
jeff, on October 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm said:

usedcarguy,

Is that your answer to my question?

If so, thank you. I didn’t realize that I neded to construct a proper sentence.

I will try harder next time. If nor
usedkarguy, on October 28, 2009 at 1:06 pm said:

re:
What I find missing, Neal, is a couple commas, a prepositional verb, and that’s pretty funny in and of itself because I HATED ENGLISH! …
Hey Maher: You’re the best!

RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON!
Lisa E., on October 28, 2009 at 4:18 am said:

Now Now Maher.

I see you got your secondary market knickers all in a twist.

Aren’t we all on the same side here?

I find your perspective and experience fascinating and unique. Although I do dearly wish your posts weren’t so darned incomprehensible. Know your audience and all that…..

You bring up an interesting point about MERS’s assignments. In my case, Plaintiff has submitted an assignment of dubious authenticity dating to 2/9/09 (case filed on 2/17/09 in judiciary state), but executed & notarized on 5/21/09. It is referred to as “the unrecorded assignment” in Plaintiff’s pleadings, and remains unrecorded to this day.

What’s your take on why this assignment wouldn’t be recorded? Would you recommend that I still seek an injunction to prevent recording of this “assignment”?

Thanks for any insight.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
MSoliman, on October 28, 2009 at 3:19 am said:

MERS IS A RECORDING VEHICLE – OK!

QUESTION: WILL YOU OR COUNSEL SEEK AN INJUNCTION BEFORE THEY *R*E*C*O*R*D A SELLERS ONLY MEANS AND ATTEMPT TO REPURCHASE A LOAN SOLD . MERS WILL RECORD A TRANSFEER OF THE DELAYED ASSIGNMENT. IT’S THE LOANS SELLER COMING BACK TO AVOID A MODIFICATION AND REPURCHASE – GOT IT! (No Whaaaa! ) NOT WHAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR ? HMMMMMM.

RESEARCH YOUR CAUSES OF ACTION: MISJOINDER OF PARTIES AND VIOLATES GAAP FAS 140-3 CONTROLLING INTEREST OF ASSETS BY A SELLER FOR A LOAN DEEMED TO BE SOLD . . .LATCHES, UNLAWFUL ESTOPPLE OTHERWISE. …….This has to stop – […..file a ch 13 or see an attorney or file a ch7 , or no a see an attorney , or no… ah…. yeah ah …let’s see . Im not an attorney and sooo …let’s attack Soliman – wait ! Ahhh start a web site and steal livinglies clients….Yeah! ahhh, no ….ahhh file a 13 and a 7 or adversery …hmmm I m hungry).

MSOLIMAN
admin@borrowerhotline.com
MSoliman, on October 28, 2009 at 2:18 am said:

“William Hardin, a real-estate professor at Florida International University, said people have a moral obligation to honor their mortgages when they can.”

Wake up ! Please smell the coffee. Its your obligation and you took it out and your the maker of the note. Stop running from the obligation…..Now, the security – thats a different story and where there is no standing for the deed and enforcement of the power of sale there is no more foreclosure!

You may be saddled with a high cost mortgage – but the deed could be found defect and if so “No sale and no conveyances back to the bank or third parties. TRUST ME –
(Whaaaaaa! Please make him stop! Please!!! )
YOU CANNOT SELL OR CONVEY A DEFECTIVE DEED! Come on in and jump on over – Fight smart!

msoliman
http://www.borrowerhotline.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com
MSoliman, on October 28, 2009 at 1:44 am said:

PREPAYMENT SPEED
By MSoliman

prepayment speed is referred to as PSA and it is a familiar securities componant for calculating performance. It was first developed by the Bond Market Association. The PSA prepayment speed definition reflects the velocity of prepayment speed in a model used primarily to derive an implied burn speed for new production loans.

“Chit Chatteres” may not know how the fundamentals were introduced by the Bond Market Association some time ago. It has developed and become instrumental to the need to measure a rate of prepayment for a mortgage loans. A 100% PSA is a variable and assumes yearly prepayment rates of 0.2% It is calclated on the outstanding principal balance on loans immediatly after origination. The rule is an additional 0.2% is added added to each accrual through month 30 and year five.

Call me as we have good historical information on where speed arguments willl becoome critical to the pursuit of your claim. Prepayment speed modeling is flawed and a contention for fraud on Wall Street. Remeber that the PPP CPR is an assumed rate of prepayment each month and based on factors not considering the toxicity of the loans as produced over recet years. We use the unpaid principal balance of a pool of mortgages starting in year five and in each month thereafter,

For example – A 0% PSA assumes no prepayments. while a 100% PSA assumes a constant annual prepayment rate of 6%. Multiples are calculated from this prepayment rate; so a 150% PSA assumes annual prepayment rates will be 0.3% in month one, or calculate at nine percent from month 30 until the repayment is complete. This will be huge as we plan to go into 2010 and continue to argue the borrowers rights against deceptive chit chat and unethical lending practices.

Maher Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
MSoliman, on October 28, 2009 at 1:10 am said:

[Editor's Note: This is a pretty good article. What I find missing is that there might not be a default even though the borrower has failed to make a payment. Many of the parties to whom the obligation was actually owed (because they advanced the money as investors) have been paid in whole or in part through federal bailout, insurance and other vehicles. Some payouts were with subrogation and some were not, but what is sure, as the Judge said in a recent case, is that he has a more than 50-50 doubt that if the borrower DID make the payment, he would be paying the wrong party. What is also sure is that the accounting you get from a servicer is only a small part of a bigger picture. That's why we need to know who the REAL LENDER is --- so we can ask for a COMPLETE accounting.]

“Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of their understanding, disbelief or ignorance.” – W. Clement Stone
———— —————- ——————-
Homeowners in Foreclosure Leave Servicing Agents a Liability Way Out!
Are Servicing Agents Liable or are the Lawyers Throwing Away Opportunity by Failing to Address the Borrower Capacity Issues?
By M.Soliman

Press Release / October 7th 2009 / Los Angeles, Calif – The notion of delinquency as the condition for a a borrower in default to be labled a “deadbeat” is ridiculous. That appears to be the cavalier view of most of servicing agents and ever the trustees who foreclose.

Default once was subject to attribute pertaining to reckless careless spending habits and fiscal laziness. It’s a high risk game of played by the Street of hold or fold whereby the aggregate pool of loans is measured by the something called prepayment speed. Servicing agent and mortgage securitizers rely on the models and other means of measumering defaults and loss to a portfolio and to gauge performance. It’s a foregone conclusion as the majority of subprime loans came out of the gate tainted and doomed to fail.

These are two distinct areas of understandings for why a borrower is in default. The first example is where a borrower’s lack of willingness to pay monthly payments due in a timely manner. It may be for chronic personal issues or reoccurring earnings issues for business reasons. They do not however indicate a problem with the borrower’s earnings.

Default and borrower delinquency is measured in affordability which is actually a product of the wage or income earners capacity. The borrower who lacks capacity to pay is in fact not qualified for the loan they were provided. Their earning is either distorted by the loan application or otherwise insufficient due to post funding problems. Loan affordability has gone from an art form to a science based on statistical and actuarial tables.

Today, current market conditions show the servicers role as a business niether an art or science but more of a complete disaster as evident by the default levels in the current market.

It’s an obvious big issue at the moment and red flag for lenders under the government’s impatient watchful eye. This is concerning as servicing agents maintain their own set of regulatory compliance criteria that establish rules set forth over 40 years ago influenced by conscionable collections efforts.

A borrower mortgage loan origination is bordered (post fundng) by a servicing department but rarely subsequent to any type of post funding evaluation.

A random or even sample review of selected files for measuring integrity is critical before a servicing agent assumes it is collectable. A random sample of loans by a servicing agent can easily determine some gauge for the quality of the assets and likelihood for collectability. No random testing or other means of a verifiable lack of capacity are grounds for shifting the claim from the originator or beneficiary (successor and assigns) to the servicer.

A graduate degree is not required to divide a little number by a big number. A simple method of measuring a borrower’s cost of credit monthly is calculated as a ratio of earnings and affordability or capacity. A borrower who demonstrates adherence to prudent and best lending practices will possess adequate capacity for affordability purposes. That is measures as a ratio of less than 38% percent of the borrower’s verified income for combined principal interest taxes and insurance.

A borrower lacking the ability to pay is differentiated from unwillingness to pay on time or rate paid as agreed. The latter is somewhat of servicing agents delight given the slow history of payment received are due to something other than affordability or perhaps delayed cycle cash flow from earning. The prospects are for added charges from late fees that are a product of a slow pay. It is where we find a lack of absolute and verifiable lack of borrower earnings capacity that we need to develop the arguments for a wrongful foreclosure. A lender with an excessive percentage of borrowers lacking earnings to afford the obligation they were given are obviously unable to meet their mortgage obligation.

Prepayment speed is the measurement of early prepayment subject to more of an art than a discipline. Mortgage securitizers work hard calculating information to determine the rate in which a loan will pay off. The trust indenture must maintain a certain prepayment speed in order to keep the investment intact and to prevent the entre pool of mortgage held from collapsing. The servicing agents therefore will randomly choose which loans to foreclose on with a statutory time frame while other delinquent mortgage loans become abandoned by servicing agents for over 12 months or more. The Wall Street terms used is Constant Prepayment Speed CPR and that is rate of speed at which the loan will be paid off and released. Loans become extinguished from one of four factors. The categories are as follows:

• Reversion (Home Sales)
• Refinance
• Delinquency
• Default Due To Foreclosure.

These elements of early prepayment are the estimated frame from the loan funding whereby a lender can expect to lose the borrower and the subject loan. Move up home purchase and rate and term and cash out refinances are two considerations of prepayment speed. The two other components are delinquency and foreclosure default.
They are cyclical and market driven whereby the reversion and refinance elements of prepayments are evidence of a strong economy and deflation. The seconds is from high cost of funds, poor economy, a recession and unemployment.

A presumption is if the deed to your home is defect the sale of your home in foreclosure must fail. A defective lenders security is labeled defect if it can be shown anything deceptive or willfully negligent was used to settle the transaction. The defective deed will prohibit the conveyance of your home where you cannot convey title under this argument.

Again, I believe the sale of your property in a recovery (foreclosure) must fail under the law if the lenders security is determined to be impaired and the deed is found defect. A claim of a voidable sale by a borrower is something broad and considered at the moment a far reaching argument. Most courts have heard the argument of RESPA and TILA settlement claims with no mention of the impact on the lenders security. I believe the breech and violations, if found to be material will cause the deed to be impaired from commencement. This argument if considered a willful deceptive act or tort is sufficient to argue around the statute of limitation inherent with RESPA violations. A tort or “unlawful act” that is willful and committed by one party against another in a contractual agreement not setting. It is not subject to ‘timing” limitations by the regulatory authority of HUD or a statute offering protection covering only a qualifying real estate transaction or settlement.

A fraudulent mortgage loan origination intended to sell a consumer into an unaffordable loan is a problematic issue for the courts. Equitable distribution of title and consideration on both sides caused a borrower to accept from a lender the excessive funding and convoluted if not deceptive loan terms. Contractually speaking, you will have a difficult time selling a judge on the fact you want out of the deal. This is especially true for loans aged 12 or more months and subject to adjustable rates and a borrower now in default.

A fiduciary is subject to interpretation in the mortgage sector of finance. The fact the loans are produced and intended to be delivered into a securities product and sold to investors changes the fiduciary argument. The fact is the borrower’s rights are defined in over 1,500 pages of investor risks information related to the public’s filings and private placement memorandums of the registrants.

The notion of lender acting as a fiduciary is something recently rejected by the court s in favor s of caveat emptor or buyer beware. The lender has in fact a duty of care no different than a broker dealer selling the securities instruments in the after math of a mortgagors loan funding. This is more and often causes for reversing the fiduciary argument due to non disclosure problems and flat out misrepresentations putting borrower at a further disadvantage for closing the transaction. Consider the message here If not from your perspective, at the very least as to risk and the potential investor to whom the loan is sold.

The court’s rulings and judges’ comments over 2009 are clear that both parties are culpable due to equitable distribution. At closer view and upon investigative scrutiny may allow for you to oformulate the arguments for evidencing the parties to mortgage commit a consumer to a secured “long term “obligation is at an unaffordable rate and payment cycle that is adjustable and unreasonably escalates.
The question we ask here is to what extent is the debtor obligation is a separate matter from the rights and obligations of a fiduciary conducting business through combinations with emphasis upon adhering solely to the commission’s enforcement affording the investor protections at the detriment of the consumer.

Msoliman
Admin@borrowerhotline.com
http://www.borrowerhotline.com

Where there is fear there is hatred…and the need to confuse, guess, react and defend ones right to be heard, to say and to exact retribution. Its with little or any benefit to others and driven by ego not fact. But in the end – only the truth shall illuminate and allow you to prevail.
Gardener J. Doane, on October 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm said:

Sorry forgot to let you know I’m in northern California and can be reach at http://www.kash4you2@aol.com.
Gardener J. Doane, on October 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm said:

I need any home owner who has First Franklin Financial corp. as there pretender lender to join me with the help of an attorney who gets it, to join together for a class action to save our homes. I have had a forensic audit completed and have found several TILA and RESPA viloations. Trustee sale date #3 will be held on Dec. 10, 2009.
Lisa E., on October 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm said:

Please forgive the non-working links.

Here’s the link to the story COUPLE CHARGED WITH TORTURING LOAN MODIFIERS: http://www.businessinsider.com/foreclosed-on-couple-couple-charged-with-torturing-loan-modifiers-2009-10

Although, I admit to a little smirk of satisfaction and a nod of understanding, I ascribe to the Quaker value of nonviolence.

I would love to know the whole story!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Lisa E., on October 27, 2009 at 5:31 pm said:

Resorting to violence! I hope we can avert this trend.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Kalona S B, on October 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm said:

Well stated and I am sure the majority of would agree.
I think the majority of us do have very good morals and a genuine integrity for our debt obligations. Most have been scammed and that is the greedy banks and investors who played the immoral crap on too many people. People that have had excellent credit, people with a history of paying their bills on time.
It was the banks and wall street that got greedy and broke the trust and loyalty of many who would have never defaulted had it not been for the blatant and dirty scams.
Many more need to be busted. But will that happen…time will tell but just not fast enough for too many honest people that trusted too much.
They have some nerve being to dare publish such BS.
But then again that is what got us all in this crap to begin with.
Lisa E., on October 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm said:

Marcus,

From the Miami Herald article you posted below about “strategic mortgage defaults by borrowers”:

“William Hardin, a real-estate professor at Florida International University, said people have a moral obligation to honor their mortgages when they can.”

I say to Professor Hardin (and I think I’ll actually write the man a little note), “Oh, really, Sir? Yes. Yes. Yes. I WAS one of the responsible ones. Lived well under my income. Dislike shopping. Prefer to read, walk, swim, think, and pray as opposed to any expensive pasttime. Yuppers, I, too, got caught up in an overappraised, untenable mortgage, with frequent strange, unaffordable increases in the escrow due to miscalculations and an unresponsive servicer. Now, you say I defaulted not only on my mortgage, but also my moral obligations? Hmmmmmmmmm, I’ve forged nothing, fabricated nothing, lied to no officer of the court, filed no fake documents, plead no frivolous pleadings, perpetrated no fraud upon the court. I simply ran out of savings and subsequently was unable to match my severely reduced income with my inversely proportional increased expenses. Who exactly is shirking their moral obligations?”

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Search the Web on Snap.com, on October 27, 2009 at 1:24 pm said:

Marcus,

From the Miami Herald article you posted below about “strategic mortgage defaults by borrowers”:

“William Hardin, a real-estate professor at Florida International University, said people have a moral obligation to honor their mortgages when they can.”

I say to Professor Hardin (and I think I’ll actually write the man a little note), “Oh, really, Sir? Yes. Yes. Yes. I WAS one of the responsible ones. Lived well under my income. Dislike shopping. Prefer to read, walk, swim, think, and pray as opposed to any expensive pasttime. Yuppers, I, too, got caught up in an overappraised, untenable mortgage, with frequent strange, unaffordable increases in the escrow due to miscalculations and an unresponsive servicer. Now, you say I defaulted not only on my mortgage, but also my moral obligations? Hmmmmmmmmm, I’ve forged nothing, fabricated nothing, lied to no officer of the court, filed no fake documents, plead no frivolous pleadings, perpetrated no fraud upon the court. I simply ran out of savings and subsequently was unable to match my severely reduced income with my inversely proportional increased expenses. Who exactly is shirking their moral obligations?”

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Marcus, on October 27, 2009 at 12:05 pm said:

Credit Disputes Could Bar Home Loans

WASHINGTON – Oct. 27, 2009 – Mortgage loan applicants with a credit dispute on their records may find it impossible to get a loan, even if they have a score above 800 and a large downpayment, consumer watchdogs warn.

The problem stems from a Fannie Mae policy that requires lenders to hand-underwrite these loans, because that practice makes it harder for scammers to use the credit dispute law to hide bad credit experiences.

Denying people who are good credit risks a loan is frequently an unintended consequence, says Christopher Cruise, a mortgage originator and a founder of Responsible Loan Officers. “There’s no question – when there are lots of other applications and business is good,” applications requiring extra time and research “just aren’t going to move.”

The policy is “extremely unfair to honest consumers who are simply doing what they should – challenging misinformation,” says Evan Hendricks, whose newsletter Privacy Times outlined Fannie Mae’s policy in a recent report.

Fannie Mae says it is reviewing the policy and may change it.

Source: Washington Writers Group
Dan Edstrom, on October 27, 2009 at 11:21 am said:

Jeff,
I forgot to mention another thing (among many) that I left out. MERS has testified in court that they do NOT keep notes or mortgages.

They are a nominee for the lender (according to my promissory note), which means they are an agent. Can they perform the assignment? Not in my opinion. They have NO beneficial interest (meaning they are not entitled to any of your payments and if they foreclose they will not be entitled to any money.

My SEC filings say specifically that MERS is the nominee for the Trustee (this may be at odds with my promissory note) and it specifically says they hold NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST in the mortgages.

There is lots more info on MERS on this site.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on October 27, 2009 at 11:16 am said:

Jeff,
Complicated question (or maybe not). Typically the mortgage is assigned from one company to another. My mortgage was assigned from Mortgage Lenders Network to US Bank as Trustee (in Foreclosure). This was performed by MERS. I have also seen assignments where MERS assigned the note to some company (bank?) but didn’t specify where it came from. They are probably assigning it from themselves to a new company. The problem is that usually the one doing the assigning is a person who works for the company that is being assigned to … So typically even though it says MERS is doing the assignment it is actually a person who works for the “new” company that is doing the assigning (or they are an agent for the “new” company).

If the assignment is invalid, it goes back to its previous state. What does this mean? Typically the lender of record (probably the originator). However, they typically sold the mortgage to somebody else. Therein lies the issue. When they are doing the assignment in foreclosure, they typically “skip” numerous assignments that were done but not recorded. The other parties (that were skipped) might be parties in interest, but many of them sold off the note to others. Since they didn’t record the assignments, you are left in the position of having your title clouded (or slandered?) and left in a state where there is nobody has perfected title. This is why homeowners whose loans were securitized are sueing for quiet title. There are parties out there with an interest in your title, but it has not been perfected. Further, without bringing ALL of the real and indispensible parties together, they cannot foreclose on your or “acquire” perfected title. Of course some of them will try but it is up to you (and your attorney) to stop them and let the judge know what is really going on.

In my case I have identified over 10 parties that may be considered parties in interest and that does not include the “holders of certificates”. Unless they all come together (in my case), none has the right on its own to foreclose.

Hope that helps, but I am not an attorney and do not know what I am talking about. This is for educational purposes only and is what I am looking at for my case. This is a complex issue and you should consult with an attorney to help you with your case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
jeff, on October 27, 2009 at 10:46 am said:

If MERS assigned a mortgage to xyz trust and the assignment is invalid, does the mortgage go back to
MERS?

Thanks for any info.
Dan Edstrom, on October 27, 2009 at 9:43 am said:

Arpad,
I would say yes. There are many “holding the note” or allegedly “holding the note”. But they are note the owner. Or they may be a “partial” owner (or have an interest). In my case I have identified over 10 parties in interest not including the “holders of certificates”. Each of these parties has an interest in the title to my house, however, they can only be considered to have perfected interest (putative) when ALL the parties have joined together (JOINDER). In my case the Trustee (US Bank) claims to be a note holder and owner. But, the SEC filings say the following:

US Bank as Trustee is “…owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity for the benefit of holders of certificates …”

The issuing entity is the Trust.

Remember also that the mortgages were probably “pledged” anyway (they have not actually been “sold” to the Trustee and/or the Trust), so they are not truly the “owner”, but they have an “interest” …

Consider this – the real “lender” and the real parties in interest who receive your actual payments are NOT note holders. For them to foreclose they would have to join together with the “note holders” (the “note holders” are not beneficiaries and do not receive payments.

Remember the note was split from the mortgage (or, in my case Deed of Trust) at inception. But this is not the only “split”. The asset was split from the payments. The asset went to the warehouse lender (specifically to their Federal Savings Bank) so they could use it is collateral to borrow money. The payments payments went into the Trust and on to the holders of certificates.

The “holders of certificates” did not need the asset so the warehouse lender “borrowed” it. And of course the warehouse lender promised the payments to the certificates holders.

Talk about slicing and dicing …

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Arpad, on October 27, 2009 at 8:11 am said:

Hi Everyone!
Is there legally a difference between an owner of the mortgage and a holder of the mortgage?
Marcus, on October 27, 2009 at 6:48 am said:

Florida Homeowners Walking Away From Underwater Mortgages

Source: Miami Herald

MIAMI – Oct. 26, 2009 – Andres Duque thought he got a real steal when he paid $125,000 for his Little Haiti condo. But four years later, similar units are selling for $35,000 and even less.

And so, faced with the prospect of being underwater on his mortgage – owing more than the unit is worth – for the next 20 years, Duque, 33, made what seemed to him like a rational choice: to cut and run.

He stopped paying the mortgage, basically forcing the lender to take the condo off his hands through foreclosure.

“I was able to pay off all my credit cards,” said Duque, who is biding his time in the condo, waiting until they come and evict him. “In a way, it was the best thing that happened to me because all my income is not being consumed by this freaking monster of a debt.”

Duque’s game plan is known as a strategic default – when borrowers walk away from loans, even if they can afford the payments. Here is a look at the benefits, the risks and the ethics of such a move.

As property values have plummeted by an average of 50 percent, such strategic defaults now make up a sizable chunk of South Florida’s foreclosures. In the fourth quarter of last year, they accounted for an estimated 28 percent of all defaults in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, according to recent research from the credit bureau Experian and Oliver Wyman, a New York-based international consulting firm.

That’s up from 8 percent in the same quarter two years ago. With property values down even further now, researchers are certain the numbers have risen even more.

With the social stigma of foreclosure eroding, experts say it is becoming easier for discouraged borrowers to justify throwing in the towel.

“People are saying, ‘Everyone is doing this, and I do not feel any compunction in fashioning my own bailout,’” said Roy Oppenheim, a Weston real-estate and foreclosure defense attorney who conducts weekly seminars that discuss strategic defaults and other financial options for distressed borrowers.

South Florida is already a veritable Atlantis of underwater borrowers. In September, homeowners here collectively owed $62.7 billion more than their homes were worth, according to an analysis by First American CoreLogic. The analysis found that about half of all outstanding mortgages in Miami-Dade and Broward are underwater.

Among those who bought in Broward in 2006, the median negative equity was $75,000 as of March. In Miami-Dade, the figure was $63,000, the Web-based real-estate service firm Zillow.com reports. Negative equity refers to the difference between a loan balance and the market value of a home.

“I wouldn’t blame borrowers who knew they were facing significant losses even if they could afford to stay,” said Andrea Heuson, a finance professor at the University of Miami. “Every day you wake up, you are reminded how much you paid for something, and then you read every day in the newspaper how much prices have fallen.”

The many consequences

Walking away, however, is fraught with financial, legal and ethical dilemmas. Lenders, government and the credit industry are starting to pay more attention to how strategic defaulters think and behave – in an effort to convince them to tough it out.

“It’s a huge problem, and it doesn’t get addressed in the process right now,” said Ron Kaniuk, a Boca Raton foreclosure and bankruptcy attorney. He said lenders are encouraging the trend by primarily offering loan modifications only to those who have fallen behind or are seriously at risk of foreclosure.

Duque, in fact, said he shunned a modification because it didn’t reduce his balance.

“It’s really a social change in the way debtors think, and it’s taking creditors some time to absorb that,” said Mark King, an attorney with the Miami office of Jones Walker who represents banks in commercial foreclosures. Commercial property owners also have started walking away.

William Hardin, a real-estate professor at Florida International University, said people have a moral obligation to honor their mortgages when they can.

“The vast majority knew what they were doing and were taking a risk, and the fact of the matter is [the mortgage] is a contract. We live in a world where contracts have to be honored. It’s the way our economy works.”

High default rates have already meant higher loan costs and tougher underwriting standards for all borrowers.

Tracking strategic defaults is an inexact science. Experian researchers identified possible strategic defaulters as homeowners who have gone straight from current on their payments to not paying at all, but remained in good standing on other credit obligations. Nationally, Experian estimated 588,000 borrowers defaulted on purpose in 2008.

Also fueling the phenomenon has been a shift from viewing a home as a place to live to an investment, valued insofar as its potential resale price goes up.

Frustration with the tax-funded bailout of banks and Wall Street may have also emboldened depressed borrowers to default out of anger and a desire to stick it to the banks. Duque’s resolve, for example, hardened after watching Michael Moore’s movie Capitalism: A Love Story. In the movie, Moore makes a case that corporations preying on consumers led to the housing crisis and recession.

“In the movie, there were Congress people telling the American public to stay in their homes, to squat and do what you have to do to fight. A lot of it struck home in many, many, many ways, and I am going to stay here until [my bank] comes to get me out,” Duque said.

Aside from the new philosophical justification for stopping his payments, Duque said his decision was fundamentally an economic one. “My mortgage was killing me, even before things went to hell. I was being choked by the property,” said Duque, who works at the Mondrian Hotel in Miami Beach.

Most strategic defaulters find themselves weighing whether the hit to their credit scores is easier to bear than paying underwater mortgages for years to come.

The most optimistic analysts say it could be three years before prices begin to appreciate. Others say prices have another 30 percent-plus to fall before flat-lining.

Prepared for the worst, Duque has been surprised by the seemingly minimal consequences so far. His credit limits on two cards were slashed by a few thousand dollars, but they were not canceled.

“I went to BrandsMart and applied for a card, and they denied me, so my credit score must be pretty low,” he said. “That’s fine with me, as long as I have a couple of credit cards.”

Surprisingly, strategic defaulters with good credit scores who remain current on their other credit lines can quickly rehabilitate their credit scores after foreclosure – faster than many realize, according to Sarah Davies, a senior vice president at VantageScore, a credit scoring and consumer analytics firm owned jointly by the nation’s three major credit reporting agencies. “You can pull yourself out of any major impact from foreclosure in 24 months,” she said.

And five years down the road?

“A foreclosure is going to be very easy to explain, seeing there are thousands of others who have also defaulted. So, there is a safety-in-numbers issue there,” Heuson said, referring to a possible borrower rationale.

Consumers are essentially putting a price on their credit score, said Piyush Tantia, a partner in the retail and business banking practice of Oliver Wyman.

But there are other risks.

Foreclosure defense attorneys warn of the growing threat that lenders will obtain deficiency judgments against borrowers. Such judgments allow them to collect the difference between the loan balance and the market value of the properties. They also allow lenders to garnish wages and seize assets.

While the risk is not great now statistically, Marc Ben Ezra, a Fort Lauderdale attorney who files foreclosures for banks, said it’s possible that lenders may begin pursuing legal rights to collect.

Jim Angleton, senior vice president of Miami-based Republic Federal Bank, estimated lenders are going after borrowers 15 percent of the time. “You know they are not being forthright with you about their assets when they are keeping their credit cards, their very fine cars and other assets current.”

Oppenheim recommends homeowners bulletproof themselves by hiring a lawyer and perhaps an accountant to explore the possible consequences.

Other real-estate experts say walking away may not be worth it in the short term, when you factor in the cost of finding new shelter and the increased consumer interest rates that stem from any foreclosure.

Tactic not for everyone

Defaulting, though, is not for everybody whose mortgage is underwater, and plenty of people stick with their homes out of a sense of financial responsibility, integrity and faith that prices will recover eventually. There are also people who forked over tens of thousands of dollars in down payments and face a real financial loss by walking away.

Analia Vence, who is renting her underwater town house in Homestead to a tenant for less than the monthly mortgage payment, said she has no intention of walking away. She paid $170,000 in 2006, and now nearby foreclosed homes are selling for $80,000.

“We bought the property as an investment, and we never thought to sell it immediately. We’re only paying $200 or $300 for the mortgage, so it doesn’t make sense to hurt our credit for that much,” Vence said.
ALLAN in MA (with a followup to Deontos' Michael Moore quotation), on October 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm said:

Deontos, on October 26th, 2009 at 8:07 pm Said:

Just a little side note from MichaelMoore.com,

“Postscript: (me: Post mortem)
In August, WaMu’s former New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol, WM, was adopted by another company: Houston-based trash hauler Waste Management.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wonder to where these toxic assets got hauled! Lehman Bros? USBank?

Seattle Times just did a series on WaMu:

Part one | Reckless strategies doomed WaMu

Part two | WaMu: Hometown bank turned predatory

6 loans in 6 years: How one woman lost her home

Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on October 26, 2009 at 8:07 pm said:

Just a little side note from MichaelMoore.com,

“Postscript: (me: Post mortem)
In August, WaMu’s former New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol, WM, was adopted by another company: Houston-based trash hauler Waste Management.”
Abby in CA, on October 25, 2009 at 10:55 pm said:

Go Here to Rate Judges!!

http://www.robeprobe.com/index.php
Abby in CA, on October 25, 2009 at 7:37 pm said:

Protesters Crash & Storm Bankers Convention in Chicago….breaking coverage on Huff Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/bank-protests_n_333155.html

We all need to put signs out ‘Jail Em, Don’t Bail Em’!!
Deontos, on October 25, 2009 at 2:48 pm said:

“usedkarguy, on October 25th, 2009 at 8:26 am Said:

Maher, thanks for the further clarification. It is always helpful to get your side of the story. And I want to say something. I’ve been on this blog since August of 08………..”

usedkarguy,

My gut tells me what your experience tells you.
Hope I can ask the right questions if I need Maher
and I hope I can afford him.
usedkarguy, on October 25, 2009 at 8:26 am said:

Maher, thanks for the further clarification. It is always helpful to get your side of the story. And I want to say something. I’ve been on this blog since August of 08 (one of the first). I knew nothing. I’ve heard and read the plea of many a homeowner looking for help. Now, I get calls and e-mails now from strangers seeking advice on how to stop their foreclosure or where to get a lawyer. Rewarding? yes. Do I know what I’m talking about? sometimes. Is there any one person I would point to as a friend and confidant? Besides the great Garfield,? Yes. It’s Maher. You see, Maher and the Kopster took my calls, spoke with me, called me back after I had gone to sleep and woke me up with “Bankruptcy Express” scenarios, and took the time to share. And when I needed some help, what I thought I needed, I went to Maher. I gave him some money, and he gave me some advice. That’s how this business works. The money I spent with Mr. Soliman was for a particular thing, and in hindsight, that particular thing was not really what I needed. But I thought I did, and he provided it. For a fee. I took what he gave me, and somewhat “mis-applied” it. Whose fault was that? Mine or Maher’s? Now, I’m not gonna tell you he got an “A” in spelling in 6th grade. I’m not gonna say he is “grammatically correct and error free 99.9% of the time”. But I am going to say that he is very giving of himself to others. I know what I know because Maher took the time to teach me. I see comments from other people on this site throwing Maher a jab when they can. Somebody said they paid him and didn’t get what they “wanted”. Well, I’m going to tell you he gave me LOTS AND LOTS OF STUFF, AND IT WAS FREE! And then, when I thought I needed what he had, only then did he “sell” it to me. I count him as a friend. Thanks, Maher.
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 24, 2009 at 3:58 pm said:

Fair Game
If Lenders Say ‘The Dog Ate Your Mortgage’

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: October 24, 2009

FOR decades, when troubled homeowners and banks battled over delinquent mortgages, it wasn’t a contest. Homes went into foreclosure, and lenders took control of the property.

On top of that, courts rubber-stamped the array of foreclosure charges that lenders heaped onto borrowers and took banks at their word when the lenders said they owned the mortgage notes underlying troubled properties.

In other words, with lenders in the driver’s seat, borrowers were run over, more often than not. Of course, errant borrowers hardly deserve sympathy from bankers or anyone else, and banks are well within their rights to try to protect their financial interests.

continued here…

http://bit.ly/O3sSy

4closure Fraud
SECONDARYTRADEDESK, on October 24, 2009 at 4:13 am said:

UKG Comments:

They are the one who got stuck with loss on your note, but they have no note, and no claim to the collateral.

MSoliman replies:

1) The note is an obligation and collaterals the security and appraised vale of the home.
2) Counterparties deals solely with hedges and swaps???

The obligation is lost to the transaction and not as in a lost set of keys. Look, the lender took your home and showed it on a balance sheet used to pledged it as a wholly owned asset.- they don’t own the home they own an interest (duded securing the obligation) and the amount due from you on the obligation.

They treat the mortgage ike a sucurity deed (look up please) sold the receivable yet keep the collateral with a Bailee or custodian. MERS. Nothing leaves custodial possession until default kicks in and they nonw after six months of accrual you will never catch up. Then its dump time. But dump what. They don’t own the collateral …UNLESS THEY FORECLOSE ON THE HOME – GET IT! SO THEY WERE CORRECT IN SHOWING YOUR LOANS ON THEIR BALANCE SHEET AS WHOLLEY OWNED ASSETS. CONTINGENT WHOLLY OWNED ASSETS.

They are the borrower (as obligor) not you- you sold them your home and never knew it. ***REMEBER*** ITS about the bundle of loans (so stop breaking out your loan as a separate asset) United we stand and . ..

At the member bank level – warehouse billion dollar lines of credit – they keep the note or FDIC auditors will shut them down. MERS maintains the confidentiality of the security holder who is a member bank. COUNSEL – YOU TAKE THEIR MONEY AND NO NOT WHO YOU ARE SUING! WHO ARE YOU SUING?

SUMMARY : So registrant originates loans with reckless abandon made to borrowers from borrower funds and assign the cash flow to themselves (subservicing) and make a monthly LUMP SUM dividend payment on the strength of their name and programs SOLD to clueless capital management firms or “investors” selling nothing tangible other than a high leveraged fraud intended to generate more cash from new issue and Shelf’s consisting of classes of stock and proffered shares while they pay dividends to the parties.

Their stock was flat and boring to investors and this was an optimal way to find new access to the capital markets they lost access to after the crash of early in the decade. It’s about stock and selling securities not mortgage lending and there you should target the causes for predatory lending claims that judges don’t want to hear.

I would venture to say the lenders in hindsight were duped with borrowers while going along with this crap when they signed up for this toxic nightmare. At least the earned a ton of money before losing their companies. And you lose your home.

For all the flack I take intended to discredit me – if you
Only knew what I saw and whom I transacted with …you would see I sold myself out to join the good fight. That industry is lost to me forever and that the chance I took. But now to be rejected here is a once in a lifetime shot to show attorneys and others what they can do and expect. . .Instead I have the Shank off report and email covert chit chatter instigators competeing for business…..and of course Abby Lane to deal with .

I won’t put anyone down here for trying but at times one can be so far off with lost note, MERS and Tandori Chicken cube arguments that are so far off I have to jump in…But not at your expense – to avoid confusion. .

SO HOW ABOUT THAT RESPA AUDIT YOU JUST PAID FOR ….(whats up with that). There is a way out but anyone sane with a similar backround is crazy to get on line here….crazy!

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
James#, on October 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm said:

Lisa E
Criminals are crazy and do really stupid things to do themselves in.
Someday I expect that some part time Bank employee will come forward and reveal that he spent eight hours a day forging notes
Lisa E., on October 23, 2009 at 4:16 pm said:

At the courthouse file room today I, once again, reviewed my file. I highly recommend everyone do that periodically because I found some documents attached to Plaintiff’s pleadings that were not attached to the copies I received in the mail.

The second “copy” of the note (differing from the first “copy of the note”) had white out lines on the bottom of page 1 & 3, small half inch lines of white out tape. They covered up a loan number. The white out was slightly raised, as I could feel it when running my finger across it. Page 2 had the loan number without the white out.

My “copy” of this attachment was copied after the application of this white out, and appears to not have any loan numbers on page 1 & 3. This “copy” had the endorsement in blank with the stamped name of a bank that is neither the Plaintiff nor mentioned on the “assignment” nor referred to in any other way in the Plaintiff’s filings.

The other “copy” of the note had the loan numbers on the bottom of all 3 pages without any white out tape. This “copy” was not endorsed.

It’s all so very strange!

Besides that, attending 45 minutes of hearings, 15-20 homes whisked away per 15 minute block of time. No one defending, no one but foreclosing attorneys, judges, baliffs, and me (until I became overwhelmed with heartsickness, nausea, horror, and disgust).

Maybe for Halloween, dressing up as a foreclosure mill attorney or RJ Arnold (President of MERS) will earn me bragging rights for the scariest costume?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Mortgage Auditor, on October 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm said:

Jason,

With regards to same lender refinancing this should help answer your questions:

http://loanaudit.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/right-to-cancel-notice-same-lender-refinance/
Jason in GA, on October 22, 2009 at 9:36 pm said:

I have a question about the right to rescind a mortgage transaction under TILA. I keep hearing from different sources that only a refinanced mortgage that was done with a “different” lender is eligable for a rescision. But when I read the TILA statute, I haven’t found anything that differentiates one credit transaction from the next. Am I missing something? I am about to pursue a quiet title action next week and want to make sure I’ve got all my basis covered.
Kathy/ Oregon, on October 22, 2009 at 7:46 pm said:

Thanks for all the info, waiting to here if any thing is happening in Oregon. Can’t find any lawyers that get it in Oregon or Washington. I still like all the info, best of luck to every one.
Abby in CA, on October 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/elizabeth-warren-speaks-w_n_329425.html

Huff Post has 3 videos of unseen footage from Michael Moore movie of interview with Elizabeth Warren in charge of Congressional Oversight Panel for the TARP Program

Worth a watch!
Lisa E., on October 22, 2009 at 2:12 pm said:

Jeff!!!

I am LOVING that ruling you posted below!

I could print that out and wrap myself up it!

WOWEE!

Progress! Progress!

JUDGE MALTESE: I could give you a big ole’ smoocheroo!

Thank you Jeff & Judge!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
expert.witness, on October 22, 2009 at 1:47 pm said:

I just lost my UD yesterday (10/19) and have a lockout date for 11/2. The commissioner told me to file a quiet title in civil court. I have not filed my complaint yet in civil court.

• I just lost my UD yesterday (10/19) and have a lockout date for 11/2.
o WELCOME TO THE TRAP CALLED JURISDICTION

• The commissioner told me to file a quiet title in civil court.
o NICE WAY OF SAYING “DONT COME AROUND HER NO MORE!

• I have not filed my complaint yet in civil court. ?
o WHY NOT? WHAT ARE YOUR ALLEGATIONS?

Our attorneys fight the UD in order to reverse the sale. It’s not that hard if a tort linked to the sale can show an illegal conveyance

The argument has merit if argued citing a deceptive business practices evidenced in documents you must pull from the county recorder’s. You got gold in them noodles and may not even know it. You’re Notices and other documents affecting title will support unlawful point of transfer and a title claim that will survive a UD hearing and compel the request for consolidation.

Here the judge is not interfering with a decision made in another department, branch or lower courts authority when issuing the TRO and hopefully granting an injunction.

expet.witness@live.com.
Abby in CA, on October 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm said:

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH YEAAAAAAAAAH

I like what the court said about the ‘retroactive assignments being invalid’…..I have some of those!!

That was in the Deutsche Bank v Abbate posting of NY Case.
Marcus, on October 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm said:

Massive Amounts of Foreclosures Clogging County’s Civil Courts

Source:The Miami Herald

MIAMI – Oct. 22, 2009 – Most everyone involved in a foreclosure says they never wanted to go through the process in the first place: Not the homeowners at risk of losing their houses, not the banks that loaned them the money, not the judges who must rule on the cases.

Still, court clerks say more than 135,000 foreclosures could be filed in Miami-Dade, Broward and Monroe counties this year – compared to a tri-county total of about 17,500 in 2006.

The avalanche of filings has overwhelmed the civil courts and prolonged the pain of foreclosure for all: Homeowners are living in limbo; banks are losing money; and the ripple effects are felt from condo associations that can’t collect dues to municipal governments that must spend scarce resources to shutter or maintain abandoned houses.

“Everybody’s getting burned in this thing,” says Judge Jennifer D. Bailey, who oversees civil courts for the 11th Judicial Circuit, which covers Miami-Dade County. “The bank’s not going to come out of this in one piece. The people who owned the property, whether they’re homeowners or investors, are not going to come out in one piece.”

Even the courts are struggling to hold together, as foreclosures crowd the calendars of judges who also must tend to traffic, probate and other non-criminal cases.

“We’re sort of built to handle 25,000 to 35,000 cases a year,” Bailey says of Miami-Dade civil court. “We have almost 35,000 by the end of June that are foreclosures alone, out of a total of 50,000 cases filed.”

Statewide, about 17 percent of the more than 3.5 million mortgages in Florida are somewhere in the process of foreclosure – the highest rate in the nation, according to a second-quarter report of the Mortgage Bankers Association, a real estate finance industry group.

Foreclosures that once took three to five months to complete in Miami-Dade and Broward counties now take nine months to one year to move from initial filing to final judgment and auction. The system comes painfully close to mirroring a Monopoly game gone awry: Miss a court date, cancel an auction, go back three months and start all over again.

The crisis is more than a matter of volume. A labyrinth of rules that vary by judicial circuit is causing confusion among plaintiffs, and many borrowers have gone AWOL, forcing lenders to pursue more time-consuming methods.

Even in less harried times, foreclosure is a paperwork-intensive process, requiring lenders’ attorneys to file loan notes, affidavits and other documents – and clerks to issue summonses, process servers to serve defendants, and judges to review and verify each file.

In this crisis, foreclosing on a property has become even more cumbersome. Because many mortgages involve complex financial transactions, where the original note has been passed from one investor to the next, judges can have a difficult time discerning who has the legal standing to foreclose.

“With securitization and exotic loans, things have gotten much more complicated,” Bailey says. “It makes resolution of the case much more difficult.”

Then there are underwater borrowers who walk away from homes that have lost so much value that they are worth less than what they owe. Some of these borrowers never respond to a foreclosure summons – forcing lenders to pursue default and prove that they’ve made good faith efforts to contact the borrower, such as publishing a notice in the newspaper for 60 days.

Courthouse confusion

Lenders also add to the delay. Many simultaneously negotiate loan modifications with borrowers while also pursuing foreclosure, causing confusion in the courthouse.

“You have a huge problem with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing on the plaintiff side of the litigation,” Bailey says. “I will frequently have a borrower saying, ‘I have a deal with the bank’ and the lawyer standing in front of me doesn’t know anything about it.”

Though local property auctions aren’t held on the courthouse steps – here, they’re in air-conditioned rooms – they, too, can create delays. Banks frequently cancel at the last minute, forcing judges and clerks to repeat the steps required to schedule a sale. Under Florida statute, a lender can cancel a sale simply by not showing up, without any notice or explanation.

Because of sales cancellations, auctions in Miami-Dade County are being set 200 days or more after final judgment, compared with 60 days or more in Broward County. Frustrated judges are now adding orders to final judgments, forbidding sales from being canceled.

Even the courts have contributed to delays, though indirectly.

In Florida, two law firms control about 60 percent of foreclosure cases, according to a report by the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases, a 15-member panel of judges, attorneys, mediators and state officials.

You might expect those attorneys to be so familiar with the process that glitches would be rare. But because judges across the state’s 20 judicial districts have adopted different administrative procedures to manage their caseloads, attorneys are forced to navigate a complex patchwork of rules – causing them to frequently file unnecessary documents, or to omit required forms.

“What that does is that wastes valuable time,” Bailey says.

Limited resources

And Florida judges cannot afford to waste time, she adds, because there simply aren’t enough of them, not after state budget cuts forced civil court judges to lay off personnel and switch more resources to the criminal courts to guarantee timely trials for defendants.

The state’s Clerk of Courts offices, where foreclosure cases enter the courts and are guided through resolution, also slashed their budgets by 18 percent, eliminating 140 jobs in Broward and 225 in Miami-Dade.

“We have less people and we have more foreclosures,” says Broward Clerk Howard Forman, who projects his office will receive nearly 60,000 new foreclosures this year.

In Miami-Dade, Clerk Harvey Ruvin is staring at a projection of 75,000 new foreclosure filings by year’s end.

Miami-Dade’s civil court received nearly 9,800 foreclosures in 2006, compared with 56,000 in 2008 – a 471 percent increase. The number of foreclosures filed in Miami-Dade through Sept. 30 is 49,325.

Monroe County received 323 foreclosures in 2006, compared with 1,441 in 2008 – a 346 percent increase. The number of foreclosures filed in Monroe through Aug. 6 is 1,197.

Kriz Mazzeo, the Broward clerk’s director of circuit civil division, says the court’s administrative operations have slowed under the crush of new foreclosures and the tasks required to move those cases through court.

“Everything is taking longer,” she says, “just by virtue of the fact that we have so many more foreclosures than we’ve had in the past.”

The 17th Circuit, which covers Broward County, received 7,400 foreclosures in 2006, compared with 46,000 in 2008 – a 521 percent increase. The number of foreclosures filed in Broward through Sept. 30 is 39,691, Mazzeo says.

“This has been really crushing,” she says.

One of the most intensive aspects of foreclosure for the clerk’s office is mailing judgments, notices of sale, certificates of disbursements and other official documents to every defendant in a suit – from the borrower to the tenant and any lien holder on a house.

“We have buckets and buckets of work that we do just to get ready to do the mailings,” Mazzeo says.

As delays build in the foreclosure process, the volume of new filings shows little sign of easing.

Many mornings, pick-up trucks loaded with boxes of new foreclosures arrive at the Broward courthouse for filing, Mazzeo says. Process servers unload the cargo onto hand trucks, and file cases by bulk.

“Sometimes they sit there all day and we just file case after case after case,” Mazzeo says. “We do it as fast as we can. But there’s always more.”

Solutions murky

What to do? The solutions are not yet clear.

Some proposals, such as mandatory mediation, are focused on the long term, and would apply across the breadth of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits; others are more immediate, such as the hasty assembly of special teams to clear backlogged cases in local courts. All are designed to streamline the foreclosure process and to move the unprecedented number of cases through the courts in a timely manner.

“There’s just a lot of chaos,” says Bailey, who chaired the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases, the panel charged with finding solutions to the crisis.

The task force delivered its findings in August. Among its recommendations is mandatory mediation for cases involving homesteaded properties – primary residences.

Bailey says too many lenders are foreclosing while simultaneously negotiating with borrowers, with many reaching settlement just as a case nears closure. The result: “A case settles, but not until it’s consumed every bit of judicial resource necessary to push that case through the system.”

Among the task force’s other recommendations: standardize a patchwork of incongruous rules adopted by judges struggling to manage growing caseloads, and create a Web-based repository for the many documents required for foreclosure.

The Florida Supreme Court will schedule public hearings on the task force’s report and then will determine whether to implement, decline or modify the recommendations.

Mediation

The issue likely to receive the most attention is mandatory mediation for residential mortgage foreclosures, which is now the rule in three judicial circuits, including Miami-Dade’s.

Since mandatory mediation was adopted in May, lenders foreclosing on homesteaded properties in those districts have been required to meet with borrowers who want to stay in their homes – before a judge will hear the case. (In Broward and Monroe counties, mediation is not mandatory.)

The 11th Circuit Homestead Access to Mediation Program (CHAMP) in Miami-Dade is managed by the nonprofit Collins Center for Public Policy, and has achieved a nearly 78 percent success rate.

In the three judicial circuits where mediation is mandatory, the program has achieved a 76 percent success rate – leading to settlements in 1,072 of the 1,401 cases scheduled for mediation through Oct. 12.

“It’s been one of the most successful models,” says Program Director Ned Pope.

Under the program, borrowers are required to disclose their financial status, and to attend credit counseling before meeting with the lender and a neutral mediator. The lender is required to pay the $750 fee for mediation, and to provide a representative with the authority to amend a loan.

Pope says the number of eligible cases has grown each month, from 261 in May, to 1,300 in June, 1,800 in July and more than 2,200 in August. Collins Center mediators are charged with contacting borrowers, but often that can be difficult, particularly if a debtor has walked away from a home.

Many bank executives disagree with mandatory mediation, says Barb Godin, a vice president for Regions Bank.

“It’s rather sad,” Godin says, “that someone thinks we need this in the industry.”

Regions, which holds about $5.5 billion in mortgages in Florida, launched a program in October 2007 to help customers that were falling behind on loan payments.

The program began with about 10 employees helping customers in the 16 states where Regions operates. There are now about 60 employees dedicated to the program, Godin says.

“We’ve talked to roughly 200,000 customers across country,” she says. “Of those, in Florida, we have helped 5,356 customers.”

The foreclosure rate for Regions’ Florida mortgages is about 3.3 percent, Godin says, compared to about 17 percent statewide. In the cases where Regions has modified a loan, as opposed to short selling for less than the mortgage value or taking a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the default rate is about 12 percent, she says.

But most of Regions’ Florida mortgages are for second homes, Godin says. So they don’t qualify for mandatory mediation.

Ed Wilburn, managing director of Great Florida Bank’s residential lending division, says some lenders had been hesitant to invest in loan modification efforts because, “It’s a losing proposition for most companies to engage in the process.”

But, Wilburn says, lenders now see value in dedicating staff and dollars to helping borrowers keep their homes.

“They are looking at it now from a different perspective,” he says. “They can save money by being more proactive in looking for solutions.”

When banks work with borrowers, the foreclosure process moves faster. An adversarial relationship often leads to delays as homeowners ignore summonses, and lenders file motions for default and cancel sales.

Still, some attorneys and condo associations allege lenders are deliberately delaying foreclosing to avoid the costly hit to their balance sheets, as well as the expense of association fees, insurance and maintenance costs.

Inaction

Florida lawmakers have tried at various times to address the foreclosure crisis, but little has come of their efforts.

Gov. Charlie Crist named a foreclosure task force in February 2008, which included elected officials and bankers and Realtors. But the panel issued just one recommendation to the state Legislature: Increase protections for people with subprime loans. Lawmakers did not adopt it.

Lost in legislation

During the state Legislature’s spring session, lawmakers introduced 15 bills to address foreclosure issues. But 10 bills never received a hearing, including several that would have required mediation between lenders and borrowers.

Lawmakers also approved two foreclosure-related bills – one to comply with new minimum federal regulations for lenders, and another to increase court costs for foreclosure cases from $300 to as much as $1,900.

Still, new foreclosures continue to roll in.

To tackle the mountain of mortgage foreclosures, Miami Dade Clerk Ruvin assembled in early August a “Dream Team” of about 40 managers pulled from the clerk’s traffic, recording, accounting and other divisions to work exclusively on the foreclosure backlog.

Ruvin also negotiated an overtime pay waiver with the employee union, allowing about 100 volunteers to work nights and weekends on foreclosure cases for compensatory time. There is no money in the budget to pay overtime, Ruvin says.

In a six-week span, the team buzzed through a backlog of 6,600 default cases and converted more than 1,000 filings into new cases.

“Everybody at every level is putting their shoulder to the wheel, and it’s turning,” says Ruvin, who expects to keep the team in place until December.

Long-term plans

But these are stop-gap measures. Ruvin’s long-range plan is to implement an electronic filing system for all civil cases, reducing the amount of paperwork required of clerical staff.

He also plans to hold foreclosure auctions online beginning in December, which will allow the clerk’s office to hold about 200 to 250 sales per auction, compared to 150 to 200 now.

Online auctioning also is expected to reduce the need for time-consuming manual tasks, such as scheduling.

Broward Clerk Howard Forman also plans to use online auctions for foreclosure sales by January. Broward is setting sales about 60 days after final judgment, but Forman expects that electronic filing will speed the process. “That’s going to free up eight or nine employees,” he says. “This will help a great deal.”
Abby in CA, on October 22, 2009 at 1:30 pm said:

California News
Governor signed the SB94, so effective October 11, 2009 it is illegal for anyone to collect advance fees from consumers seeking loan modifications.

It closed a loophole allowing state licensed real estate brokers and attorneys to collect advance payments for loan mod services.

According to State Attorney Jerry Brown “homeowners should avoid any person charging upfront fees for foreclosure relief services.”

Any advance payments collected prior to Oct. 11, 2009 are not impacted by the law BUT NO ADDITIONAL fees can be collected going forward.

SB94 only allows fees to be collected after the promised work is finished.

There were 3 other important CA laws which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2010
AB 260, AB 329, AB 852
jeff, on October 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm said:

Here is another New York case.

I think the NY Judges are ” GETTING IT”

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT2, Plaintiff

against

Debra Abbate, CARMELA ABBATE, KIM FIORENTINO, BOCCE COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, and “JOHN DOE No. 1″ through “JOHN DOE #10,” the last ten names being fictitious and unknown to the plaintiff, the person or parties intended being the person or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the Mortgaged premises described in the Complaint, Defendants.

100893/07

Plaintiff was represented by the law firm of Frenkel Lambert Weiss & Weisman.

Defendant was represented by Robert E. Brown, Esq.

Joseph J. Maltese, J.

The defendants Kim Fiorentino, Debra Abbate, and Carmella Abbate’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint is granted in its entirety.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage dated February 24, 2005, upon the property located at 25 Bocce Court, Staten Island, New York. The mortgage was originated by Suntrust Mortgage Inc. (“Suntrust”) and was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Richmond County on April 26, 2005. The plaintiff filed the Summons, Complaint, and Notice of Pendency on March [*2]1, 2007.[FN1] However, Suntrust assigned the first mortgage on this property to Option One Mortgage Corporation, which was executed on July 6, 2007. Another assignment to plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) was executed on March 7, 2007. Both assignments, which were recorded on July 23, 2007, contained a clause expressing their intention to be retroactively effective: the first one to date back to February 24, 2005, and the second one to February 28, 2007.[FN2] On November 19, 2007, this court issued an order of foreclosure and sale on the subject property. This court also granted two orders to show cause to stay the foreclosure on January 9, 2008 and April 8, 2008.[FN3]

Discussion

The Appellate Division, Second Department ruled and reiterated in Kluge v. Kugazy the well established law that “foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it . . . .”[FN4] The Appellate Division, Third Department has similarly ruled that an assignee of a mortgage does not have a right or standing to foreclose a mortgage unless the assignment is complete at the time of commencing the action.[FN5] An assignment takes the form of a writing or occurs through the physical delivery of the mortgage.[FN6] Absent such transfer, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.[FN7]

Retroactive Assignments of a Mortgage are Invalid
The first issue this court must resolve is whether the clauses in the July 6, 2007 and March 7, 2007 assignments setting the effective date of the assignment to February 24, 2005 and February 28, 2007 respectively are permissible. This court rules that, absent a physical or written transfer before the filing of a complaint, retroactive assignments are invalid.

Recently, trial courts have been faced with the situation where the plaintiff commenced a [*3]foreclosure action before the assignment of the mortgage.[FN8] In those cases the trial courts have held,

. . . where there is no evidence that plaintiff, prior to commencing the foreclosure action, was the holder of the mortgage and note, took physical delivery of the mortgage and note, or was conveyed the mortgage and note by written assignment, an assignment’s language purporting to give it retroactive effect prior to the date of the commencement of the action is insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s requisite standing. . .[FN9]

In this case, the plaintiff failed to offer any admissible evidence demonstrating that they became assignees to the mortgage on or before March 1, 2007; as such, this court agrees with its sister courts and finds that the retroactive language contained in the July 26, 2007 and March 7, 2007 assignments are ineffective. This court therefore rules that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter when the plaintiff has no title to the mortgage at the time that it commenced the action.

The next issue this court must resolve is whether the defendants waived subject matter jurisdiction because they did not raise that issue in their prior applications to this court.

Affirmative Defense of Standing

At the outset of any litigation, the court must ascertain that the proper party requests an adjudication of a dispute.[FN10] As the first step of justiciability, “standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system.”[FN11] Standing is a threshold issue; if it is denied, “the pathway to the courthouse is blocked.” [FN12]

The doctrine of standing is designed to “ensure that a party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to present a court with a dispute that is capable [*4]of judicial resolution.”[FN13] “Standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request.”[FN14] Where the plaintiff has no legal or equitable interest in a mortgage, the plaintiff has no foundation in law or in fact.[FN15]

A plaintiff who has no standing in an action is subject to a jurisdictional dismissal since (1) courts have jurisdiction only over controversies that involve the plaintiff, (2) a plaintiff found to lack “standing is not involved in a controversy, and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such plaintiff purports to bring it.”[FN16]

On November 7, 2005, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank Minn. N.A. v. Mastropaolo ["Mastropaolo"], this court found that “Insofar as the plaintiff was not the legal titleholder to the mortgage at the time the action was commenced, [the Bank] had no standing to bring the action and it must be dismissed.”[FN17] Erroneously, this court “[o]rdered, that the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is denied in its entirety and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.”[FN18]

This Court should have ordered that this matter was dismissed without prejudice, which would have given the plaintiff the right to start the action again after it had acquired title to the note and mortgage. Unfortunately, the plaintiff, did not seek a motion to reargue that error, which would have been corrected promptly. Instead, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which rightfully reversed the decision 18 months later on May 29, 2007 based upon the dismissal with prejudice as opposed to a dismissal without prejudice to refile the action. However, in what appears to be dicta, the court went on to discuss whether lack of standing is tantamount to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court further stated that the failure of the initial pro se defendant to make a pre-answer motion or a motion to dismiss, the defense of lack of standing would be waived. But the Appellate Division did not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, which may not be waived. [*5]

In the instant case, this court is again faced with similar facts, which raise the issue that the Bank must have title to the mortgage before it can sue the defendant. Clearly, having title to the subject matter (the mortgage) is a condition precedent to the right to sue on that mortgage. This has always been the case, but since the Appellate Division, Second Department’s comments in Mastropaolo, that issue has been clouded.

At the time that the plaintiff improperly commenced the action, the pathway to the Courthouse should have been blocked. Deutsche Bank had no legal foundation to foreclose a mortgage in which it had no interest at the time of filing the summons and complaint. Lack of a plaintiff’s interest at the beginning of the action strips the court’s power to adjudicate over the action.[FN19] Lack of interest and controversy is protected by the umbrella of subject matter jurisdiction. Whenever a court lacks jurisdiction, a defense can be raised at any time and is not waivable.[FN20] In other words, for there to be a cause of action, there needs to be an injury. At the time that the action was commenced, the instant plaintiff suffered no injury and had no interest in the controversy. Since the plaintiff filed this action to foreclose the mortgage before it had title to it, there was no controversy between the existing parties when the action commenced. Therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case. The defendants are consequently entitled to a dismissal without prejudice because the court lacked jurisdiction over a non-existent controversy.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the defendants Kim Fiorentino, Debra Abbate, and Carmella Abbate’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint is granted, without prejudice to the plaintiff having the right to refile within the time provided by the Statute of Limitations; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties and counsel shall appear before this court to further conference this matter on November 20, 2009 at 11:00AM.

ENTER,

DATED: October 6, 2009

Joseph J. Maltese

Justice of the Supreme Court
Dan Edstrom, on October 22, 2009 at 1:06 pm said:

Nice going Jeff!
Everyone involved with Wells Fargo take note. The Supreme Court of the State of New York has confirmed that the attorney for Wells Fargo made a “misstatement” … To me this is an outright lie. Would it not be considered a perjury or fraud?

excerpt:

In the verification, Wells Fargo’s attorney affirmed the complaint to be true to the best of his knowledge, and his belief as to matters stated to be alleged on information and belief was based upon “correspondence, memoranda and statements of account in affirmant’s possession.” The complaint included a paragraph that stated Wells Fargo was “now the sole, true and lawful owner of record of the bond(s), note(s) and mortgage(s) securing the Mortgaged Premises.” This averment was not based on information and belief and could not have been true on the date of the verification, November 29, 2007, since the actual execution of the assignment did not take place until December 4, 2007. Thus, the complaint contained a misstatement of a material fact which is not excused simply because the attorney was the one who verified the complaint.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
jeff, on October 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm said:

WELLS FARGO LOSES ANOTHER ONE

Decided on October 20, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

2008-02775
(Index No. 24456/07)

[*1]Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., appellant,

v

Vincent Marchione, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

APPEAL by the plaintiff, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, from an order of the Supreme Court (Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.), entered February 14, 2008, in Westchester County, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Vincent Marchione and Debbie Marchione which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

Fein Such & Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Samit G. Patel
of counsel), for appellant.
Clair & Gjertsen, Scarsdale, N.Y. (Ira S. Clair of counsel), for
respondents.

OPINION & ORDER

LEVENTHAL, J.The issue presented on this appeal is whether an assignee of a note and mortgage has standing to commence a foreclosure action prior to the date of the execution of the assignment. We hold that an assignee in such a case has no standing.

The defendants Vincent Marchione and Debbie Marchione (hereinafter together the defendants) moved, inter alia, to dismiss this foreclosure action for lack of standing because the assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), did not occur until after the foreclosure action had been commenced. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendants’ motion and we affirm.

On or about September 2, 2005, the defendants executed a mortgage in favor of the mortgagee Option One Mortgage Corporation, creating a security interest in certain real property located in Mamaroneck. On the same date, Vincent Marchione signed an adjustable rate note in consideration of the loan. Wells Fargo alleges that the defendants failed to make payments beginning April 1, 2007, and, as trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, Wells Fargo commenced this foreclosure action by filing a summons and verified complaint on November 30, 2007, with the County Clerk of Westchester County.

Option One Mortgage Corporation assigned its “right, title and interest” in the aforementioned mortgage to Wells Fargo in an assignment dated December 4, 2007. The assignment contained a provision stating that it became effective on October 28, 2007. The complaint alleged that Wells Fargo was the “sole, true and lawful owner of record of the bond(s), note(s) and mortgage(s) securing the Mortgaged Premises.” The complaint was verified by counsel for Wells Fargo on November 29, 2007, and filed with the County Clerk on November 30, 2007. The record indicates that the defendants were served on December 7, 2007. The assignment, which did not yet exist at the time of the verification and filing, was, for obvious reasons, not attached to the complaint, as were other supporting documents such as the note and mortgage. [*2]

On December 18, 2007, the defendants made a pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the cause of action alleged against the defendant Debbie Marchione, for a determination that the complaint was not verified, and for such other and further relief which may be appropriate. Wells Fargo attached the assignment of the mortgage to its papers dated January 18, 2008, which were submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion. The contents of the assignment were unknown to the defendants at the time they moved.

The defendants first addressed the issue of the assignment in a February 3, 2008, reply affirmation of counsel which pointed out that Wells Fargo lacked standing to bring the action. Wells Fargo argues that the Supreme Court erred in relying on this argument, as it was first raised in the defendants’ reply papers. “The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds for the motion” (Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677, 677-678; see also Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658; Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415, 417). Here, however, the Supreme Court correctly recognized that the defendants’ raising of the issue of standing in their reply was proper. The defendants’ argument that the plaintiff lacked standing was in response to the plaintiff’s submission of the assignment, presented for the first time in the papers the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its discretion, properly considered the response to the new evidence offered for the first time in the reply (see Matter of Kennelly v Mobius Realty Holdings LLC, 33 AD3d 380, 382).

Wells Fargo argues that the Supreme Court also erred since the retroactive effective date of the assignment gave Wells Fargo an interest in the mortgage before the action was commenced. We disagree.

In order to commence a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the mortgage (see Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243, 243). “Where the plaintiff is the assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced, the plaintiff has standing to maintain the action” (Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 546-547; see also First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 414). Here, Wells Fargo lacked standing to bring this foreclosure action because it was not the assignee of the mortgage on November 30, 2007, the day the action was commenced. A “foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it” (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538). Since the complaint was filed prior to the execution of the assignment, and the service occurred subsequent to the execution, the issue of standing in this case hinges upon whether the filing or the service of the summons and complaint effectuates commencement. A review of prior appellate decisions reveals that there is some confusion regarding whether, to be effective, the assignment must occur prior to the commencement of the action or instead after commencement, but prior to the service of the complaint.

Wells Fargo contends it had standing to bring the action because the assignment was executed before the summons and complaint were served on the defendants, although after the action was commenced. Wells Fargo cites to Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis (263 AD2d 937) in support of this contention. The Appellate Division, Third Department, in Hoovis held that where the “plaintiff is the assignee of a mortgage at the time of service of the complaint, plaintiff has standing and is entitled to commence a proceeding in its own name” (Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d at 938). However, the Court in Hoovis also pointed out that the defendant did not provide any proof contradicting the plaintiff’s documentation that the assignment occurred prior to the “initiation of the action” (Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d at 938).

On July 1, 1992, the method of commencing an action in New York was changed from the service of process to the filing of the summons and complaint (or summons with notice) with the clerk of the court of the county in which the action is brought (see Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C304:1). Though not the primary reason for the change in procedure, a beneficial by-product of the change was the “establishment of a precise measure in time by which to determine commencement” (id.). In 1999, the Hoovis Court stated that the “action was commenced by the filing of a summons and complaint,” but also found that the plaintiff had standing, as it was the assignee at the time of service (Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d at 938) (emphasis added). It should be noted that in Hoovis, unlike the matter sub judice, the assignment occurred prior to both the commencement of the action and the service of the summons and complaint.

However, in the recent Appellate Division, Third Department, case of LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn (59 AD3d 911), the Court held that the assignment must be effective prior to [*3]commencement of the action. In LaSalle, the plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action in April 2007, and the defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint that alleged the mortgage was “to be assigned” to the plaintiff at a future time. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had no standing because the “plaintiff did not have an interest in the mortgage at the time the foreclosure action was commenced” (LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d at 911). The plaintiff submitted a written assignment in response, dated June 2007, which stated the document became effective in April 2007. Therefore, the plaintiff maintained, it had standing (id. at 911-912). The Court in LaSalle found that:

“the written assignment submitted by plaintiff was indisputably written subsequent to the commencement of this action and the record contains no other proof demonstrating that there was a physical delivery of the mortgage prior to bringing the foreclosure action” (LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn,59 AD3d 912).

Thus, the Court affirmed the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff did not have standing (id. at 913). The LaSalle Court cited Hoovis in support of this finding, stating that an “assignee of such [a] mortgage does not have standing to foreclose unless the assignment is complete at [the] time [the] action is commenced” (LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d at 912). In LaSalle, the Third Department clarified Hoovis, holding that the assignment of a mortgage must have occurred prior to the commencement of the action, which is the date of filing (see CPLR 304), to confer standing to sue upon the assignee.
The decision of this Court in RCR Servs. v Herbil Holding Co. (229 AD2d 379), may lead to the conclusion that this department holds that an assignment of the note and mortgage occurring prior to the time of service of the complaint, but after commencement of the action, would confer standing to sue upon the assignee. However, an examination of the appellate briefs and record in that case reveals otherwise. In RCR Servs., a default judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff on January 10, 1990, against a misnamed defendant under a 1989 index number, the year when service allegedly was made. The plaintiff was then granted leave to amend the summons and complaint to reflect the correct spelling of the defendant’s name. The assignment of the claim in RCR Servs. was dated May 7, 1991, and the supplemental summons and amended complaint was served on the defendant in 1994. Therefore, as this case had a 1989 index number, the commencement of the action was effectuated by service of the summons and complaint, not by filing of the same. The correctly-named defendant was not served until 1994, about three years after the 1991 assignment, so at the time the defendant was served, the plaintiff did in fact have standing to commence the suit (see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674). Consequently, RCR Servs. does not stand for the proposition that an assignment executed after the commencement of an action, but prior to service, confers standing on the assignee.

Wells Fargo also contends that the assignment is valid, as it is retroactive to October 28, 2007, a date prior to the commencement of the action. Wells Fargo again relies on Hoovis, where the retroactive assignment was effective on May 1, 1997, prior to the commencement of the action on June 19, 1997 (see Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d at 938). In Hoovis, however, the defendant was unable to contradict the plaintiff’s documentation demonstrating that delivery of the note and mortgage occurred prior to the initiation of the action. Here, it is clear that the date of the execution of the assignment was after the commencement of the action. If an assignment is in writing, “the execution date is generally controlling and a written assignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical delivery of the note and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated” (LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn., 59 AD3d at 912). While recognizing that in some circumstances parties to an agreement may bind themselves retroactively, “the fiction of retroactivity . . . should not be applied to affect adversely the rights of third persons” (Debreceni v Outlet Co., 784 F2d 13, 20; see also 2 Lord, Williston on Contracts § 6:61, at 893 [4th ed]). Thus, a retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment (see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn., 59 AD3d 912). We disagree with the contention of Wells Fargo that public policy favors permitting less than strict compliance with the requirement that, in order to commence a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the subject mortgage.

Wells Fargo also argues that if the action were to be dismissed, the result would be a waste of judicial resources, as it would simply commence another action as soon as the original action was dismissed. Wells Fargo might have reached this conclusion earlier in its calculus to commence the lawsuit prior to the execution of the assignment.

Significantly, Wells Fargo’s attorney submitted a verification pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3), which allows an attorney to verify the complaint if the party is not in the county where the attorney maintains [*4]an office. “A verification is a statement under oath that the pleading is true to the knowledge of the deponent, except as to matters alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes it to be true” (CPLR 3020[a]). “Since the verification makes the pleading, or those parts of the pleading that are verified, sworn data, a verified pleading is the equivalent of an affidavit, CPLR 105, and may be used for the same purposes” (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3020:2). When an attorney verifies, he or she affirms under the penalties of perjury (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3020:9).

In the verification, Wells Fargo’s attorney affirmed the complaint to be true to the best of his knowledge, and his belief as to matters stated to be alleged on information and belief was based upon “correspondence, memoranda and statements of account in affirmant’s possession.” The complaint included a paragraph that stated Wells Fargo was “now the sole, true and lawful owner of record of the bond(s), note(s) and mortgage(s) securing the Mortgaged Premises.” This averment was not based on information and belief and could not have been true on the date of the verification, November 29, 2007, since the actual execution of the assignment did not take place until December 4, 2007. Thus, the complaint contained a misstatement of a material fact which is not excused simply because the attorney was the one who verified the complaint.

In sum, inasmuch as the assignment was not made until after the summons was filed, Wells Fargo had no standing to bring this action. Therefore, the order is affirmed.
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON and BELEN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court
Arpad, on October 22, 2009 at 11:47 am said:

Hi Everyone!

I was looking at the Affidavit that the plaintiff filed to support his claim for foreclosure without the original note. Besides to be very vague, i also find the following. The notary public states the the Affiant is sworn in, but later states the Affiant did not take an oath. How is that possible?
Can i attack this affidavit based on this conflict?
usedkarguy, on October 22, 2009 at 9:30 am said:

Allan, the trustee was determined at the outset. They are but figurehead. they handle the “disbursement”. It doesn’t change when the deal goes bad. “Left on the shelves” means the deal never got past the “seasoning” phase (around 2-3 years) and started to default. The Securities underwriter got stuck holding the certificates because they bought the rights to the mortgage pools (remember, these were pre-sold or sold forward sight unseen). Now they have to “write them down” or “write them off”. Maybe they strike a deal with the originator/depositor to buy them back for a small percentage of face value (since they (the underwriters) collected on the default swap), and they end up in the old “Bucket #3″ (BAD DEBTS / UNCOLLECTABLE) of the Sponsor. I don’t have my stuff with me, but I have some Wells Fargo ARS propaganda (sales material) that shows the SASCO deals that are shelved. I’ll find that and send you an e-mail.
Deontos, on October 22, 2009 at 8:16 am said:

Dan

I’ll add those to my mountainous reading list.

But please, You, usedkarguy and others keep
posting the stuff! Some of it will make sense
sooner or later by OSMOSIS.

It’s a whole new world, the securitization processes,
laws and regs but it looks like we’d all be better off
getting good understanding of it.
ALLAN in MA (with a question for UsedKarGuy), on October 22, 2009 at 8:14 am said:

UKG you mentioned “…..were all “left on dealers shelves” like the same vintage SASCO Deals.” Mine’s a SASCO 2005 RF 5 deal. Can’t find it. SEC cannot either. Believe it’s part of Lehman’s bankruptcy but can’t pry that info from anybody.

Tell me what are the implications? Why would USBank N.A. be Trustee for it if it’s on dealers’ shelves?

Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on October 22, 2009 at 8:09 am said:

Ian,

Wonderful! Point fingers away from the enabling
fraudsters who are actually responsible.

What do you expect from MSM?
Dan Edstrom, on October 22, 2009 at 7:21 am said:

UsedKarGuy,
You are going to have to post that again and run it through the “Maher cleanup” engine. I don’t think this site has gone over counterparty, repo and remics (at least in much detail). I don’t think most people will know what you are talking about.

Deontos,
There are many dimensions to securitization. One of the reasons for focusing on the securities side is SEC enforcement. It has some real teethe including criminal enforcement. As stated above we have a long way to go (in my opinion) in explaining the issues in terms that most people can understand.

Everyone,
I would recommend two readings at this point – one is the SEC charges against Bernard Madoff and the second is the House of Cards book, tape or CD. It goes through the Bear Stearns collapse in detail. This book really opened my eyes to the world of investment banking.

stopGOVTwaste,
Ending the Fed would have solved the meltdown crisis faster then any other method. Of course the government (and the Fed) would argue that if you think the meltdown was bad, end the Fed and the very fabric of the time-space continuum would unravel resulting in cataclysmic destruction that would destroy the entire universe.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ian, on October 22, 2009 at 6:08 am said:

To all- article in USA Today this morning titled TARP report slams lack of transparency, in part addressing the Making Home Affordable program: …”to prevent fraud, Treasury should require mortgage servicers to compare the income that borrowers report on the mortgage modification application with the income they claimed when they applied for the original mortgage” Do they mean MY mortgage application, or the doctored, backdated, forged mortgage app which the “pretender lender” dummied up and submitted to underwriting? How is this going to play out?
Allan Hennessey, on October 21, 2009 at 11:54 pm said:

It is true… Searching SEC and Edgar for the information that is relevant to a specific loan number is like searching for charlie for many homeowners…

If you have skills in discovery in this manner… I would love to hear from you, and offer you a job.

This paid position can be done from anywhere in the country… as long as you produce results, you get paid.

So SEC/EDGAR superstars… send me an email…

Allan
stopGOVTwaste, on October 21, 2009 at 11:54 pm said:

***END THE FED***
Deontos, on October 21, 2009 at 11:49 pm said:

usedkarguy,

You guys are making my head hurt! I AM JUST THE GRASSHOPPER IN ALL THIS GRASSY MUMBO JUMBO.

How in the heck did you guys learn this STUFF? You and Dan sound more like Maher than an average homeowner. I’m glad I’m here so I have a chance to learn anyway.

Tomorrow I am going to try to scratch the time out and post about my loans. I tried for THREE DAYS to find them on sec.gov and got no where. Obviously I don’t know where to look, I tried to follow instructions I gleaned from livinglies and from Googling but I just hit a wall. So if I could get some help on that perhaps I can then get in the **Grasshopper** School Kindergarten gates.
usedkarguy, on October 21, 2009 at 10:48 pm said:

Excuse me, Dan, may I cut in? Where’s the counterparty? who wrote the default swap? In my trust, it was Bear Stearns (Now JPMChase), and the Securities administrator (seller) was Citigroup Global Markets. Trustee HSBC for the Wells Fargo Trust. Wells Fargo wore all the other hats. Now, the vintage deals WFHome Equity Asset Backed Securities 2005-1/2/3/4 were all “left on dealers shelves” like the same vintage SASCO Deals. Anyway, if CitiGroup Global got stuck holding the bag ($62Billion writedown, anyone remember?) and the securities remained unsold, how did they (the mortgage pools) end up in the 1999 Wells Fargo/Norwest Assets 1999 Trust? It’s the “extinguishment of the liability” (140-3) wherein the problem lies (reverse-repo). It’s a modern-day version of “hot-potato”. It’s hot because they used the loan to borrow more money after dispersing the investor money. They don’t have the money to pay back the loan that constituted the proceeds of YOUR loan (it was borrowed from the investor). The AB1122 is where they defraud the investors by not reporting the actual failure of the trust (receivership). And, the REMIC trust is taking in more money in foreclosure and sheriff’s sale/liquidation (not a true open market transaction as perpetrated with fraudulent representation on the part of the foreclosing entity) than in interest pass through (the key to tax-exempt flow through (conduit) status) (more than 20%? what’s the number, Maher?), if the defaulted loans are indicative of 20% of the total number of loans in the pool, the mathematical consequences are supposed to trigger receivership (liquidation). The WFHEABS05-2 are running at 40% delinquent/foreclosed/bankrupt/REO. These default rates are common throughout meltdown-era MBSs.

My question, Mr. E, is who is the counterparty? They are the one who got stuck with loss on your note, but they have no note, and no claim to the collateral. They got paid a premium to perform on a contract, and lost. They don’t have any assigned interest in the house, only a receipt for paying the claim. The loan is extinguished on one set of books, but is continuously carried as an asset (money still a receivable) on another set of books (ABS) even though no such obligation exists.

Now, back to True Sale. This is the “surrender of control” issue that violates the true sale status. The loan was to be assigned “without recourse” when the Depositor agreed to deposit it with the Trust. I don’t think any of this was done other than with a passing of dollar values over a wire. There was never any “arms-length” transaction, the pretender lender stayed on immediately to “service” the loan and make sure you defaulted, they directed the appraisal of the collateral to cover the loan. Then they end up recovering the collateral at sheriffs sale to sell at a later date directing proceeds into their own pockets (the sponsor usually holds the equity tranches and the Z tranche, which receives non-regular cash flows).

Maher, am I making sense?
angry&not taking it, on October 21, 2009 at 9:59 pm said:

fwiw i discovered the mortgage servicers [the debt collectors] have purchased credit default swaps2.
anyone else discover this.?
angry&not taking it, on October 21, 2009 at 9:57 pm said:

fwiw i discovered the servicers have purchased credit default swaps2.
anyone else discover this.?
Marcus, on October 21, 2009 at 11:58 am said:

They should go after the big fishes too, I should say the big sharks in Wall Street. That’s too difficult; the sharks pay campaign contributions. We can’t mess with that.
—————————————————————-
Feds targeting North Florida real estate fraud
Source: The Florida Times-Union
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Oct. 21, 2009 – In the past two weeks, federal prosecutors have charged at least eight real estate professionals with some type of mortgage fraud in Duval and St. Johns counties.

One already has pleaded guilty and another is scheduled to Monday. U.S. Attorney A. Brian Albritton said there are dozens more people under investigation who he expects to be indicted in the coming weeks.

It’s all part of a concerted federal effort to expedite real estate fraud cases that have come to light in Florida because of the economic downturn and resulting foreclosures.

“Mortgage fraud is, to a large extent, uncovered when there is a foreclosure,” Albritton said. “People go to look at the collateral and realize it’s not enough to support the loan.”

Albritton said his office and the FBI have spearheaded the effort, dubbed “Mortgage Fraud Surge,” in Jacksonville, Orlando and the Gulf Coast. The goal is to accelerate investigations that typically can take years down to 10 months because of the pervasiveness of the problem.

“North Florida has been heavily impacted by the foreclosure crisis,” said FBI Special Agent Rick Dent of Jacksonville. “Every foreclosure is not indicative of mortgage fraud. It’s one of the indicators.”

The agencies are in the first stage of the operation, which was launched in February and designed to eventually go after more sophisticated fraud schemes by professionals and institutions, Albritton said.

“Real estate is so important to the economy of Florida. Unfortunately it’s earned the moniker ‘Ponzi state,’” Albritton said. He said fraud was pervasive in Florida’s real estate boom but wasn’t really discovered until the bottom fell out.

Those charged the past two weeks include:

• Sharon Keller Baker, office manager of a Jacksonville title services company.

• Joseph Cirlot, a former mortgage broker in St. Johns County.

• Jennifer Rosemarie Genus of Jacksonville, employee of an unnamed company that sold property.

• Donna Nelson Gurlides, a Jacksonville real estate agent.

• Timothy Lee Miller of Jacksonville, a production manager for a mortgage company.

• Christopher Reid, a St. Johns County mortgage broker.

• Barry Westergom, a Jacksonville appraiser who pleaded guilty Oct. 8.

• Winslow Ballenger Wheeler, a St. Johns County mortgage broker.

The number of defendants could be higher because other indictments may have been sealed pending arrest.
Marcus, on October 21, 2009 at 11:49 am said:

dasmom,
It looks like you have a lazy lawyer in your hand.
He should be filing “Motion to Compel” and insisting on getting answers. You need to be the driving force in this; you have your house on the line after all.
Why does he say it will cost money to file a motion?
Is he charging you for each pleading?

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
dasmom, on October 21, 2009 at 10:57 am said:

Spoke to lawyer about motion to dismiss. Lawyer doesn’t think it is a good idea because it will cost me more money. Lawyer states that discovery was filed months ago and that the discovery addressed all of my concerns. There has been no response in 6 months to discovery. Lawyer thinks we should wait to hear about modification offer and has already asked for a continuance on the state-mandated mediation.

Am I missing something here?
maher soliman, on October 21, 2009 at 10:49 am said:

Dan

WOW! . . .FAS 140.3 The asset cannot be deleted loan that is imparied and made a new loan unless special consideration is given for impairment.

Move on up…yes right on ….Fantastic brother…yes you got it!

Maher.Soliman
213-627-2324
Dan Edstrom, on October 21, 2009 at 10:43 am said:

By the way, the master servicer in my case has repurchased exactly 0 loans. The current estimated lifetime loss on the entire pool is around 25%. That is truly an amazing feat to pull off. Nobody is holding them accountable – not even the Trustee. That is probably because he is specifically denied the knowledge that the master servicer has done anything wrong – unless the Trustee has specific first hand knowledge. And of course they don’t because the only knowledge they have is what the master servicer says.

Who is able to go up against Goliath and slay him?

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on October 21, 2009 at 10:35 am said:

Abby,
Awesome thanks. Ok here is the issue (or an issue):

The asset (your loan, or at least my loan) is an impaired asset (you haven’t been making payments on it right?). They have to account for it at the fair market value (which they are not – they are showing it as full value). They (or somebody – starting probably with the sub-servicer) is making false reports (presumably). The master servicer attempts to transfer the asset into the Trust (again at full value) but it is impaired AND THEY KNOW IT. If it is not impaired, why are they transferring it to the Trust in order to foreclose on it? Plus they are reporting to the Trust that it is < 60 days delinquent in order to AVOID their obligation to repurchase the loan. It will be foreclosed on before becoming 60 days delinquent. They cannot assign the loan to the Trustee as they never did a TRUE SALE (see FAS 140-3) to begin with. This means the assignment is invalid, the title is clouded, etc. The ONLY way they can clear title is to sell it at auction (foreclosure sale). (Or can the master servicer/seller repurchase it?) The following have a title interest (at least in my case):

– The Master Servicer (GMAC-RFC)
– The Depositor (GMAC-RASC)
– The Trust (RASC Series 2005-EMX4)
– The Trustee (US Bank)
– The master servicers parent company (GMAC-ResCap)
– The associated Federal Savings Bank (Ally Bank FKA GMAC Bank)
– Any and all "holders of certificates" issued by the Trust
– The sub-servicer (who allegedly made advances for my principle and interest payments) (ASC AKA Wells Fargo Bank)
– the debt collector foreclosing company hired by the sub-servicer (who claims to be the Attorney in Fact for the Trustee) (NDEx West, LLC)
– MERS (who claims to be the Nominee for the originator and who the SEC filings refers to as the Nominee for the Trustee)
– the parent company of the FSB and the "parent of the parent of the master servicer" (GMAC, LLC)

Can I claim all of that in court? I can try, but I doubt the judge would keep up.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on October 21, 2009 at 10:10 am said:

Read here for info on 1122AB

http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/regAB/item1122.html
Dan Edstrom, on October 21, 2009 at 9:47 am said:

FIERRA basically states that a Federal Savings Bank cannot invest in (and hold) a risky asset (probably without holding cash reserves for nearly the full value?) … This is second hand from Maher and I haven’t even started researching this issue yet. The FSB is the one who provided the funding for the “loan” and, because they didn’t actually sell the loan to the depositor, they “pledged” it, there never was a true sale. They kept control of the asset so they could list it on their balance sheet and basically go to vegas and gamble. (The loan pool I am in had $500,000,000.00 of loans that GMAC Bank was basically keeping on its balance sheet. Investment banks leverage typically 30 times their assets. My pool was one of 5 created in 2005 by GMAC for my originator. So just imagine 5 pools with a total of approx. $2.5 Billion in assets leveraged 30 times = $75 billion to gamble with – and that was only 1 originator in 1 year).

FAS 140-3 is securitization sale accounting and deals with transferring an asset. This deals with the issue of “We said we sold the asset for tax purposes but for accounting purposes we really did NOT sell it”. It also deals with how they actually do sell it when they are ready (has to be open market sale). You can find information regarding this on the Internet – or go out and purchase Wiley’s GAAP (a very thick accounting book that is over 1,000 pages).

1122 AB – I cannot remember this one off the top of my head which means I have not done my homework. Sorry.

Again I am not an attorney or an accountant …
Hopefully Maher or somebody else can post better info.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on October 21, 2009 at 9:31 am said:

Amber,
Your first step would be a full review of your SEC filings. You need to determine whether or not the loan was SOLD or PLEDGED. My SEC filings say the following (in my case the seller is the master servicer and the depositor is the entity that created the Trust):

“The transfer of the mortgage loans from the seller to the depositor is intended by the parties to be and has been documented as a sale; however, the seller will treat the transfer of the mortgage loans as a secured financing for accounting purposes as long as the limited mortgage loan purchase right referred to in this prospectus supplement remains in effect. If the seller were to become bankrupt, a trustee in bankruptcy could attempt to recharacterize the sale of the mortgage loans as a loan secured by the mortgage loans or to consolidate the mortgage loans with the assets of the seller.”

Next you would need to read and study the laws (FIERRA, FAS 140-3 and 1122 AB).

I doubt it could be done without an expert witness, but stranger things have probably happened (knowing it an applying it are two different things).

You CAN bring up the fact that they pledged the loans and did NOT sell them for consideration, thus invalidating the transfer. However, if they did an assignment in foreclosure, they probably bypassed all of that anyway. I have the allonges on the back of my note (thanks to the sub-servicer) and they show assignments without recourse that ALMOST match what the SEC filings say. My allonges skip the assignment to the Depositor (so it is assigned from the seller or master servicer directly to the Trustee).

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and do not know that of which I speak.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Deontos, on October 21, 2009 at 9:22 am said:

Amber,

Great question! Maybe Maher or Dan Edstrom have some thoughts.
I, just like you, want to get a better GRASP on IF and WHEN we should use these statutes in our litigation.
Amber J Williamson, on October 21, 2009 at 9:13 am said:

Can anyone give me an example of the proper way to include in my current lawsuit, a “cause of action for violations of FIERRA, FAS 140-3, SEC” and/or effects of the mishandled, unregulated securitization of the mortgage backed securities on consumers?
Dan Edstrom, on October 21, 2009 at 8:13 am said:

Lisa,
One more point. What Maher is essentially saying is that if the loan was pledged and not a true sale with consideration, the ONLY way they can truly transfer the asset and gain clear title is through an open market transaction. They are using the foreclosure sale (auction) as the open market transaction. They are getting away with it because nobody has (as of yet) held their feet to the fire on these issues.

Of course we all now know that even when they do this they are not really getting clear title.

Again, not an attorney or an accountant and my views are warped by my own ignorance.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on October 21, 2009 at 8:07 am said:

Lisa,
I understand. These are more complex issues and I am not sure they apply to everyone. In your case I reviewed your SEC filings (or filing) and I could find no reference to them not doing full assignments of your loan (assuming they did what they said and paid consideration – but it still may not be a “full” assignment because they didn’t record it). They do have a repurchase obligation though so I do not know what it actually means in your case. Some expert like Maher or otherwise would need to look into it.

As for the question of whether it applies in state court I can say that it DOES. That doesn’t mean you can use the argument though. The reason it does is because each state has a section of government which enforces securities and accounting laws. I don’t know that it is the best place or that they will understand the issues.

Of course I am not an attorney or an accountant and these are just my opinions.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Marcus, on October 21, 2009 at 7:29 am said:

Jason,
If the “lender” does not respond to your rescission letter within the 20 days they forfeit their right to anything.
If a lawyer attempt to collect, it will be a violation FDCPA. Go after them in Federal court.
Read Regulation Z for more detail.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Jason in GA, on October 21, 2009 at 5:22 am said:

I have a question concerning a lenders right to bring forth an action in response to a homeowners rescission letter.

I’ve heard that the recent trend in rescission cases is for the lender to ask the judge to require the homeowner to have the ability to tender before granting a rescission. But what if the servicer never responded to the the rescission notice, and the case is actually being brought before a judge by the homeowner. In this scenario, does the lender forfeit it’s right to ask for relief under the TILA statute since it didn’t answer within the 20 days required by law? And if so, could the homeowner simply surrender the home instead of tendering?
Lisa E., on October 21, 2009 at 3:37 am said:

What went wrong.

Interesting Washington Post article that sheds some light on the unregulated credit default swap market and the resulting amplification of the risk involved in securitization of housing.

“The real estate boom and easy credit of the past decade gave birth to more complex securities and derivatives, this time linked to the inflated value of millions of homes bought by Americans ultimately unable to afford them. That created a new chain of risk, starting with the heavily indebted homebuyers and ending in a vast, unregulated web of contracts worldwide.”

“Washington stood impotent as the risk of Wall Street innovation swelled,” (Washington, apparently, might have performed better with a good dose of Viagra)

“Investors loaded up on the mortgage-based investments, then bought “credit-default swaps” to protect themselves against losses rather than putting aside large cash reserves. If the mortgages went belly up, the investors had a cushion; the sellers of the swaps, who collected substantial fees for sharing in the investors’ risk, were betting that the mortgages would stay healthy. ”

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E., on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 am said:

Dan,

Please understand that I completely acknowledge the value of understanding murkier aspects of securitization. I would love to see true back and forth discussions and tutorials.

In regards to : a violation of FIERRA, FAS 140-3 and SEC enforcement of 1122AB.

I wonder if state civil court judges will will hear of such illegalities (not that I have any earthly idea what the numbers & letters above mean)? After all, FIERRA, FAS, 104-3 and 1122AB are (probably) federal something-or-others (laws? rulings? regulatory requirements?).

If one did understand that trio, and one did wish to use them as ways to defend their home, then I wonder if jumping into federal court would be the only way to access their usefulness?

I see ads in the paper all the time for attorneys offering “stock broker fraud” defense (or similar). I wonder if I looked up several of their case files if I’d get a glimmer of answers to my questions re: how to defend against securities fraud in state court. I’ll post if I find anything out in my weekly courthouse jaunts.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
ALLAN in MA (with a request that MSoliman henceforth include attibutions to differentiate his work from that of 'borrowed sources'), on October 20, 2009 at 11:37 pm said:

IMAGINE my surprise when I Googled the following phrase in MSoliman’s Oct 19 posting at ATTORNEY TAB:

“S&P apparently feels that before it gets back to business as usual, it needs to know more about how the FDIC plans to treat bond collateral tied in those scenarios.” …………and got the following hyperlinked Securitization.net article!

“FDIC Uncertainty Sends S&P to Sidelines

Asset Backed Alert, Harrison Scott Publications Inc. (September 25, 2009)

S&P is temporarily curtailing the volume of new ratings it assigns to asset-backed bonds issued by banks.

The retreat appears focused on credit-card securities, given their prevalence among bank-issued transactions. However, the agency still plans to grade a few such deals in the near term.

At issue is a longstanding lack of clarity about how bank insolvencies might play out after Jan. 1, when banks must start booking securitized assets on their balance sheets under the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s pending FAS 167 rules. S&P apparently feels that before it gets back to business as usual, it needs to know more about how the FDIC plans to treat bond collateral tied in those scenarios.

The agency, like many other players in the securitization industry, is concerned that the FDIC could seize securitized assets to re-pay other creditors of failed banks.

Such actions are currently blocked by true-sale accounting procedures, in which issuers gain bankruptcy-remote status for their assets by transferring them to special purpose vehicles used in securitizations. But that treatment will vanish for banks with the implementation of FAS 167.

While the concern certainly isn’t limited to S&P, it is the only rating agency that has taken action. An executive at another agency said he believes the FDIC will clarify its intent well before FAS 167 kicks in, and thus doesn’t see the need for a similar move. “I would be surprised if [the FDIC] didn’t put something out,” he said. “They’ve always been pretty supportive of . . . securitization markets in general.”

The American Securitization Forum is working on the issue. Officials from the trade group have met with FDIC representatives to discuss their concerns, and proposed two potential fixes in a Sept. 17 letter. One entails a “sale approach” that would require an FDIC agreement not to “reclaim, recover or recharacterize” securitized assets in a bank insolvency. The other, deemed a “security interest approach,” would allow seizure of securitized assets, but only if bondholders receive compensation equivalent to the principal and interest they are owed. It’s unclear whether the FDIC will adopt either suggestion. Meanwhile, S&P’s pullback has already started. The agency – historically the market leader in rating bonds backed by consumer assets – graded only eight of the 21 new credit-card deals that banks have distributed since the beginning of August. By comparison, it rated all 13 deals fitting that description in June and July, according to Asset-Backed Alert’s ABS Database.

The agency’s official take: “S&P continues to rate credit card ABS transactions in accordance with its published criteria . . . Although the recent accounting rule change has resulted in significant uncertainty about the treatment of these assets in the event of the bank’s insolvency, some issuers have been able to mitigate the risk. We have rated credit card ABS transactions in the past few months that are structured as true sales.”

S&P also noted that it rated some J.P. Morgan deals by tying them to the bank’s unsecured grade. It is still supplying ratings for deals from non-bank institutions as well. However, S&P’s maneuvering means ratings from Moody’s and Fitch are now more appealing options for many issuers. Those that want their deals to qualify for buyer financing via the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility might need to deal with both agencies, as the Federal Reserve requires that consumer-asset securitizations eligible for TALF financing carry triple-A grades from two of the three.

While the narrower field of options could delay some deals, it isn’t expected to cause a major hiccup given the fact that many issuers have already been obtaining ratings from all three agencies for TALF transactions. That said, many banks, including Bank of America, Capital One and J.P. Morgan, were already thinking about scaling back their securitization volumes next year due to pressures created by FAS 167.

In any event, the thought is that securitizations completed this year will remain exempt from FDIC action even after the FASB rules take effect. That has left some people puzzled over why S&P is acting now. “We’re still of the belief that you’re still protected by the grandfather clause,” the rival rating-agency executive said. “We’re not sure what [S&P is] thinking.”

http://www.securitization.net/article.asp?id=1&aid=9255&print=Y”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those who would appreciate an accounting translation of MSoliman’s pearls:

http://accountingonion.typepad.com/theaccountingonion/2008/03/fsp-140-3.html

FSP FAS 140-3: Plugging a Hole in GAAP — Or Another Off-Balance Sheet Financing Gimmick?

and

http://www.straffordpub.com/products/fasb-statement-167-consolidation-of-variable-interest-entities-2009-09-09

FASB Statement 167: Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I NOW understand why there is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde quality to otherwise informative postings.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ AOL . c o m
Deontos, on October 20, 2009 at 9:15 pm said:

Dan,

Thank you for that further explanation. I appreciate Maher, even when I don’t understand him. The man is DEEP on his subject. And we need him and more like him.

I also agree my inability to understand some of what he says is my own lack of knowledge of the subject matter. TO MY DETRIMENT. There is just so much to get up to SPEED on and penalties for whatever you don’t learn.

Tomorrow or the next day I will post about my efforts(unsuccessfully)
to find my PSA and actual loan. I wanted to start a dialogue so that others who come after this will have an easier time of it.

In the meantime…….Maher? Are you listening? YOU MAY CALL ME GRASSHOPPER, MASTER ………. AS LONG AS YOU KEEP LETTING ME TRY TO GET THOSE &^%@! PEBBLES. SOONER OR LATER THE DRAGONS OF GREAT WISDOM WILL BE MINE.
Dan Edstrom, on October 20, 2009 at 7:04 pm said:

Deontos and Lisa,
I don’t think there is anything particularly cryptic about what Maher said – I just didn’t understand the context of two words (which seem out of place). I don’t know if they were spelled wrong or if I have new words I need to learn (I have learned a lot in the last year!). I get the gist of what he is saying though. I don’t think the two words take away from the meat of what he is saying. The main focus is really the following:

FIERRA
FAS140-3
1122 AB
Who owns the asset?

If you understand securitization and have read your assignment and assumption agreement, pooling and servicing agreement and prospectus you are half way there. It is a tough leap for most though.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Deontos, on October 20, 2009 at 6:52 pm said:

Lisa E,

First I’d like to quote that “saying” about the loaf of bread?
I think it goes something like, “Half a Maher is better
than no Maher at all.” Anyway!

I just started this learning curve a little over a month ago now.
And you sum it UP so well!

“……depends deeply on our understanding of complex concepts of law, business, capitalism, judiciary culture, Rules of Civil Procedure, state statutes, courthouse comportment, securitization, Wall Street (lack of) ethics, legal motion practice, etc, etc, etc, etc……”

I am trying to learn what some people have graciously taken a LIFE TIME to learn in another 15 days. If I don’t, the consequences WILL be DIRE indeed.

I have been trying diligently to WAKE UP, because surely this must be a just nightmare and when this episode ends I’ll awaken to my old life routine, happy or not…prefer it to this. {{[RANT}}}

I feel better……..
Lisa E., on October 20, 2009 at 5:40 pm said:

Deontos,

Allow me to present an alternative view, which is my opinion only, not based on anything besides my own personal opinion (which probably should be disregarded entirely).

Maher, clever and with personal experience & knowledge of the nefarious market practices that flew us into the twilight zone, is selling something.

Please never forget that.

It certainly behooves any salesman to keep something close to the vest, just presenting enough to whet the appetite, gives an air of respectability & authority, casting a lure out into the sea, waiting………….waiting…………….waiting……………
Oh, yes, eventually a nice fat fish will bite.

I usually shun controversy, but it annoys me to no end that one’s own legal well-being, not to mention the roof over one’s head (and the heads of one’s family members) depends deeply on our understanding of complex concepts of law, business, capitalism, judiciary culture, Rules of Civil Procedure, state statutes, courthouse comportment, securitization, Wall Street (lack of) ethics, legal motion practice, etc, etc, etc, etc.

It sure feels MUCH safer when these concepts are introduced to us in a way that we can grasp, with the tips of our fingers, a little bit of new knowledge upon which to build.

When ideas are presented in a way that only increases our cumulative anxiety, it is neither enlightening or helpful.

I’ve suggested to Maher before: teach us & guide us. At the very least, pretend a modicum of empathy to our stress levels that prevent understanding of the language and speech patterns of a high flying Wall Streeter.

Show your ability to relate to us as the quintessential client homeowner in distress. THAT, my unintelligible, alienating friend, will earn you flowing coffers as clients clamor to your door for more.

I honestly mean this very respectfully! It pains me to see important ideas being presented in a way that most will never have a hope of understanding.

Perhaps, I’m wrong? Maybe his words are clear as a bell to all but myself?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
floridadefenseteam, on October 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm said:

Pro Se Litigants:

Here’s a piece of advice passed on to us. Its so simple
you’ll probably read it and discard it. Please don’t. If
you want to be heard as a serious party in front of the Judge:

Bring a Court Reporter.

They are not expensive.
It changes you from a homeowner to a serious litigant.
It creates a record of your hearing which can be appealed.
It puts the Judge on guard to obey the law and not steam roll your case.
It prevents the Judge from giving instruction to opposing counsel.
Deontos, on October 20, 2009 at 3:03 pm said:

To: Dan Edstrom

Uhhhh one WORD …….Aaarrghh!!!!

Look when something is written in English (which I speak; I thought anyway) and it is shall we say UNCLEAR ……. and it sounds vitally important to my legal well being …… well it leaves me to utter that
unintelligible word above ………..Aaaaaarrrgghhh!!!!

Thanks for attempting that explanation, I…got…IT… sort… of…but… not…exactly!

Please continue your efforts for the benefit of us all here. I truly feel Maher is making a contribution of GREAT value, I just don’t understand a lot of the time.

Again thank you.
Dan Edstrom, on October 20, 2009 at 2:27 pm said:

Maher,
It was moderated for quite awhile but I just got it. Here is my interpretation of what you said (some of it is unclear) as it applies to my case:

My loan was funded but Mortgage Lenders Network, they assigned the loan within 70 days (45 days?) to all of the following in succession: EMAX, Residential Funding Company FKA Residential Funding Corporation and Residential Asset Securities Corp. Residential Funding Company FKA Residential Funding Corporation funded the loan on a warehouse line of credit provided through Residential Capital Corporation (GMAC-ResCap) that was ultimately provided from Ally Bank FKA GMAC Bank. The assignment has not yet transferred the loan. Therefore, borrowers seek an injunction to stop MERS or anyone else from transferring the asset until a court can hear the merits for borrowers arguments the loan does not constitute a true sale. Therefore the alleged holder in due course is Ally Bank FKA GMAC Bank. The FDIC must be alerted to this (although it is something they already know). It’s a violation of FIERRA, FAS 140-3 and SEC enforcement of 1122AB. The matter is subject to claims the deed is disturbed (agitated or distressed?) (incorporeal hereditament reference?) from the false claims and misrepresentations alleging further deceptive business practices. Therefore the deed is disturned (to turn aside?) and arguably defective and made voidable preventing anyone from transferring title until the matter is heard.

There is no power of sale here.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Lisa E, on October 20, 2009 at 9:45 am said:

Dasmom,

1) Was the assignment even recorded in the public official records of your county?
2) What state are you in? (IF Florida, email me and I will give further suggestions based on Florida Statutes)
3) Did the orginal complaint (papers with which you were served) have something called a “Re-establishment of Lost Note”?
4) Was that late assignment assigned by your original mortgagor to Plaintiff?
5) Who is your plaintiff and who signed as witnesses for them on that assignment? We may be able to provide incidents of fraudulent signatures on that assignment.
6) HANG IN THERE! WE WILL HELP YOU! YOU ARE NOT ALONE!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
dasmom, on October 20, 2009 at 9:28 am said:

@ Luis
@Marcus

Thanks for your quick response. I am trying to contact my attorney to get the motion to dismiss filed. I’m hoping the servicer’s fraudulent filing comes back to bite them and gives me an advantage if they file another foreclosure action.

dasmom
Marcus, on October 20, 2009 at 8:51 am said:

Dasmon,
File a “Motion to Dismiss For Improper Party”.
You can find a sample pleading at the link below. The link is MTD2.
http://www.foreclosureprose.com/pleadings/

marcus
Luis, on October 20, 2009 at 8:19 am said:

dasmom,

I’m pretty sure that you can get a dismissal. Plaintiff did not have the right to foreclose when they filed. They will have to file again, but they will have one strike against them.

Any comments on this?
dasmom, on October 20, 2009 at 7:28 am said:

foreclosure action was filed by the lender months before the mortgage was assigned to them. What can I do?
Lisa E., on October 19, 2009 at 10:58 pm said:

Deontos!

Wow! Thank you for putting a great big smile on my face.

That helps!

Carry on all.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
Lisa E., on October 19, 2009 at 5:40 pm said:

This.

more than anything

more than the outrage

more than the disbelief

more than the blind eyes of justice

more than the appalling disinterest

more than the refusal to sanction fraud

more than the greed

more than the lethargy of all 3 branches of our government.

This is what tears at the fabric of my heart and soul: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/business/economy/19foreclosed.html?_r=1

May G-D help us all.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
Deontos, on October 19, 2009 at 3:19 pm said:

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” –

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Foreclosure Hamlet ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like this place. We need many “points of light” along this Arc of History we are living……………………

http://foreclosurehamlet.ning.com/
Dan Edstrom, on October 19, 2009 at 3:16 pm said:

Arpad,
In normal circumstances I would agree, but these are not normal circumstances. Continuing to pay on a mortgage that is going into a black hole doesn’t do anybody any service (except the people in the middle). Here is why:

The interest rate and payments are aburd and you are going to lose the house anyway

The servicer refuses to negotiate and will just misapply your payments anyway – their only purpose is to recover an advance (or advances) they already made without your knowledge

The servicer refuses to tell you who the real “lender” is and directly interferes with your ability for a true workout

You are paying money to companies involved in a criminal enterprise (I refuse to support criminal activity)

Your loan was probably paid in full

The company you actually may owe the money to is no longer in business or is in or has been in bankruptcy

The list goes on and on. If they want real payments they should make real loans.

One thing is sure though – if you do not make your payments you will lose your house. Unless of course you are successful using the methods outlined on this site. Will that happen? It remains to be seen. Some people have “won” or settled but many more have lost their house along the way.

Of course I am not an attorney and there are not many attorneys that would tell you not to make your payments. These are my opinions.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on October 19, 2009 at 2:53 pm said:

URPERA

“Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act” and map of states which have adopted!!!

http://www.electronicrecording.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=4&tabid=76

URPERA builds upon existing electronic transactions laws, in particular the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN). The act authorizes, but does not mandate, local land records officials to begin accepting records in electronic form, store electronic records, convert existing records into electronic form, and set up systems for searching for and retrieving these land records. Equally important, URPERA designates a state authority to set general and technical standards for the practice and process of electronic recording in the enacting state.
msoliman, on October 19, 2009 at 2:39 pm said:

Dan,

Sorry, no cigar. Their answers are programmed. Don’t ask, but STATE the following after you do your research:

My loan was funded but XYZ, they assigned the loan within 45 days to ABC. ABC funded the loan on a line proved by Citi. The assignment has not yet transferred the loan. Therefore, I will seek an injunction and stop MERS from transferring the asset until a court can here the merits for my arguments the loan does not constitute a true sale. Therefore the holder in due course is Citi and the FDIC must be alerted to something they already know. It’s a violation of FIERRA, FAS 140-3 and SEC enforcement of 1122AB. The matter is subject to claims the deed is disturbed from the false claims and misrepresentations alleging further deceptive business practices. (Attorneys stopped reading by now) Therefore the deed is disturned and arguably defect and made voidable preventing you from transferring title till the matter is heard.

SO lender, there is no power of sale here is there?

M.Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
http://www.borrowerhotline.com
.
Deontos, on October 19, 2009 at 2:36 pm said:

Rik,

This is generally the way it works in my state(Calif).
I only am comfortable speaking about where I am.

I would imagine though your State procedure must
be at least similar to this.

Hello? Are there any “in the know” Floridians tuned
in right now?
Rik, on October 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm said:

Hi Deontos,

Thanks for the info. I am in FLorida. I am pretty sure I did not get this info, but I will dig into my files and check tonite.

Rik
Arpad, on October 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm said:

Marcus!
I do not think this is a right advice an Attorney should give to anybody. Especially publicly. This is not right IMHO.
Deontos, on October 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm said:

Rik, What state are you in?

This may or may not be of some help…………………….

If you buy property or a home using a loan from a lender, then the lender places a lien against the property. The lien is put in place when you originally borrow the loan. A reconveyance can remove this lien when the loan has been paid back in full and the property is yours free and clear.

A reconveyance must be recorded at the county recorder’s office of the county the property is situated in.

When you pay off your loan, you should receive the original recorded deed of trust. You should also receive the deed of full reconveyance and the >>lien note<< . All that is really necessary to prove that the loan has been paid in full is the original deed of full reconveyance.
Marcus, on October 19, 2009 at 1:04 pm said:

Mandatory Mediation Has a High Success Rate
Source:The Miami Herald, Daniel Chang.

MIAMI – Oct. 19, 2009 – In some ways, says Caridad Ramos, it might have been easier for her to walk away from the pink, five-bedroom Miami house her family has called home since 2001. The numbers aren’t encouraging: She owes $195,000 on the house, which is assessed at $178,000.

But relocating might have been too disruptive for her 11-year-old son, who is autistic, she feared.

“When you have a disabled child,” she says, “you can’t just pick up and leave.”

Instead, she’s taking a second chance at paying her mortgage under a court-ordered mediation program in Miami-Dade County.

Ramos, 42, hopes to be one of hundreds of Miami-Dade homeowners who have averted foreclosure through the 11th Circuit Homestead Access to Mediation Program (CHAMP), which requires lenders to negotiate with borrowers before foreclosing on a home.

Since launching on May 1, the Miami-Dade program has led to settlements in 465 of the 599 cases scheduled for mediation.

The program, which is mandatory in three of Florida’s 20 judicial districts, has led to settlements in 1,072 of the 1,401 cases scheduled for mediation statewide.

To be sure, that’s only a fragment of the estimated 350,000 foreclosures projected by Florida’s Clerks of Court to be filed this year – in part because only homesteaded properties qualify, but also because mediation is mandatory only in Miami-Dade, Pensacola- and Stuart-area courts.

Under this system, mediators cannot compel either side to settle a case. But a success rate of about 76 percent in the three judicial test districts has made the program a likely model for the rest of the state.

Some lenders oppose mandatory mediation, saying it adds another cost to an already expensive process. Under the mediation program in Miami-Dade, lenders are required to pay the $750 fee in addition to foreclosure filing fees that can cost as much as $1,900 per case. They must also provide a representative with the authority to modify a loan.

Though many banks have invested in in-house programs to help borrowers who have fallen behind, sometimes it’s just not enough, says Ned Pope, program director for the nonprofit Collins Center for Public Policy, which manages the mediation program for Miami-Dade civil court.

“You can’t try and patch that hole with the same old solutions,” he says. “Mediation is part of the answer, not the whole answer.”

Cases that do not mediate to settlement proceed through the foreclosure process, Pope says. Lenders who do not comply with the program risk having their cases thrown out of court.

For their part, borrowers are required to attend credit counseling before mediation and to provide detailed financial information.

Ramos, who is currently in mediation, fell behind on her $1,900 monthly mortgage payments in January – after taking a pay cut at her job as a leasing agent, and after her husband lost his job as a driver.

Chase Bank filed for foreclosure in June, Ramos says. Soon after, a Collins Center counselor called and offered to help her navigate the judicial process and get her financial documents in order.

A mediation conference lasted about 90 minutes, during which Ramos met in a room with an attorney for the bank and the mediator. A bank representative participated by phone.

Negotiations went back and forth, Ramos says, with the bank requesting financial and personal information, such as how often she goes to the hairdresser.

Ramos is still waiting for Chase to modify her balloon mortgage with a floating interest rate by converting it into a 40-year fixed rate loan. She expects her monthly mortgage payment to be about $1,300, including an escrow account for insurance and taxes.

The best part, Ramos says, is that she can sleep at night now, and she no longer feels that the bank is her adversary.

“I feel that Chase really worked with me,” Ramos says. “They did have a lot of patience with me.”
Marcus, on October 19, 2009 at 12:59 pm said:

I think Florida Bar and the banksters will come heavy on this attorney. He needs our moral support. I wish more attorneys had the courage to do what he did.
———————————————————-

Daily Real Estate News | October 19, 2009 | Share
Florida Attorney Offers Foreclosure Advice
Tampa Bay foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa is blunt in his advice to home owners facing imminent foreclosure:

* Stop making payments.
* Hire a lawyer to frustrate the bank.
* Use the yearlong delay to build a savings account with unpaid house payments.
* Enjoy living mortgage-payment free.

Stopa’s technique for stalling foreclosure involves asking a judge to dismiss a case because the originating lender isn’t the same one initiating the foreclosure. It takes a bank about six months to avoid that legal tactic. After that delay, banks are more likely to cooperate with the homeowner, Stopa says. He charges a flat fee of $1,300 to initiate this stalling technique.

Any chance his advice will backfire?

A foreclosure task force commissioned by the Florida Supreme Court concluded in August that only a few law firms, known as “foreclosure mills” by detractors, handle most of the cases for banks, and their expedited processes sometimes result in errors. At the same time, the task force said foreclosure defense attorneys often file “boilerplate motions to dismiss” that only delay rather than resolve the issue.

Source: St. Petersburg Times, James Thorner (10/16/2009)
Marcus, on October 19, 2009 at 12:54 pm said:

This is the link to the full St. Petersburg Times article.
I just posted a comment. Everyone should check it out.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/realestate/2009/10/pinellas-county-foreclosure-lawyer-stop-paying-mortgage-save-a-bundle.html
Deontos, on October 19, 2009 at 12:45 pm said:

Lisa E.,
As someone recently responded here about wanting to get access to a certain “Foreclosure Fraud Guide”, “squeek! squeek…”

Lisa PLEASE send me a copy of your compilation.

This is regarding your post:
“…Lisa E, on October 19th, 2009 at 10:03 am Said:

P.S. At least we all know EXACTLY how to respond if our opponents ever turn the tables and file their own Request for Productions (which I’ve seem some do)…….”

My email is Deontos.is@gmail.com

squeek! uhhhhh I mean
Thank you!
Rik, on October 19, 2009 at 12:09 pm said:

Hi All,

I am still in the fight, and need a bit of help or guidance. My original mortgage was with AmNet Mortgage which was assigned to MERS I believe. THen I refinanced the loan with Wells Fargo.

I have not really gone back beyond Wells Fargo, but think that this could be a good tactic. If the ownership of the loan was with MERS, did they have the right or rights to transfer the note/mortage to Wells Fargo.

I have been able to find county records showing the loan as paid off to AmNet/MERS. If the note/mortage was never correctly assigned and the rest originally, will the Wells Fargo be valid?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

Rik
James#, on October 19, 2009 at 11:03 am said:

The plantiff’s lawyer called my lawyer an hour before the hearing to dismiss and told him he should not even bother with the hearing as she had a case thrown out the week before where the Judge had ruled in her favor. At the hearing she told the Judge that he should rule in her favor because another Judge in his district had ruled not to dismiss. The Judge said “Missy, do you mean that because another Judge ruled in your favor I should?” Missy kept her head down and said “no sir”. The judge denied the motion to dismiss due to standing and failure to produce a $100. dollar bond. The judge gave the lawyer 20 days to post the cost bond an refile. Judges always bend over backward for the banks.
I think the servers put inexperienced and/or stupid lawyers up as a defense for fraud. The lawyer was just stupid not fraudlent!
Amber J Williamson, on October 19, 2009 at 10:59 am said:

Each state is different in time frames and requirements. I threw this option at my then 4th and 5th attorneys all who stated that it was not feasible. I’ve read the law regarding quiet titles (TEXAS) and it can be very complex depending on the situation. My concerned was more legal fees if the suit was contested by any of the banks. I’m hovering around 50k in legal fees thus far …

Amber
Amberjoy26@yahoo.com
Luis, on October 19, 2009 at 10:43 am said:

Amber,

I think that the statute of limitation is 4 years. If I’m right, you should be able to file for a quiet title.

Does anybody know exactly what is the statute of limitation? Is it different for different states?
Dan Edstrom, on October 19, 2009 at 10:43 am said:

Amber,
Excellent point! Once again, I have been too generous in my feelings for how the banks are responding. I was assuming they were dragging this along hoping you would give up and they would win. I don’t think they even care. They handed it to the attorneys and probably don’t even follow what is going on (too many foreclosures). The attorneys can just keep dragging this out as long as possible adding to the amount of time they can bill. I would be very dubious about anything they say. My personal plan is to say fine – I will consider anything, once they have complied with discovery. I need discovery in order to make an informed decision. Remember, they withheld material information at closing, up to now – and they continue to withhold material information.

COMPEL, COMPEL, COMPEL!

I am not an attorney – this is my opinion and what I plan on doing in my case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on October 19, 2009 at 10:37 am said:

Alina,
Wow, 6 months! I would be leary of anything they say, but I am no expert and don’t know what it means – keep requesting answers. Why do you need them? Is there are loan? What are the terms of the loan? Were the terms changed before, during or after closing? Was my loan paid off? Did others make my loan for me? Did any of the parties foreclosing know that my payments were made (or not due) even though they were saying I hadn’t made them and pursuing foreclosure? The list of responses to why you need the documents goes on and on – these are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

By the way – my SEC filings have definitions for almost everything. Let the judge know this if it applies in your case. You are just asking for the documents the other side has that show the true terms, payments, obligations, etc., etc. for the loan.

Again – I am not an attorney and these are just my opinions.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Amber J Williamson, on October 19, 2009 at 10:36 am said:

Also, Alina I was told the same things for years by the banks, send financials for loan modifications, potential settlement talks scheduled and agreed/approved in WRITING, signed off by all attorneys. Nothing was taken seriously until the lawsuit was FILED! Even then they bank on you NOT going to trial or being financially prepared for trial. Hopefully you have a direct contact with the bank and are not just dealing with their attorneys. The attorneys are trying to get as many billable hours as possible and don’t have the authority to “act” without the consent of their client, the mortgage company. Get to trial as soon as possible if you can…

Amber
Amberjoy26@yahoo.com
Arpad, on October 19, 2009 at 10:33 am said:

Alina,
The fact that they called you and offered you something is a very good sign. This means they feel they could lose the case. You are on to something!

Arpad
Amber J Williamson, on October 19, 2009 at 10:26 am said:

I’m currently living “mortgage free” for 7 years (as of 03/10), in my home for a wrongful foreclosure by WAMU. The title was and has always been held by MERS since foreclosure, however in late 2008, post failure of WAMU title was change back to WAMU. The active mortgage loan is still held with Wells Fargo with Wells Fargo paying insurance and property taxes through escrow. WAMU, Lehman Brother, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase have been included as possible “note” holders however no one has produced the note. FDIC openly communicated with me with the approval of my attorney but recently (last week), refused to communicate with me. If the note is not produced how do I find out who has legal authority to the property? Also, does that also mean no one has legal authority to evict as well? My attorney has requested production of the “note” to no avail.

Amber
Amberjoy26@yahoo.com
Alina, on October 19, 2009 at 10:22 am said:

Thanks for your responses. My requests for admissions were very simple. The one I posted was actually one of the last requests where I tied in the chain of custody. I do have the Pooling and Servicing Agreement as well as the Prospectus. Just wanted to get them to admit the proper chain of custody per the PSA. As you can see, they do not seem to know the basic definitions.

Btw, the admissions were served back in April and the response was this past Friday.

I wanted to add that the day before (Thursday), opposing counsel called and requested that I postpone both the state and federal cases pending settlement talks. I told them I would entertain any good faith offer wherein they advised that they could offer a modification (I would have to provide all my financial s in order to be approved), deed in lieu, or rescission. I was told that if I pursue rescission, they would reimburse the money I overpaid at closing and I would have to reimburse the money they gave me. My response was, “Oh, really. That’s not my understanding of rescission.” I then asked them if they have figures to begin the settlement talks. I was told they did not have the figures.

They repeatedly requested that I postpone the federal case and agreed to respond to the admissions and produce something proving U.S. Bank owns the mortgage. They also asked why was it so important for me to receive the documents requested.
Ed, on October 19, 2009 at 10:05 am said:

Lisa, I would like a copy

send to

eddarsom@aol.com
Lisa E, on October 19, 2009 at 10:03 am said:

P.S. At least we all know EXACTLY how to respond if our opponents ever turn the tables and file their own Request for Productions (which I’ve seem some do).

I’ve got all those vague, evasive answers right here at the ready and am chomping at the bit to spew them right back from whence they came.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
erlinda, on October 19, 2009 at 9:49 am said:

sorry , it should be year 2004 not 2009.
Lisa E, on October 19, 2009 at 9:49 am said:

Alina,

Was that question part of an interrogatory or a production or documents request or an admissions?

I agree with Dan that the questions have got to be broken up in to v.e.r.y. s.i.m.p.l.e. terms.

I got the same nonsense in my Response to my Discovery Request. I debated sending a Motion to Compel but finally settled on a new tactic. I wrote out a lengthy Request for Productions (Still working on the new Interrogatories & Admissions). I saw how my first request for productions could have been greatly improved so I decided to just file a SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS.

It’s in it’s final stages of completion. I am happy to share it with anyone at all. I’ve culled some great questions from my weekly review of a multitude of contested (by real life attorneys) foreclosure cases in my local courthouse. Additionally, I got some great suggestions here (thanks Dan). OH, I also referred to that document from He!! (aka the P&S agreement) to get some questions right from the horse’s mouth.

My plan is thus. This, too, will be denied and/or objected to. THEN I’ll proceed with my motion to compel.

My specific question re: assignments in my Productions Request is:

All communications, notices, records, notes, legal documents, internal memoranda or other documents regarding any assignments, sales or any other transfers of any interest in the note and/or mortgage in this action.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
***Obviously not an attorney****
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.ning.com
erlinda, on October 19, 2009 at 9:45 am said:

alina,

you have to read the company’s prospectus filed at SEC, just click the name of the company and what trust it was under. usually on their prospectus , it would say who will be the master servicer or security administrator, custodian of records, most of the time the custodian of records are the master servicer and the security administrator who are responsible for auditing the mortgage loan once the trustee deliver that mortgage pool of asset from the trust. this master servicer or security administration have all the mortgage files in their possession because part of their obligations is to audit the files and once they found out the particular loan is a non- compliance based on the loan documents, the master servicer/security administration will notify the trustee for non- compliance and the trustee has the option to replace the loan with the same llke amount of loan as long as it will not disqualify as a REMIC guaranteed loans. remember by reading the prospectus of the company, you will gain knowledge and amaze how securitization process involved a lot of players. once you identify the custodian of your loan ask the court to produce your loan file. you have to know all the players of that securitization so you could name them as your defendants. as of this writing i just finished, reading the prospectus of countywide in 457 pages and found out that in ca foreclosures only the original trustee has the right of power of sale, please review you deed of trust under countrywide if your in ca state, it specify in the prospectus of CWABS, Inc, Asset Back Certificate Trust 2004-4 if you loan closed in 2009, i think they are more than ten trust created by countrywide and you could read this if your loan belongs to those trust.
Marcus, on October 19, 2009 at 9:35 am said:

Alina,
This is classic stone walling tactic from the plaintiff.
Your response will depend on your strategy and goal.
If you want to buy time and drag it on, play their game and wait. The flip side of that, is that it gives them strategic initiative of the case.
If you want to be more aggressive in your approach, file motion to compel and drag them in front of the judge each time. Make it expensive for them.
I recommend that you read two articles written by the moderator of Legal_Self_Representation newsgroup. I reposted them on the web site.
http://www.foreclosureprose.com/pro-se-litigation-strategy/
http://www.foreclosureprose.com/pro-se-litigation-strategy-ii/
His approach is very insightful for all pro se defendants. A must read.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Dan Edstrom, on October 19, 2009 at 8:54 am said:

Alina,
Hopefully a knowledgeable attorney will respond. I am not an attorney and these are just my opinions. Now knowing what you wrote, I can only guess the following:

It probably doesn’t matter what you say you would receive a similar response

Make sure you only ask 1 question at a time (no compound questions)

Ask questions directly, such as “who is the lender?”, “Who originated the loan?”, “Who provided the cash to fund the loan?”, “Is the foreclosing party the lender?”, “Did the foreclosing party give consideration for the assignment?”, “At the time the foreclosure was initiated, who was the ‘holder in course’?”, “Did the sub-servicer advance any payments for the borrower(s)?”, “Has the sub-servicer received any reports or statements from the Trustee that include any information regarding the borrowers loan?”, “Has the Trustee issued any reports or statements to any ratings agency containing any information regarding the borrowers loan?”, “Is the borrower entitled to full disclosure of all payments that have been made to the true ‘holder in due course’?”, etc. I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the best way to phrase questions. I do now it is easy to make these questions complicated. You may want to include a list of definitions for them since they do not understand anything unless you give them a frame of reference. Remember Clinton – it depends on what the definition of “is” is – they will not make any of this easy for you.

Either way I don’t think they will answer them. But if you treat them like a child and show very simple questions the judge may not accept their response.

You really need to consult with an attorney!

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Allan Hennessey, on October 19, 2009 at 8:52 am said:

Deontos, thanks for your vote of confidence in my insight here… I have been studying these issues for over 2 years, full time, doing nothing else. I refuse to give up…

This is the game that is being played… Even if you have them on the hook for fraud, with evidence… they will still do whatever they can to get off the hook… by denying your valid requests for information among other things. If they do not provide a valid reason for denying your valid, specific requests, you can file a motion to compel, or a motion for default.

So many ways that you can get them eventually… you just must be specific with what you are seeking… looking to stop the foreclosure? ok. Seeking monetary damages? Whole different ball of wax.

Stop the foreclosure first, then seek damages is what I say.

There are many different ways to deal with these characters. It is never over. If one method fails, use another… let them know you will never give up, and sooner or later they will.

Good Luck Everyone!

Allan Hennessey
800-552-9313 Ext 111
Deontos, on October 19, 2009 at 8:36 am said:

Alina,

I truly wish I could contribute something substantive
regarding your request. But I think at this point you
probably know 10 times more than I do (Make that 100).

We do have some DEEP people here like Nye Lavalle.
I am hoping by mentioning names; some of them will have
“Google Alerts” set up and become aware of your request
regarding your post, “Alina, on October 19th, 2009 at 8:02 am “.

I could do a long roll call of the many MANY others ..
Sample:
Abby
Mario Kenny
Allan Hennessey
usedkarguy
Marcus
Mike Linton
Just a huge constellation here of insightful
people.
——————————————————-

My *uninformed* comment? I sure hope whoever
wrote that is the LEAD attorney you are going up
against. It’s helpful to have a clueless adversary;
just my two cents.
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 19, 2009 at 8:34 am said:

Alina,

Not that this help much but…

Florida Default Law Group answered my request for admissions the same way. Sounds like Standard Operating Procedure to me…

Plaintiff objects to defendants request in that it is unclear, ambiguous, confusing and capable of multiple interpretations.

That was the answer to almost all the admissions.

The other popular phrase was it is evident from the pleading that the plaintiff was not the entity that originated the loan so it is a third party request..

4closureFraud
Alina, on October 19, 2009 at 8:02 am said:

Hi everyone,

Wanted to give everyone a quick update on my case. I finally received a response to my Requests for Admissions and Plaintiff (Trustee) obviously does not know the definition of a lot of terms. Here’s an example of one response:

The Master Document Custodian for the securitized trust in this case verified in
writing to the Trustee for the trust that it had confirmed an unbroken chain of transfers and
deliveries of the original mortgage note from the Originator to the Loan Seller,from the Loan
Seller to the Depositor,from the Depositor to the Trustee for the trust, and from the Trustee to
the Master Document Custodian/or the trust.
Response:
Plaintiff cannot truthfully admit or deny this matter, and objects to this request. Plaintiff
also does not know what Defendant means by the tems “Master Document Custodian”,
“Originator,” “Loan Seller”, “Depositer” and “securitized trust.” The term “verified” is also
vague and ambiguous, as is the phrase “unbroken chain of transfers and deliveries” in this
context, and Plaintiff does not know what Defendant means. This is also a compound request,
involving the topic of multiple “transfers” in one request. The request also is irrelevant to the
subject matter of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

I would love some feedback from everyone. Thanks.
Don-CA, on October 19, 2009 at 12:19 am said:

I found the corporate resolution of MERS (page 4)indicating that the attached list of candidates(page 5) are employees of FIS Foreclosure Solutions Inc. (Minnesota office) and are hereby appointed as assistant secretaries and vice presidents of MERS:

http://mylandrecords.appspot.com/pdf/ma017-23203-279/afjenDWxIc7/document.pdf?actual=1255935829

On my substitution of trustee, an individual on this list signs as a VP of the servicer, not MERS. It’s not really a signature.

The vice president who signed my assignment from MERS to the servicer? She’s a supervisor on the mail team at FIS and she is also a notary.

It gets better…
Kalona S B, on October 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm said:

Aloha All

WOW Been really reading all the stories and comments. I especially enjoyed the story about Mark and his battles with the bank. The JPMorgan battle especially caught my attention. Wish I too could sit on the front lawn and protest the bull crap.

I’m still in my home for now and that shocks me. I know it’s a matter of when not if. Going back to the law library this week to try and figure out what I need to do for my next step.

The debt collector are getting dirtier all the time. It’s mind blowing to see what they will do to try and get ur attention, inclusing making phone calls non stop, back to back to ur house and cell.

Telling u they are ur insurance company, demanding they get ALL ur info such as taxes, bank statements and so on. Also calling and leaving messages pretending to be looking for work refferances, pretending to be people u know as high school friends. Yeah high school friends with a 1 866 number.

Even used my ex husbands name and begged me to call for concerns of his well being. I haven’t seen him in several years. That’s just the start of how low they go.

I read on the web site that if they are debt collectors they by law have to expose that. They do not. I was so thankful I was able to push the stress aside and realize it was a scam AGAIN and not send them all the info they were asking. I was so close. Wheeew!

The bad part about all these scams is u become so untrusting u worry that a real call may be missed that u need to have in order to do something to resolve the issue. Any suggestions? Is there someone u can report these scammers to?

I will only call JPMORGAN direct. . If they don’t answer me I won’t answer these bogus calls.

Always wishing u all the very best and a win in ur battle.

Mahalo
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 18, 2009 at 7:23 pm said:

Just want to say thanks to everybody on all of the positive support…

Stay tuned. I think the rabbit hole just got a little deeper…

Set up a wordpress blog for everyone to follow my thoughts on all this and to post comments and tips on their fraudulent documents…

Lets make this Guide the go to source for the frauds.

http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

4closureFraud
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm said:

All,

The ruling from Massachusetts RE Judge Long is posted on the front page of Michael Moore’s website.

See it here…

http://bit.ly/1888vH

I posted a comment with a link to the Foreclosure Fraud Guide and the post from the market ticker.

Now get over there and comment on the story as well…

Maybe if he gets enough of us commenting, he will do a story on these frauds…

4closureFraud
Marcus, on October 17, 2009 at 7:29 am said:

BT,
What is Ron Houchins Bar number. I could not find his name in Georgia State Bar Association directory.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
bt, on October 17, 2009 at 7:07 am said:

One the folks on the Garfield-”lawyers that Get It” list, list” Ron Houchins, of Georgia, is one of the best. He has helped me with all kinds of lawsuit issues and foreclosure defense in multiple states. He is a must use with pleadings and filings. Contact him to help you Pro Se folks, he is a great guy. ron.financialfreedom@live.com
Marcus, on October 17, 2009 at 6:55 am said:

Bailout Helps Fuel a New Era of Wall Street Wealth
Source: NYTimes.com

Even as the economy continues to struggle, much of Wall Street is minting money — and looking forward again to hefty bonuses.
Many Americans wonder how this can possibly be. How can some banks be prospering so soon after a financial collapse, even as legions of people worry about losing their jobs and their homes?

It may come as a surprise that one of the most powerful forces driving the resurgence on Wall Street is not the banks but Washington. Many of the steps that policy makers took last year to stabilize the financial system — reducing interest rates to near zero, bolstering big banks with taxpayer money, guaranteeing billions of dollars of financial institutions’ debts — helped set the stage for this new era of Wall Street wealth.

Titans like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are making fortunes in hot areas like trading stocks and bonds, rather than in the ho-hum business of lending people money. They also are profiting by taking risks that weaker rivals are unable or unwilling to shoulder — a benefit of less competition after the failure of some investment firms last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/economy/17wall.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
rena, on October 17, 2009 at 1:53 am said:

Interesting piece on CBS Evening News about a man that calls himself a “bank terrorist.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5391146n&tag=related;photovideo

CBS News Business Correspondent Anthony Mason reports Bruce Marks has introduced guerrilla tactics to the mortgage crisis – from running a sit-in at JP Morgan Chase to dropping furniture on the front lawn of Fannie Mae.

In his campaign to help struggling homeowners restructure their loans, through a non-profit agency he founded 20 years ago, Marks has declared war on American banks. And it’s personal:

“It’s personal for the homeowners that are being victimized. We’re going to make it personal for the CEOs,” said Marks. “So we bring the mortgage crisis to their front door, and we are relentless.”

National Assistance Corporation of America
Hope Now, Support and Guidance for Homeowners

This year, he led hundreds of protesters to the home of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack. It paid off:

“I get a call on my cell phone 20 minutes later that we want to work this thing out,” said Marks.

He’s bullied the biggest banks into submission. They’ve struck deals with Marks’ company: the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America that, over the past two years, has helped 100,000 people restructure their loans and get lower payments.

Mason said, “Some people say look, these people should not have been in homes in the first place. They can’t really afford them.”

“The problem is not who we made the mortgages too. It’s the mortgage product,” replied Marks.

Across the country, Marks organizes arena-sized mortgage counseling sessions which have drawn more than 300,000 people.

Why does he do it? As CEO, Marks earns $150,000 a year. But the root of his almost religious fervor may be the severe stutter he had as a child. Marks said it made him sympathize with others who were held back – whether because of poverty or race.

What some see as his fighting spirit, others say is a publicity grab.

“I’ve been called all kinds of things,” said Marks. “So whether it’s Robin Hood or bank terrorist or whatever – one thing people don’t say is that we’re not effective.”

America’s banks will testify Bruce Marks doesn’t stutter anymore. They hear him loud and clear.
usedkarguy, on October 16, 2009 at 5:07 pm said:

I SMELL SMOKE! Can’t wait to get my hands on the note when they file it with the sheriff! Wells Fargo, here we come! HSBC serves as trustee for quite a few of their trusts. Let’s see what shows up.
Abby in CA, on October 16, 2009 at 4:45 pm said:

Alina–thank you!!

It is exactly what we need to do!

I’m sending to some CEOs–like James Dimon of JPMorgan Choase–asking him the same thing?
Why the forgeries by his people or by somebody using names of Chase’s employees.

What is he going to do about the wholesale forgeries?

Remember the story of David and Goliath!! This may be the ‘stone’ that David uses in his slingshot to bring down Goliath, armor and all!!

I think David even cut off Goliath’s head once Goliath fell to the ground.
msoliman, on October 16, 2009 at 3:35 pm said:

SAXON…. owned by Morgan Stanley!

MSOLIMAN
ADMIN@BORROWERHOTLINE.COM
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm said:

All,

Going to spend some family time for a few hours but when I get back and everyone goes to bed we can set up some strategies to get this into the mainstream by Monday morning…

Let the game begin…

4closureFraud
Alina, on October 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm said:

FROM THE MARKET TICKER:

Let us not forget that under “TEFRA” passed in 1982 “bearer debt instruments” are unlawful at the Federal Level, and as such a “bearer instrument”, or an “endorsement in blank”, is likely a violation of federal law as well as state laws that require an identified assignee for all such instruments.
Alina, on October 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm said:

TYING IT TOGETHER: MASSIVE, PERNICIOUS FRAUD

Check this story out from the Market Ticker:

A “mortgage” sold to someone without an actual asset backing, where the only “security” is the belief that the price will continue to rise and the “owner” will in fact pay only the interest (or in many cases less than the interest) is not a mortgage at all. An Interest-Only note is not legally a mortgage as no principal paydown is contemplated or made and at the end of the term no conveyance to the putative owner takes place; likewise a “mortgage” where the borrower is qualified on a teaser rate for an “Option ARM” should have brought immediate criminal fraud charges to the purveyor, since there was no reasonable expectation by the firm writing it that the principal would be paid. Indeed, such “buyers” were never homeowners, but rather were simply renting their properties from the bank!

for the entire story, click here:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1514-Tying-It-Together-Massive,-Pernicious-Fraud.html
Deontos, on October 16, 2009 at 2:34 pm said:

ForeclosureFraud

Are you monitoring your twiterstream?

“The Guide” is going VIRAL.

As they said in that old movie the “Andromeda Strain”
when the crisis hit, “Sir, we have a wildfire!”

Or I’ll make my own quote, “What we have here is a SUCCESS at communicating!”

We need PR now. Perhaps come up with a “Statement” to encourage people to post their “Papers” to scribd. Then lets set a goal to get 50 volunteers to post and comment back to all these sites.

You could twiggle your twitterstream to figure best places to post and then assign to volunteers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These Banksters, I think I see the whites of their eyes about now.
Alina, on October 16, 2009 at 2:32 pm said:

Abby and Foreclosure Fraud,

I have followed your advise and sent copies of Foreclosure Fraud’s manual to the FBI, U.S. Congress Representatives, and State of Florida Senator and Representative.

The more coverage we get on this, the better.
Marcus, on October 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm said:

Renewed Attention to Halting Foreclosures

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer (10/16/09)

With foreclosures continuing to rise, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) hopes to spark interest in a bill that would give borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth new FHA mortgages.

The Homeownership Vesting Plan Act—which received little attention when first introduced in March—would pay original lenders the difference between the old and new loans over the next five years, and pay mortgage servicers $1,000 for each loans they agree to convert, while borrowers would get a lower rate on a smaller loan.

Crafted to reduce foreclosures and help keep home prices from sinking further, the legislation seeks to pay for the $50 billion initiative largely with unused TARP money that was set aside for less successful home-loan workout programs.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on October 16, 2009 at 1:51 pm said:

Bank Errors Mar Mortgage Relief
Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Oct. 16, 2009 – Towana Gooch, a single mom who lives with her 10-year-old daughter, was on the verge of losing her town house in suburban Maryland after her mortgage lender kicked her out of a government loan modification program. The problem, she says she was notified, was a 7-cent error.

Later, the lender told her the tiny error wasn’t actually the issue, that her low income disqualified her from the program. She called the bank trying to get to the bottom of it all, but she got no answers and feared there was nothing to head off foreclosure, scheduled Friday.

After an inquiry by The Associated Press, the bank, America’s Servicing Company, a division of Wells Fargo & Co., finally returned her call this week to apologize for the 7-cent error and say the foreclosure sale had been put on hold for now.

Though her story is striking, Gooch is far from alone in her problems with the Obama administration’s loan modification program, which provides federal subsidies to encourage lenders to renegotiate rather than foreclose on certain borrowers. Seven months in, many qualified applicants are being rejected, often through bank errors, with no avenue of appeal. Until this month, lenders didn’t even have to tell them why.

“If the servicer messes up, even by accident, there is no meaningful way to complain, no real appeals process, no viable ombudsman to consider,” said Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition in San Francisco. “Most importantly, there are no consequences to the banks for failure to do what they have promised to do.”

Meanwhile, foreclosures continue to rise with each month’s report of new job layoffs and each new wave of adjustable-rate mortgages resetting to higher payments.

Foreclosure filings are on a pace to hit about 3.5 million this year, up from more than 2.3 million last year, according to a Thursday report by RealtyTrac, which compiles data for most U.S. counties.

Gooch, who lost her job as a recruiter earlier this year, said she had been thrilled last month when the bank notified her that her monthly payment would be cut in half, to $938. Gooch agreed to the payment and even logged on to the White House Web site to post a public comment personally thanking President Barack Obama.

“I was so confident in this that I didn’t make a plan B or C,” she said in a telephone interview from her town home in Upper Marlboro, Md.

But America’s Serving Company later notified Gooch that she no longer qualified for the program because her first automatic withdrawal payment should have been $938.07, not simply $938.

Government officials can’t say how many people have been turned down because of a typo, lost fax or an oversight by a poorly trained bank employee. But the Treasury Department acknowledges that far too many applicants have wrongly been rejected.

In August, the department told mortgage buyer Freddie Mac to begin auditing participating banks through a program called “second look.”

Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokeswoman, said officials are still trying to determine the scope of lenders’ noncompliance with the program. Freddie Mac is currently reviewing about 1,000 files per week, but there are no reliable figures yet on how many mistakes were caught, she said.

“In every reported case of eligible borrowers being denied modifications, we worked with the servicer to correct the problem,” Reilly said.

As of last month, the government had provided some $1 million to banks in investor subsidies and incentive payments through its Home Affordable Modification Program, according to the Government Accountability Office. Obama initiated the $50 billion effort in March to encourage lenders to renegotiate rather than foreclose on borrowers who meet certain criteria, such as having mortgage payments that exceed 31 percent of their monthly gross income.

The program was slow to take off, but last week Treasury announced that half a million homeowners had enrolled in three-month trial loan modifications – a target that was met a month ahead of schedule.

David Berenbaum, executive vice president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, said his organization is seeing an increasing number of bank mistakes as the program gets into full swing. He attributes the problem to a shortage of well-trained loan counselors at banks overwhelmed by applications.

The coalition, which has been working with Gooch to modify her loan, believes her income meets the guidelines under the program.

“We have to fight for the modifications or refinances in more than half the cases that we see,” Berenbaum said.

The government has established a general foreclosure crisis hot line number that can take complaints, but housing counselors doubt its utility for sorting out complex mistakes. Treasury recently set up a special phone number to appeal urgent cases, but the number is available only to certain government-designated housing counselors.

Lenders have been directed by the government to set up their own appeals process. And by December, banks participating in the program will be required to report why certain homeowners were not offered mortgage relief. Those reports will be made public to encourage lenders to modify more loans.

The administration also wants to impose tough new penalties on lenders who wrongly deny applicants, including kicking them out of the program or taking away incentives. Freddie Mac is tasked with deciding when and how banks might be punished.

Banks say they are working to prevent errors but are grappling with large volumes of applications and changing government guidelines. Wells Fargo hired 5,800 people this year alone to review modification applications, a 79 percent increase since last year, and initiated its own internal appeals process.

After being contacted by the AP on Tuesday, America’s Servicing Company put Gooch’s foreclosure sale on hold “to further review the customer circumstance and to determine what is in her best interest,” said Kevin Waetke, a Wells Fargo spokesman. The bank also has reimbursed a $938 payment she made, pending the review, he said.

Gooch said she was told she is likely to be reinstated into the three-month trial modification program.

This time, however, she’s containing her excitement.

“I still want to see something in writing,” she said.
Don, on October 16, 2009 at 12:47 pm said:

The guide makes it to ml-implode.com as a link in the story titled :Tying It Together: Massive, Pernicious Fraud

http://ml-implode.com/staticnews/2009-10-16_TyingItTogetherMassivePerniciousFraud.html

Go write comments, tell people about this site, get busy!
Deontos, on October 16, 2009 at 11:59 am said:

ForeclosureFraud

The communication was not a “Posting” to MichaelMoore.com, that would have been GREAT!

The communication was a SUBMISSION to be considered as a “Story” on his website. So at present there is nothing there. They must decide whether my “communication” is worth publishing I guess.
This is the link where I made the submission:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/submit
You certainly may have more to add
to what I started with them.
———————————————–

RE: The Guide
Regarding information being added to the guide. A prior poster said they were going to submit a “.jpg”. How can we make this information indexable by Google so people can do on going look ups?
I mean if it is a “.jpg”, it’s just becomes an unlabeled picture, right?
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 16, 2009 at 11:14 am said:

Ella my email address is in the guide at the end. You can send them there.

Deontos

Can you post the link to where you posted your comment to michael. That way the people here from livinglies can comment on your comment…

Thanks for all your support!

4closureFraud
Ella, on October 16, 2009 at 10:56 am said:

if we have signatures which could be added to the ones on http://www.scribd.com/doc/20916919/Foreclosure-Fraud-Guide-to-Looking-up-Public-Records-for-Fraud….is there a place to send the jpg files?

We need to get as many signatures from as many signers as possible. I’m sure they will show up being VPs from many banks.
Deontos, on October 16, 2009 at 9:56 am said:

——————————————————————————————
Abby in CA, on October 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am Said:

“……………..Can somebody send the guide to Ohio’s Rep Marcy Kaptur?”
——————————————————————————————

Abby,

Good idea! I don’t have Marcy’s email address handy at the moment.
But I thought …… I wonder if I can get this through to Michael?

So I posted a “Story” contribution to MichaelMore.com. See below….

————————————

Grassroots Direct Action On Foreclosure Fraud

Michael,

The link included is to a scribd account where people are compiling
a record of FRAUDULENT MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS being done at the behest of the bailout beauties. The to big to fail so called banks; JP Morgan Chase, etc … ad nauseam

These fabricated documents have been and continue to be executed by the MILLIONS all over the United States. Homeowners are being legally run over roughshod by this activity and many courts of local jurisdiction are not QUESTIONING the documents; this is especially true in uncontested foreclosure default judgments.

The objective is to bring these practices to glare of the public light of day. Hopefully forcing more in the judiciary to do the their job and STOP the fraud. Good examples of judges “getting it” are Schack and now Honorable Judge Long in Boston.

The more people contribute to this database the more WEIGHT it will have in the Court of Public Opinion.

WE NEED YOUR POWERFUL VOICE TO ENCOURAGE HOMEOWNERS ACROSS THE NATION WHO ARE BEING DE-FRAUDED TO PUT THE **PROOF** HERE.

By all means VET what I am saying. GO TO THE LINK:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20916919/Foreclosure-Fraud-Guide-to-Looking-up-Public-Records-for-Fraud
Abby in CA, on October 16, 2009 at 9:11 am said:

All– we all need to print copy of the latest Foreclosure Fraud Guide on how to look up recordings, replete with sample forgeries, and send one to your senators with a brief letter, saying ‘please advise me on what you are going to do about the massive fraud perpetrated on main street americans by the big banks!’ Look at these forgeries!

Can somebody send the guide to Ohio’s Rep Marcy Kaptur?>
Lisa E, on October 16, 2009 at 8:53 am said:

Marcus,

Excellent advice.

Note to self: When in court, nether open mouth, nor insert foot!

Thank you!

Lisa E (Pro se FL)
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 16, 2009 at 8:35 am said:

RE: the Guide from the ticker…

Let’s not mince words here:

The entire finance and real-estate “industry” is filled with massive, pernicious fraud, and we now have only one question remaining – will The Government do its lawful and mandated job, that of prosecuting the bad actors, or has it joined with the fraudsters, become one with them, and thus, declare itself as a gang of mobsters rather than a legitimate government? The latter, of course will beg only the question of what should be an ordinary American’s response.

read rest here

http://bit.ly/vD5CC

4closureFraud
Deontos, on October 16, 2009 at 7:27 am said:

ForeclosureFraud

Regarding the Guide

YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The more blogosphere exposure THE BETTER, This is GREAT!
Marcus, on October 16, 2009 at 7:07 am said:

There is another school of thought on what a pro se to do at a hearing. The judge has an obligation to read the pleadings before the hearing; most of them don’t. Ask the judge if he read your pleading; if she did not request another hearing date A pro se is usually no match at verbal argumentation against a professional liar, hoops, I mean lawyer. So the pro se should not say anything.
If the judge ask you to talk, just say that all your arguments are in writing in your pleading and that you don’t have anything to add. If you talk, what ever you say will have more weight in the eyes of the judge than what your wrote and it may be used against you, because many judges don’t take the time to read pleadings.
If you decide to talk please bring a court reporter, it is a very powerful deterrence.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Lisa E, on October 16, 2009 at 6:49 am said:

YIPPEE! YIPPEE!!

KNEW IT— I KNEW IT —I KNEW IT!!!!!!

AMAZING!!!!!!!

YOU DID IT!!!!!

I told you! YOU CHANGED THE WORLD THIS WEEK!!!!

THANK YOU MY FRIEND!

THANK YOU!

WITH GREAT ADMIRATION,
LISA
Lisa E., on October 16, 2009 at 6:42 am said:

ForeclosureFraud!!!!!

I hereby declare you KING OF LIVING LIES for the day!

ALL HAIL FORECLOSUREFRAUD!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 16, 2009 at 6:03 am said:

Guys,

The guide just got picked up on the front page of The Market Ticker…

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1513-A-Birdie-On-Possible-Foreclosure-Frauds.html

Here we go…

4closureFraud
Lisa E., on October 16, 2009 at 5:03 am said:

ARPAD,

I wrote this out for a friend of mine to say at her Hearing on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Of course, it requires a bit of adaptation for your own personal circumstances.

Focus in on the purpose of the hearing, as your starting, middle and endpoints. It all stems from this: There are only two circumstances under which the judge can deny the lenders motion for summary judgment which are (1) then lender has not come forward with admissible evidence that (usually an affidavit with supporting authenticated documents) to prove each element of their case; or (2) the banks evidence is properly opposed by a properly filed affidavit that creates a genuine issue of material fact (meaning the bani has not proven their position beyond doubt).

You have got to rely FULLY on the existing statutes of your state. Make sure you understand your rights and simply go in armed with the protections to which we are legally entitled to.

I am very nervous and scared coming here to talk to you. I almost didn’t show up but I was encouraged to come by some good friends. Please forgive my slow and sometimes confused speech as I am recovering from a brain tumor and treatment.

I have not been successful in finding a good lawyer to represent me. I have been packing up and scared that I have no place to go with my teenaged son.

Also, I read Florida Statutes § 90.953 and § 673.3091 over and over trying to understand how Saxon Mortgage has the legal right to foreclose on my home.

I am confused as to who Saxon Mortgage is and I would like Saxon Mortgage to prove that I owe them money and also that they have the right to foreclose on my house. I signed a Mortgage and a Note with a different company and then things got very confusing changing hands 4 or 5 times. I don’t understand where or when Saxon Mortgage got involved.

I looked through all these legal filings and can not find any Mortgage or any Note at all. I was hoping to find both a Mortgage and a Note showing how it got into the hands of Saxon Mortgage, but I couldn’t find it.

When my first lawyer filed an answer to the foreclosure complaint, he told me that Saxon Mortgage has to show the Court that they have a valid right to take my home and until they do that I can stay in my home. Maybe I misunderstood him, but so far, I have not seen Saxon Mortgage provide that Proof.

I have more to say, but don’t want to get confused and am happy to give the rest of what I want to say to you and Saxon’s lawyers so you can read it yourselves.

GOOD LUCK TO YOU!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
M.SOLIMAN, on October 15, 2009 at 11:57 pm said:

COMMENT: I have stopped the illegal sale of my home five times, with the last time on the court steps at 12:05 p.m. on the day of the sale. I have never given up and am still in my home and intend to remain here for a long time.

There is nothing illegal about the sale. It is something ABSOLUTELY subject to contest . . .got it. Does the lender participant , conduit and FDIC member backed Bank have issues to overcome? MAJOR BIG TIME HUGE. Are you missing these arguments in place of a lost note (Counsel) in a structured securities – Yes.

They have the right to move against your home under a power of sale for a highly structured asset backed registrant offering . The Parties are playing games with the recovery firms called trustees to meet unexpected compliance problems? This is an example of a multi level matter that is being played out at either the upper level of the ladder (Wall Street Investments and securities attorneys or the bottom rung in a UD court of law with a commissioner. .
——————————————————————-
I believe there is less opposition given the weight of the allegations on the Wall Street investor side and District or Appellate courts than there is in the jam packed and over crowded local court with its rules and limited jurisdiction.

I have read the Wall Street big bucks attorneys pleading and really i am shocked. they are not that impressive. . I am shocked. The venues at the lower level are none the less packed with a “next” mentaility.

A fraud committed by the lender such as forgery , altered docs, other deceptive bus practices are all something that might be heard in the damages phase of a trial. But it wont win your home back. Torts? Willful negligence or material misrepresentations?

Forgery as for a compliance document after the fact or something a broker did in order to get paid is not far off from a person writing a bad check at the grocery store.

So get smart as the jurisdiction for the Super Bowl Trophy is likely reserved in New York District court. for the biggest and baddest pension fund and capital management firms in the World teeing off against the lender elite for counsel. Would I go against these elite attorneys from the Manhattan area and square off with them using anyone of the cases you write in about? No problem. Bring these fools on (they have lives and I don’t) . Would I approach a case seeking class consideration assuming its will be certified….with Neil in my corner . .. Done. Yes, in a heart beat. NO PROBLEM.

I was one of them And continue to repeat this. I walked the walk and saw the exposure mount day in and day out. First, Westinghouse, Ford, then Continental Grain, the Money Store and Aames and finally the big guys who took over the sector G MAC, Citifinancial, Countrywide.

I love to help others but ….More later .So find a Sun Tsu way to exploit the thoroughbred Street investors locally where they send out these junior hacks to act as counsel. If an attorney has to rip off a borrower due to an inability to compete at this level then Holy moses.

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline
M.SOLIMAN, on October 15, 2009 at 10:21 pm said:

Here is my question:
When you go front of a Judge, (in a lost note case) what is the most simple way to explain your self without getting too technical and sounding too confusing?

SNATCH THE PEBBLES FROM MY HAND GRASSHOPPER!

THE LENDER LOST MY NOTE OR CANNOT FIND IT. THIS I AM GUESSING. THE NOTE IS LIKELY LOST TO A UCC FILING ANYWAY. SAM BUFORD MAKES SOME GOOD POINTS BUT BK COURT IS NOT EXACTLY THE UPPER ECHELON OF THE US DISTRICT COURT OR CT OF APPEALS.

AND WONT PREEMPTION UNDER ARTICLES 3 AND 9 PREEMPT THE LUST NODE ARGUMENTS.

TELL ME SOMETHING GOOD HERE YOUR HONOR WHERE I AM LOSING IT. OKAY, YOUR HONOR
YES, YES SIR,, UHHH OKAY YES SIR, I CANNOT AFFORD MY HOME!

CLUE – THE LENDERS COLLATERAL IS WITH A CUSTODIAL ACCOUNT. ITS PLEDGED, LISTED AND ENTERED INTO THE FED SYSTEM – UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE RECORDS WHEREBY ITS USED AS AN ASSET WHEREBY THE OBLIGATION IS A SECURITY ITO AN ISSUANCE. A. NOMINEE IS A SECURITIES TERM (WIKIPEDIA) AND MERS IS A NOMINEE HOLDING THE BENEFICIAL RIGHTS TO THE COLLATERAL AND SECURITY FBO INVESTORS AND SOURCE OF PAYMENTS TO A MASTER SERVICER ISSUING ASSET BACKS . THE REAL DEBT HERE IS THE BUG NOTE OR OBLIGATION OF THE LENDER AS THE DEPOSITOR AND NOW OBLIGOR.

TRY THIS INSTEAD. – DID THEY REALLY LOSE THE NOTE OR IS IT LOST TO THE SECURITIES WATERFALL CONSISTING OF VARIOUS TERM SECURITIES I.E. DERIVATIVES SPRUNG FROM THE PLATFORM AND MADE INTO A STRUCTURED SECURITIES DEAL – THEREFORE ITS THE OBLIGOR WHO WILL INDEMNIFY PAYMENTS AS THE TRUE SUBSTITUTE UNDER THE SERVICE RS AGREEMENT AS A BIG BROTHER BORROWER OR ONE STOP DEBTOR – THEY ARE ON THE LINE TO MAKE GOOD AND BUY BACK AN IMPAIRED ASSET – WHEN YOU STOP MAKING PAYMENTS YOU GET BOOTED BY BIG BROTHER AND HE 1) MAKES GOOD ON A BUY BACK OR 2) TAKES YOUR HOME AND DUMPS YOUR LOAN – UNLESS THEY CAN NOT GET PAST YOU AND TAKE YOUR HOME AWAY IN A SHAM TRUSTEE SALE….AH HA -YEP!
ITS A CALLED A REPO OR BUY BACK COMMITMENT
BY AN OBLIGER. ITS A LENDER SECURITIES PARTICIPANTS WORST NIGHT MARE.

MAYBE THE NOTE IS LOST TO THE LENDER AS TO CERTAIN RIGHTS , ENFORCEMENT OF THE SECURITY AND THE EVIDENCE FOR DELAYED TRANSFERS. [Someone attack him please...make him stop! Please! No More....Stop it! Now!]

MSOLIMAN
ADMIN@BORROWERHOTLINE.COM
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm said:

Updated public record look up guide for fraud with more vice president / assistant secretary info…

Anyone have others that they would like to add?

http://bit.ly/4closureFraudGuide

4closureFraud
Arpad, on October 15, 2009 at 9:07 am said:

Hello Everyone!
First I want to thank Everybody on this side for providing such a great public service for so many of us!
Here is my question: When you go front of a Judge, (in a lost note case) what is the most simple way to explain your self without getting too technical and sounding too confusing?

Arpad
NICK, on October 15, 2009 at 4:01 am said:

I would like some advise on what I should do. I filed a complaint against my lender and broker Pro-Per back in October 2007. The basis of my complaint is that my loan documents were forged and was the victim of predatory lending. I filed Pro-Per because I was unable to afford a lawyer. I have been able to survive two different Demurs and Motions to Strike and Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and have a trial date in March 2010. Over the past two years I was always careful to follow the court’s procedures and comply with all deadlines. In May 2009, I hired a lawyer that read my story that I posted on this website. When I met with her, she was confident that she could help me and was very convincing. I felt she had the same passion that I did to fight against predatory lenders and win my case. I informed her up-front that I did not have much money. I paid her a retainer and she said I could work on her home and also file court papers as she needed me. At the time that I hired her, I was about to attend a deposition by defendant. She attended the depo with me, but she stated that she was unaware of the details of my case, so she was not objecting to anything, so I left the deposition feeling that it did not go well. When I first met with her, I informed her that I needed her to send out discovery and set up depos, She stated that she wanted to Amend the Complaint to add additional defendants and Causes of Actions. None of this has been done as of today. Seven days after I paid her the money, she was threatening to withdraw from my case because she said that I was not complying with her requests for my documents, which was not true. I gave her all the documents that I had. She also said that she was unable to get in touch with me, which was also not true because I had been to her house numerous times to do work. Defendants served a Request for Production of 22 different documents, and the day before they were due, she called and informed us that she was not able to prepare the documents and that we needed to do retrieve the files from her home, which is at least 25 minutes from where we live, put the documents in order and make copies and bring them back to her. She was very verbally abusive toward us and after a confrontation occurred between my girlfriend and her she informed me that I was not to discuss my case with her or she would resign. This made it very hard for me because my girlfriend has helped me from the beginning. She never should have had us doing her job to begin with. We are not attorneys’ and that is why I hired her. She became very negative and said that I was going to lose my case and the judge was going to dismiss it.
After her first CMC (which she filed the statement late), the judge required a status letter to be filed by a certain date with she did not do. Over the next several months, I was at her home at least every other weekend and during the week, filing documents, all over the bay area, never missing any of her deadlines for her other clients, always available when she needed me. I had requested more than once that we discuss the details of my case and our strategy’s and she refused stating that there was no time for that and she was not going to waste time listening to me. As the next court date approached, she did not file a timely CMC statement or a status letter. I sent her a lenghly e-mail with my concerns that she was not properly representing me and did not treat me with respect. After several attempts to contact her, she finally telephoned me and informed me that she wanted to withdraw from my case, and that I needed to sign a Substitution of Attorney and that the judge would most likely be dismissing my case and trying to intimidate me by saying that I was going to lose my home. I refused to sign anything and told her that I would see her in court. This was the third time she had threatened to withdraw and it had only been three months since I hired her. By the day we appeared in court, she had not filed a substitution of attorney or had she filed the CMC statement. She arrived late to court and immediately informed the judge that she would be resigning. The judge wanted us to try to work it out. As soon as I requested to speak, my attorney said that she would be willing to step outside and talk to me. We worked out our differences and informed the court that she no longer was resigning and the judge assigned my case to mediation. Again my attorney stated that she wanted to amend the complaint to add additional defendants. The judge said that she should do this immediately. The judge ordered that we choose a mediator and inform the court within 30 days and set a Compliance hearing. My attorney again did not comply with this request even though I worked for her again and sent her a reminder email to notify the court. She not only didn’t send a status letter, she also failed to appear at the compliance hearing and now is subject to sanctions. The judge has ordered both attorneys to appear to show cause why she should not sanction them further or dismissal of the actions/striking of the pleadings pursuant to CCP 177.5 and 575.2.
This is where I stand now. I sent her an e-mail asking her why she had not complied with the court and that I was very concerned because she had not done anything she said she was going to do. I also asked her what the judge meant by that. She said that she had chosen a mediator and did not know why the court did not receive any documents from the mediator. It is not the mediator’s responsibility to notify the court. It was hers. She then informed me verbally of the mediation date. The OSC hearing is set for 11/05/09 and she is to file a declaration by 10/29/09. She has not filed anything in my case since June 8, 2009 which was one week after she was retained. She has not provided me with the legal representation that I am entitled to, nor has she conducted any discovery or responded to any of my requests. I don’t know what my legal rights are. What happens to my case, if she continues to be noncompliant. Would the judge actually dismiss, and if so, what is my recourse?
I have worked so hard fighting lenders, brokers, and their attorneys. I have gone to the Department of Real Estate, Department of Corporations, District Attorney’s office, Department of Justice, and even appeared on Channel 7 on your side with my story. I have stopped the illegal sale of my home five times, with the last time on the court steps at 12:05 p.m. on the day of the sale. I have never given up and am still in my home and intend to remain here for a long time.
I believe in what I am fighting for and intend to try to help innocent homeowners who are victims of Predatory Lending Practices and against crooked lawyers who are misleading and taking their monies.
This is why I am asking you for your advise as to what I should do. I am posting this on your site because this is where she found me and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.
I want you especially to become aware that this is happening on your website. I was told that I should not make a complaint with the State Bar while she was still representing me. I do not have money to hire a different lawyer, but can I proceed with a lawyer that I do not trust.

Neil, thank you for taking the time to read my story. I anxiously await your reply and the comments and advise of your readers.
TW, on October 14, 2009 at 10:14 am said:

Feds to Offer Easier Aid, Incentives for Modifications and Short Sales

*from DSnews.com (should be BS news.com)
Welcome to DSNews.com—delivering stories, ideas, links, companies, people, events, and videos impacting the residential mortgage default servicing industry

http://www.dsnews.com/articles/feds-to-offer-easier-aid-incentives-for-modifications-and-short-sales-2009-10-13

I know healthcare is important to millions of people in this country but damn, when will MSM begin to cover the mass rape & pillaging of our country?
Abby in CA, on October 14, 2009 at 9:12 am said:

See just how much our politicians are paid by big banking interests!!

BY Robert Borosage, co-Director Campaign For America’s Future posted 10/142009 Huffington Post

WILL WE CURB WALL STREETS CASINO??

Even as the health insurance companies draw down on health care reform, another showdown is just beginning in Washington. On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee will begin marking up the first legislation to try to curb Wall Street’s casino. And if you think the health insurance companies are packing heat, wait till you see the firepower the banks will unleash to frustrate reform.

The Committee will focus on two core reform measures. The first, the regulation of derivatives, goes to the heart of the current collapse. Derivatives are the exotic instruments that Warren Buffett warned were “weapons of financial mass destruction.” Derivatives have been traded with little regulation, over the counter, in private deals. This allowed companies like AIG essentially to open a casino on top of an insurance company, and take bets without the prudence required of a Las Vegas bookie. When AIG went belly up and threatened to bring down the entire financial house of cards, taxpayers ended up with a bill totaling over $180 billion and counting.

The reforms call for standardizing derivatives, trading them on a public exchange, with transparency, so prices can be compared and holdings regulated. Common sense, one would think. (for a good summary, see the estimable Harold Meyerson’s piece)

But the five largest American banks — in rough order of declining solvency: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup — hold fully 95% of derivatives — with a notional value of over $290 trillion. In the first six months of the year, they made about $15 billion trading in these things. Not surprisingly, they have leveled their guns at the very notion of a public exchange. They enlisted companies that use derivatives to hedge against foreign exchange risks and the like, arguing that the reforms would raise costs all around. They have largely succeeded in the congressional cloakrooms.

So the bill that the House will consider on Wednesday creates a clearinghouse, not a publicly managed exchange. It also allows banks to decide that a deal is so unique that it needn’t be posted on the clearinghouse. The best experts in the field — like Michael Greenberger of the University of Maryland — warn that the legislation might end up WEAKENING current law. That is no small achievement, because, as we saw in the collapse of AIG, current law is toothless.

The second basic reform to be considered is a Consumer Protection Finance Agency to protect consumers from getting gouged or defrauded by lenders on the whole range of consumer loans — mortgages, car loans, payday lending, credit cards. The regulators who currently have some police power failed to use it before the crash — as exemplified by the systematic fraud practiced in peddling complex subprime mortgages to people who could not hope to pay them back. And after claiming to be born again cops on the beat, the same regulators have failed to do much since the crash — as exemplified by the record fees banks are exacting from depositors, or by hiking interest rates on credit card holders. The reasons for their failure are both ideological — the abiding conservative belief that markets are self-regulating and regulation is costly, and institutional — the regulators’ first duty is to insure the health of the banks. If the banks are getting healthy by gouging their customers, the regulators turn their heads.

So the CPFA is designed to create an independent cop on the beat to protect consumers and police the banks and credit card companies. Needless to say, the banks don’t like this idea. Already they’ve succeeded in delaying and diluting the administration’s proposal. The current draft strips out the mandate that banks offer customers “plain vanilla” alternatives — a clean 30 year, fixed rate mortgage, for example, when peddling exotic ARMS with balloon payments. Worse, it now suggests vesting enforcement power in a council of the very same regulators that have failed so miserably in the past and present.

But that’s not all. The banking lobby is nothing if not shameless. They hope to use the reforms to WEAKEN current law. They are pushing to make the federal standard the ceiling on reform, stripping the power of states to have higher standards. Basically, they are hoping to find a way to shut down the independent investigations of state attorneys general like New York’s Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo or Illinois’ Lisa Madigan. (for a good summary of this see Dave Johnson’s blog here)

How do the banks fend off needed reform? Follow the money. A recent report by Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation shows that the 27 members of the House Financial Services Committee have received over one-fourth of their contributions from the FIRE (Finance, insurance and real estate sector). Ranking Republican Spencer Baucus from Alabama opposes the CFPA, arguing that we don’t need “more regulation,” we just need “smart regulation.” He received a staggering 71% of his contributions from the finance sector over the first six months of this year (and 45% of his total contributions over his career). Democrat Melissa Bean who leads the effort to gut state regulatory authority over the banks has received fully 42% of her contributions for the first six months from the banking sector. Not surprisingly, the champions of reform like Rep. Alan Grayson, Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Adam Putman, and Carolyn McCarthy all pull in the lowest percentage from the sector.

Historically, the banks, as Senator Dick Durbin decried in disgust, “own the place.” And they’ve succeeded thus far in frustrating reform, even while pocketing literally hundreds of billions in support from taxpayers.

Terrific documentation made available by researchers at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) provides the details. Citigroup received about $341 billion from taxpayers in the bailout, and dispensed $4.9 million for lobbyists in the nine months after the bailout and $5.6 million in campaign contributions in 2008. (Talk about return on investment). Bank of America got $199 billion from the bailout and paid lobbyists $3.6 million in the nine months thereafter, while making campaign contributions of $7.2 million in 2008. Goldman Sachs pocketed a nifty $63.6 billion in bailout fund while setting aside $11.4 billion for bonuses and compensation for the first six months of 2009. (Lobbying fees $1.8 million; 2008 campaign contributions $7.1 million)

But this time it could be different. Backroom deals are no longer safe. Americans have been fleeced of trillions in the value of their homes and their savings because of Wall Street’s reckless excesses. Then as taxpayers, they were extorted to ante up literally trillions more to forestall economic collapse by bailing out the banking sector. Insult was added to that injury when the Federal Reserve refused to tell the Congress who got the money and on what terms.

Legislators would be well advised to understand the cozy old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable. Americans are livid and paying attention. Legislators who rely on Wall Street to finance their campaigns and then lead the effort to block or dilute reforms will discover that their constituents know what they have been up to. Organizations like my own Campaign for America’s Future, the Sunlight Foundation, Americans for Financial Reform, Huffington Post bloggers will make certain the word gets out. Legislators may discover that Wall Street’s money is a burden, not a blessing.

The House committee’s markup is the beginning of a long process that will make health care reform look like a summer’s picnic. Legislators will have to decide what side they are on. It is up to us to make certain that they understand we will hold them accountable for the choice they make.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/will-we-curb-wall-streets_b_320549.html
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 14, 2009 at 9:01 am said:

St. Pete homeowner faces loan modification confusion

By STACIE SCHAIBLE
News Channel 8
Published: October 14, 2009

ST. PETERSBURG – Tricia Brady thought she was one of the fortunate homeowners to have her mortgage modified under the federal government’s Making Home Affordable program.

But, it turns out, she isn’t so lucky.

A spokeswoman for J.P. Morgan Chase, the parent company of EMC, said the investor group that owns Brady’s loan would not agree to Brady being placed in the Making Home Affordable program. The spokeswoman said she would NOT IDENTIFY THE INVESTOR GROUP because it is a Chase client. EMC only services the loan.

“Some investors will not allow Making Home Affordable modifications because they cut the value of their investments too much — enough so they are losing money on their investment,” the spokeswoman said. “Investors don’t have to tell us why they decline a modification. It is not in our control.”

http://bit.ly/bZic0

I’ll bet it is in their control to foreclose on the property!

4closureFraud
stopGOVTwaste, on October 14, 2009 at 5:41 am said:

I’d like to know why the MERS’ system that was supposed to make things so much easier to track has done exactly the opposite? Do we need to plan a day where we can protest (nationally) at our local courthouses just like they did in 1786?

http://www.shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/shaysapp/scene.do?shortName=Petition

Per the 14th Amendment;

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
angry&not taking it, on October 13, 2009 at 9:39 pm said:

Dan ck your email

all
to pass along the some info i researched re; county records

after reading thru the ca code here http://law.justia.com/california/codes/com/9501-9528.html

the type of docs that can be recorded as an example here in ca
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/rcd/recorders/genrecording/recdoc.htm

docs that can be recorded in a debtors name without the need of poa so it seems to make no difference it appears to be a creditors right to identify the real property collateral obligation with the debtor by means of recording in public land records.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/rcd/recorders/genrecording/recdoc.htm
Dan, on October 13, 2009 at 6:05 pm said:

Hello Every one, I would like to no does any one out there no of any Lawyers that work in Oregon, that would no about this stuff? (Mers) I had a Countrywide loan now a B.O.A. loan, Tried to redo the loan what a joke, 9 months of paper work and time.They up my payment a $1000.00. that helps, it does not look good right now. The lawyers that are listed on the web site in Oregen do not get it. I talk to two of them and the 3rd one,his phone is disconnected,I think they are waiting to see if some one else takes on these cases in Oregon.Thank you, Need help as soon as possible. If you have any information, please e-mail me at dkjohnst60@yahoo.com
angry&not taking it, on October 13, 2009 at 2:42 pm said:

answer…. is it a sale or a loan?…
if its a sale the must be a receipt
if its a loan its still on their books…

oh yea … its a sale… but the Paid receipt[ note] has be lost or destroyed to escape the evidence and liabilty.
angry&not taking it, on October 13, 2009 at 2:39 pm said:

answer…. is it a sale or a loan?…
if its a sale the must be a receipt
if its a loan its still on their books…
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 13, 2009 at 2:36 pm said:

Just uploaded latest copy of the guide.

Foreclosure Fraud A Guide to Looking up Public Records for Assignment Fraud.

Added Bill Koch of Select Portfolio, by request, along with some other info.

http://bit.ly/2Q4toi

4closureFraud
usedkarguy, on October 13, 2009 at 10:46 am said:

Has anyone heard from “ANONYMOUS”? He’d know this one!
usedkarguy, on October 13, 2009 at 10:40 am said:

Maher: does the answer to the riddle have to do with the bankruptcy remote status of the sponsor, which the GSE cannot take protection under? Possible exposure to fraudulent reporting violations due to the attestations of those involved unable to claim innocence (due to surrender of control and lack thereof)? enlighten me, oh Wise One!
Lisa E, on October 13, 2009 at 10:18 am said:

ATTN: Floridians in Foreclosure:

Put together a comment on your case and what you are up against with these Plaintiffs! YOU CAN DO IT! See the other comments made by people with letters after their names and years of education! I’ve seen equally qualified comments posted right here on this blog!

Don’t let this opportunity pass you by. YOU can make an impact.

Here’s the entire list of comments to the Florida Supreme Court Foreclosure Task Force. You’d think with Florida being the second highest foreclosure state in the nation, we’d have a little more to say on the matter?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/foreclosure_comments.shtml

Here’s the report and the email address where to email comments by the 10/15/09 deadline!

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/foreclosure.shtml

Be sincere. Be yourself. Make a stand!

RAH-RAH!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Alina, on October 13, 2009 at 7:28 am said:

Everybody, please write to Pasco Circuit Judge Shawn Crane requesting that he sign an order giving an elderly woman back her house. The 92 year old woman was duped into signing a contract giving away her house to Joseph and Cynthia Clancy. The Clancys have been convicted of grand theft and are each facing 30 years in prison when sentenced later this month.

The attorney for the elderly woman filed a motion requesting an order forcing the convicted couple to deed back the house. The judge declined the motion.

For a copy of the story, please click http://suncoastpasco.tbo.com/content/2009/oct/09/92-year-old-pasco-woman-still-waiting-reclaim-home/
Lisa E., on October 13, 2009 at 3:28 am said:

RIDDLE ME THIS?

What kind of a county allows the following scenerio to be repeated millions of times without any end in sight? A fuddy-duddy, responsible, plain-Jane working mother without any legal training is financially devastated by an untenable mortgage, Then she is forced to defend her home single-handedly against a huge financial bohemoth; which finds her such an intimidating adversary that the practice of fraud, forgery, and attorney misconduct is considered the only way to beat her in court?

Don’t believe me? Seems some educated smart people agree!

KATHERINE PORTER, University of Iowa Professor of Law “Mistake and Misbehavior in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims” http://www.texaslrev.com/sites/default/files/issues/vol87/pdf/porter.pdf

COMMENTS LAUDING PORTER’S WORK: http://www.texaslrev.com/sites/default/files/seealso/vol87/pdf/87TexasLRevSeeAlso9.pdf

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Soliman, on October 13, 2009 at 12:04 am said:

RIDDLE ME THIS !

What does a private placement securities platform (offering) NOT have in common with the delivery into GSE programs (Fannie Mae Freddie Mac)?

Clue – It differntiates the method of delivery between an private lable and Gov programs. !

[This is really huge folks....MERS, UCC, USC and CNN can't compare to this killer defense in court. No can lose! ] msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Deontos, on October 12, 2009 at 9:59 pm said:

stopGOVTwaste,

Ooops! You said search this ONE Thread.
In that case………

The THREAD is:

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/

1) So GOOGLE search; use “QUOTES FOR THREAD Path”

So this is EXACTLY how it is entered in Google:

site:http://livinglies.wordpress.com/ “in-trouble-right-now-press-here”
The above search will yield ALL COMMENTS in that thread.

2) Now put your Keywords BEFORE the “site” parameter

“DISTRICT COURT”*.* site:http://livinglies.wordpress.com/ “in-trouble-right-now-press-here”
The above search will yield only comments in that thread with the
word DISTRICT COURT.
Deontos, on October 12, 2009 at 9:39 pm said:

stopGOVTwaste,

Have you tried this in GOOGLE?

A keyword “site” SEARCH:
site:http://livinglies.wordpress.com/ MERS*.*

It’s not exactly what you were asking for but may be of some help.

Just take out “MERS” and substitute another keyword. Say
WAMU*.*
NOD*.*
or if more than one word SEARCH, “then USE QUOTES”
“DISTRICT COURT”*.*
stopGOVTwaste, on October 12, 2009 at 6:13 pm said:

THANK YOU; Florida Defense Team, Deontos, Lisa E & Foreclosure Fraud for your help… I greatly appreciate it!

Also, thanks to Neil and the contributors to this site, for the collective knowledge here is more than I could have ever imagine. Sometimes it’s like drinking from a firehose but refreshing nonetheless.

*For the tech savvy folks out there – I wanted to be able to do a keyword search for this comment section and thought I could copy & paste the 1,200+ comments into a word or pdf document so I could find certain words or phrases.

I guess there was just too much data because my computer locked up twice on me… any ideas on how I could otherwise accomplish this task? Thanks again!!!
Lisa E, on October 12, 2009 at 4:58 pm said:

Dear Angryand Not Taking It Anymore!

Please contact me immediately regarding your database! I am working on the same idea!

Let’s not duplicate our efforts, but instead collaborate to get this up and running!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Flroida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail.com (remove spaces to email)
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 12, 2009 at 2:42 pm said:

Don

I don’t have anything on them yet but I will see what I can come up with.

4closureFraud
Lisa E., on October 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm said:

Hi Alina,

My take is a little different and a bit easier to argue since I don’t understand or know anything about UETA.

I get easily confused with the TILA, RESPA, UDAP, HAMP, etc. In fact, I’m still sure I MUST misunderstand something in this whole foreclosure mess. You’ll think I’m a fool because I have the crazy interpretation that financial institutions seem to be able to roll on into court and foreclose on millions of homes without one shred of evidence that they have the right to do so! Surely, I’m all mixed up!

Anyway……………

The Bank-sters can NOT have it both ways! This fraudster is saying to the FL Supreme Court (and by the way, comments were due on Oct. 1, 2009, and can’t be added now) “OH, you Silly Supremes! You have gotta know we scanned and shredded these babies, the Original Notes! Enough with the “Produce the Note” being added as a new requirement to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure nonsense!”.

BUT, in my case (and in hundreds that I review at the courthouse monthly), the ORIGINAL note is (VOILA) miraculously found and filed!

Well, golly gee…………how’d that happen? Were they dug out of the shredder bin, painstakingly put back together like a 1,000,000 piece puzzle, then gently taped up, and submitted to the state court as evidence of the Plaintiff’s right to foreclose?

So, which is it? No original notes available at all and then…………Oooopppsss, sorry, all those “found” notes are fraudulently created OR the notes weren’t destroyed and therefore this banker’s comments are a moot point. Can not be both! Choose your poison!

For example: see this docket file #24…scroll down to the “Turn the Lost Note Into Found Miracle”, which is repeated over and over in our nation’s judicial system. Copy & paste to include that equal sign at the end:
http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=502009CA015322XXXXMB&begin_date=&end_date=

Anyway, I STRONGLY URGE ALL Floridian Foreclosees to submit comments to the Florida Supreme Court in response to the Foreclosure Task Force’s Recommendations. Deadline is Oct 15th for comment submission.

Foreclosure Fraud would have a LOT to say with his tutorial on how to sleuth out the fraudulent assignments, notaries, signors, etc!

Here’s the link: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/foreclosure.shtml
Alina, on October 12, 2009 at 2:12 pm said:

SECTION 16. TRANSFERABLE RECORDS.
(a) In this section, “transferable record” means an electronic record that:
(1) would be a note under [Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code] or a document under [Article 7 of the Uniform Commercial Code] if the electronic record were in writing; and
(2) the issuer of the electronic record expressly has agreed is a transferable record.
(b) A person has control of a transferable record if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the transferable record reliably establishes that person as the person to which the transferable record was issued or transferred.
(c) A system satisfies subsection (b), and a person is deemed to have control of a transferable record, if the transferable record is created, stored, and assigned in such a manner that:
(1) a single authoritative copy of the transferable record exists which is unique, identifiable, and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), unalterable;
(2) the authoritative copy identifies the person asserting control as:
(A) the person to which the transferable record was issued; or
(B) if the authoritative copy indicates that the transferable record has been transferred, the person to which the transferable record was most recently transferred;
(3) the authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the person asserting control or its designated custodian;
(4) copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the person asserting control;
(5) each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and
(6) any revision of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.
(d) Except as otherwise agreed, a person having control of a transferable record is the holder, as defined in [Section 1-201(20) of the Uniform Commercial Code], of the transferable record and has the same rights and defenses as a holder of an equivalent record or writing under [the Uniform Commercial Code], including, if the applicable statutory requirements under [Section 3-302(a), 7-501, or 9-308 of the Uniform Commercial Code] are satisfied, the rights and defenses of a holder in due course, a holder to which a negotiable document of title has been duly negotiated, or a purchaser, respectively. Delivery, possession, and indorsement are not required to obtain or exercise any of the rights under this subsection.
(e) Except as otherwise agreed, an obligor under a transferable record has the same rights and defenses as an equivalent obligor under equivalent records or writings under [the Uniform Commercial Code].
(f) If requested by a person against which enforcement is sought, the person seeking to enforce the transferable record shall provide reasonable proof that the person is in control of the transferable record. Proof may include access to the authoritative copy of the transferable record and related business records sufficient to review the terms of the transferable record and to establish the identity of the person having control of the transferable record.
Source: Revised Article 9, Section 9-105.

Comment
1. Paper negotiable instruments and documents are unique in the fact that a tangible token – a piece of paper – actually embodies intangible rights and obligations. The extreme difficulty of creating a unique electronic token which embodies the singular attributes of a paper negotiable document or instrument dictates that the rules relating to negotiable documents and instruments not be simply amended to allow the use of an electronic record for the requisite paper writing. However, the desirability of establishing rules by which business parties might be able to acquire some of the benefits of negotiability in an electronic environment is recognized by the inclusion of this section on Transferable Records.
This section provides legal support for the creation, transferability and enforceability of electronic note and document equivalents, as against the issuer/obligor. The certainty created by the section provides the requisite incentive for industry to develop the systems and processes, which involve significant expenditures of time and resources, to enable the use of such electronic documents.
The importance of facilitating the development of systems which will permit electronic equivalents is a function of cost, efficiency and safety for the records. The storage cost and space needed for the billions of paper notes and documents is phenomenal. Further, natural disasters can wreak havoc on the ability to meet legal requirements for retaining, retrieving and delivering paper instruments. The development of electronic systems meeting the rigorous standards of this section will permit retention of copies which reflect the same integrity as the original. As a result storage, transmission and other costs will be reduced, while security and the ability to satisfy legal requirements governing such paper records will be enhanced.
Section 16 provides for the creation of an electronic record which may be controlled by the holder, who in turn may obtain the benefits of holder in due course and good faith purchaser status. If the benefits and efficiencies of electronic media are to be realized in this industry it is essential to establish a means by which transactions involving paper promissory notes may be accomplished completely electronically. Particularly as other aspects of such transactions are accomplished electronically, the drag on the transaction of requiring a paper note becomes evident. In addition to alleviating the logistical problems of generating, storing and retrieving paper, the mailing and transmission costs associated with such transactions will also be reduced.

2. The definition of transferable record is limited in two significant ways. First, only the equivalent of paper promissory notes and paper documents of title can be created as transferable records. Notes and Documents of Title do not impact the broad systems that relate to the broader payments mechanisms related, for example, to checks. Impacting the check collection system by allowing for “electronic checks” has ramifications well beyond the ability of this Act to address. Accordingly, this Act excludes from its scope transactions governed by UCC Articles 3 and 4. The limitation to promissory note equivalents in Section 16 is quite important in that regard because of the ability to deal with many enforcement issues by contract without affecting such systemic concerns.
Second, not only is Section 16 limited to electronic records which would qualify as negotiable promissory notes or documents if they were in writing, but the issuer of the electronic record must expressly agree that the electronic record is to be considered a transferable record. The definition of transferable record as “an electronic record that…the issuer of the electronic record expressly has agreed is a transferable record” indicates that the electronic record itself will likely set forth the issuer’s agreement, though it may be argued that a contemporaneous electronic or written record might set forth the issuer’s agreement. However, conversion of a paper note issued as such would not be possible because the issuer would not be the issuer, in such a case, of an electronic record. The purpose of such a restriction is to assure that transferable records can only be created at the time of issuance by the obligor. The possibility that a paper note might be converted to an electronic record and then intentionally destroyed, and the effect of such action, was not intended to be covered by Section 16.
The requirement that the obligor expressly agree in the electronic record to its treatment as a transferable record does not otherwise affect the characterization of a transferable record (i.e., does not affect what would be a paper note) because it is a statutory condition. Further, it does not obligate the issuer to undertake to do any other act than the payment of the obligation evidenced by the transferable record. Therefore, it does not make the transferable record “conditional” within the meaning of Section 3-104(a)(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code.

3. Under Section 16 acquisition of “control” over an electronic record serves as a substitute for “possession” in the paper analog. More precisely, “control” under Section 16 serves as the substitute for delivery, indorsement and possession of a negotiable promissory note or negotiable document of title. Section 16(b) allows control to be found so long as “a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the transferable record reliably establishes [the person claiming control] as the person to which the transferable record was issued or transferred.” The key point is that a system, whether involving third party registry or technological safeguards, must be shown to reliably establish the identity of the person entitled to payment. Section 16(c) then sets forth a safe harbor list of very strict requirements for such a system. The specific provisions listed in Section 16(c) are derived from Section 105 of Revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Generally, the transferable record must be unique, identifiable, and except as specifically permitted, unalterable. That “authoritative copy” must (i) identify the person claiming control as the person to whom the record was issued or most recently transferred, (ii) be maintained by the person claiming control or its designee, and (iii) be unalterable except with the permission of the person claiming control. In addition any copy of the authoritative copy must be readily identifiable as a copy and all revisions must be readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.
The control requirements may be satisfied through the use of a trusted third party registry system. Such systems are currently in place with regard to the transfer of securities entitlements under Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and in the transfer of cotton warehouse receipts under the program sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture. This Act would recognize the use of such a system so long as the standards of subsection (c) were satisfied. In addition, a technological system which met such exacting standards would also be permitted under Section 16.
For example, a borrower signs an electronic record which would be a promissory note or document if it were paper. The borrower specifically agrees in the electronic record that it will qualify as a transferable record under this section. The lender implements a newly developed technological system which dates, encrypts, and stores all the electronic information in the transferable record in a manner which lender can demonstrate reliably establishes lender as the person to which the transferable record was issued. In the alternative, the lender may contract with a third party to act as a registry for all such transferable records, retaining records establishing the party to whom the record was issued and all subsequent transfers of the record. An example of this latter method for assuring control is the system established for the issuance and transfer of electronic cotton warehouse receipts under 7 C.F.R. section 735 et seq.
Of greatest importance in the system used is the ability to securely and demonstrably be able to transfer the record to others in a manner which assures that only one “holder” exists. The need for such certainty and security resulted in the very stringent standards for a system outlined in subsection (c). A system relying on a third party registry is likely the most effective way to satisfy the requirements of subsection (c) that the transferable record remain unique, identifiable an unalterable, while also providing the means to assure that the transferee is clearly noted and identified.
It must be remembered that Section 16 was drafted in order to provide sufficient legal certainty regarding the rights of those in control of such electronic records, that legal incentives would exist to warrant the development of systems which would establish the requisite control. During the drafting of Section 16, representatives from the Federal Reserve carefully scrutinized the impact of any electronicization of any aspect of the national payment system. Section 16 represents a compromise position which, as noted, serves as a bridge pending more detailed study and consideration of what legal changes, if any, are necessary or appropriate in the context of the payment systems impacted. Accordingly, Section 16 provides limited scope for the attainment of important rights derived from the concept of negotiability, in order to permit the development of systems which will satisfy its strict requirements for control.

4. It is important to note what the section does not provide. Issues related to enforceability against intermediate transferees and transferors (i.e., indorser liability under a paper note), warranty liability that would attach in a paper note, and issues of the effect of taking a transferable record on the underlying obligation, are NOT addressed by this section. Such matters must be addressed, if at all, by contract between and among the parties in the chain of transmission and transfer of the transferable record. In the event that such matters are not addressed by the contract, the issues would need to be resolved under otherwise applicable law. Other law may include general contract principles of assignment and assumption, or may include rules from Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code applied by analogy.
For example, Issuer agrees to pay a debt by means of a transferable record issued to A. Unless there is agreement between issuer and A that the transferable record “suspends” the underlying obligation (see Section 3-310 of the Uniform Commercial Code), A would not be prevented from enforcing the underlying obligation without the transferable record. Similarly, if A transfers the transferable record to B by means granting B control, B may obtain holder in due course rights against the obligor/issuer, but B’s recourse against A would not be clear unless A agreed to remain liable under the transferable record. Although the rules of Article 3 may be applied by analogy in an appropriate context, in the absence of an express agreement in the transferable record or included by applicable system rules, the liability of the transferor would not be clear.

5. Current business models exist which rely for their efficacy on the benefits of negotiability. A principal example, and one which informed much of the development of Section 16, involves the mortgage backed securities industry. Aggregators of commercial paper acquire mortgage secured promissory notes following a chain of transfers beginning with the origination of the mortgage loan by a mortgage broker. In the course of the transfers of this paper, buyers of the notes and lenders/secured parties for these buyers will intervene. For the ultimate purchaser of the paper, the ability to rely on holder in due course and good faith purchaser status creates the legal security necessary to issue its own investment securities which are backed by the obligations evidenced by the notes purchased. Only through their HIDC status can these purchasers be assured that third party claims will be barred. Only through their HIDC status can the end purchaser avoid the incredible burden of requiring and assuring that each person in the chain of transfer has waived any and all defenses to performance which may be created during the chain of transfer.

6. This section is a stand-alone provision. Although references are made to specific provisions in Article 3, Article 7, and Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, these provisions are incorporated into this Act and made the applicable rules for purposes of this Act. The rights of parties to transferable records are established under subsections (d) and (e). Subsection (d) provides rules for determining the rights of a party in control of a transferable record. The subsection makes clear that the rights are determined under this section, and not under other law, by incorporating the rules on the manner of acquisition into this statute. The last sentence of subsection (d) is intended to assure that requirements related to notions of possession, which are inherently inconsistent with the idea of an electronic record, are not incorporated into this statute.
If a person establishes control, Section 16(d) provides that that person is the “holder” of the transferable record which is equivalent to a holder of an analogous paper negotiable instrument. More importantly, if the person acquired control in a manner which would make it a holder in due course of an equivalent paper record, the person acquires the rights of a HIDC. The person in control would therefore be able to enforce the transferable record against the obligor regardless of intervening claims and defenses. However, by pulling these rights into Section 16, this Act does NOT validate the wholesale electrification of promissory notes under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Further, it is important to understand that a transferable record under Section 16, while having no counterpart under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, would be an “account,” “general intangible,” or “payment intangible” under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Accordingly, two separate bodies of law would apply to that asset of the obligee. A taker of the transferable record under Section 16 may acquire purchaser rights under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, however, those rights may be defeated by a trustee in bankruptcy of a prior person in control unless perfection under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code by filing is achieved. If the person in control also takes control in a manner granting it holder in due course status, of course that person would take free of any claim by a bankruptcy trustee or lien creditor.

7. Subsection (e) accords to the obligor of the transferable record rights equal to those of an obligor under an equivalent paper record. Accordingly, unless a waiver of defense clause is obtained in the electronic record, or the transferee obtains HDC rights under subsection (d), the obligor has all the rights and defenses available to it under a contract assignment. Additionally, the obligor has the right to have the payment noted or otherwise included as part of the electronic record.

8.Subsection (f) grants the obligor the right to have the transferable record and other information made available for purposes of assuring the correct person to pay. This will allow the obligor to protect its interest and obtain the defense of discharge by payment or performance. This is particularly important because a person receiving subsequent control under the appropriate circumstances may well qualify as a holder in course who can enforce payment of the transferable record.

9. Section 16 is a singular exception to the thrust of this Act to simply validate electronic media used in commercial transactions. Section 16 actually provides a means for expanding electronic commerce. It provides certainty to lenders and investors regarding the enforceability of a new class of financial services. It is hoped that the legal protections afforded by Section 16 will engender the development of technological and business models which will permit realization of the significant cost savings and efficiencies available through electronic transacting in the financial services industry. Although only a bridge to more detailed consideration of the broad issues related to negotiability in an electronic context, Section 16 provides the impetus for that broader consideration while allowing continuation of developing technological and business models.
Don, on October 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm said:

Foreclosure Fraud

Thanks for the guide. Just what I needed. I am looking info on Joann Rein VP and her witnesses Susan Lindhorst and Janie Flores. I believe they all work for Aurora Loan Services.

I found Joann Rein as a notary on Aurora paperwork in 2003. Sounds like she may have had some nice promotions since then. Susan appears to be a paralegal. Do you have anything?
Alina, on October 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm said:

Lisa E,

Great post re: Florida Bankers Association.

Quote:
“A. Plaintiff’s Status as Owner and Holder of the Note.

In actual practice, confusion over who owns and holds the note stems less from the fact that the note may have been transferred multiple times than it does from the form in which the note is transferred. It is a reality of commerce that virtually all paper documents related to a note and mortgage are converted to electronic files almost immediately after the loan is closed. Individual loans, as electronic data, are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to the secondary market, frequently as mortgage-backed securities. The records of ownership and payment are maintained by a servicing agent in an electronic database.

The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as safer, more efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce-including the court system.”
_______________________________________________

I would like to direct everyone’s attention to Section 16 of the Uniform Electronic Transfer Act (UETA). Abby had posted a comment some time ago that got me researching this Act. I had never heard of it as I am sure most people are not aware of this Act.

Section 16 of the UETA addresses the issue of converting paper notes to electronic transferable documents. In a nutshell, you have to have the express permission of the note in order to convert a paper note.

I agree with your comment that it appears the Florida Bankers’ Association is stating that the loan documents were converted to electronic format and then destroyed. If that is truly the case, then any sale of the note converted to electronic format is impermissible. In other words, even if they were to print out the note and claim it is paper, the note has no effect.

Another point, Florida Bankers’ Association seem to rely on State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) which basically set the standard for proving ownership of a lost note. If I am reading their argument correctly, they are stating that since the note was converted and destroyed, the last “holder” on an electronic database is the holder in due course per UCC 3.

Again, not so. Section 16 of the UETA specifically states that a paper note CANNOT be converted into electronic paper WITHOUT the express permission of the maker (THAT’S US HOMEOWNERS).

I am researching case law on UETA but there are very few cases dealing with this.

I believe this is another very good avenue of attack against the banksters and specifically MERS. In their comments, they have unwittingly set themselves up for attack as they have admitted to converting paper documents to electronic format, destroying the original paper notes, and then selling the electronic versions of the notes on the secondary market.

I urge everyone to please read and research the UETA.

Nei, I would very much appreciate your take on this since I am not an attorney. Thanks.
Marcus, on October 12, 2009 at 1:01 pm said:

Private Vendor Could Oversee Foreclosures

ROCKLEDGE, Fla. – Oct. 12, 2009 – Empty houses cause problems for nearby residents and cities, as grass grows and pools turn green. Each local government handles the problem in different ways, but today’s large number of foreclosures has spawned a new type of company – a private vendor that deals with the banks, oversees property management, and even pays local governments for the privilege of doing so.

Melbourne-based Federal Property Registration Corp. is one, and Rockledge agreed last week to hire the company. Other Florida towns, such as Cocoa, may follow suit. The company currently hopes it can sign up about 75 governments in three states.

For the deal to work, local governments must have an ordinance mandating that foreclosures be registered, with failure to do so subject to code enforcement citations and fees. Once a home is registered, the city, or its vendor, can pressure the bank to pay for basic maintenance using the threat of legal fines as an incentive.

In Rockledge, banks pay a $150 registration fee, of which $75 goes back to the city. Palm Bay, which has a similar ordinance, charges $100 for a foreclosure registration and handles the issue internally.

Federal Property Registration Corp. says it has an advantage over city enforcement, however, in economics of scale. By offering services nationwide, it says it can create preemptive relationships with the nation’s banks and build a database of foreclosures. The database will include contact information and be updated monthly.

“We go to the right people in the banks based on relationships we’ve developed, contacts we have internally and with an understanding of how they work,” says Tom Darnell, Federal Property’s strategic planning executive. Darnell says the company does not simply wait for a foreclosure. By monitoring the progress of foreclosures, the company can add a property to its database during the foreclosure process rather than waiting for a final order.

Palm Bay has a similar registration law and the city tracks local foreclosures. William Martinez, the head of Palm Bay’s code enforcement division, says about 1,300 banks have registered so far. By law, the banks must inspect the property and designate a local property management company to oversee upkeep, such as lawn mowing. If they don’t, the city can take action to enforce its codes.

Rockledge prefers a private vendor. “The city has a responsibility to keep properties up to code and from falling into disrepair,” says City Attorney Joe Miniclier explained to council before the vote. He says that it doesn’t cost taxpayer dollars, and the city doesn’t have to spend taxpayer dollars to make sure the banks do what’s right on the homes they now own through foreclosure.

Source:  Florida Today, Rebecca Basu
FLORIDA DEFENSE TEAM, on October 12, 2009 at 12:15 pm said:

CHRISTINA TROWBRIDGE : OPERATIONS UNIT MANAGER OF CHASE FINANCE IN OHIO.
Todd, on October 12, 2009 at 12:03 pm said:

Neil,

As Linda posted on this board I to am having problems getting the County recorder to record certain docs and my court case against the JPMorgan/WAMU is going to be thrown out on their demmurer being sustained I have until the 4th of Nov. to amend my petition to save my case and make them produce the note! Neil please if you or anybody on this board knows of a good attorney that knows this stuff and is willing to take this case I am willing to make an unpecedented offer for help! This whole issue has caused the onset of an stress related illness for my wife and we need help fast!

If you can help please contact me at:
tlsco@live.com

Thank you all!
Don, on October 12, 2009 at 11:40 am said:

Foreclosure story has happy ending
Woman wins own home back at auction

By ANDREA GOODELL
The Holland Sentinel
Posted Oct 09, 2009 @ 11:54 PM

Holland, MI — The house on West 16th Street still doesn’t have curtains and boxes need to be unpacked, but the path home was longer than a simple drive in a moving truck for Claudia Zamora.

She lived at this house on West 16th Street with her family for 12 years until divorce and a nearly $1,000 house payment became too much, and the bank foreclosed.

“I was going from temp job to temp job to temp job,” Zamora said.

But now she’s back and free of a mortgage because the bank that took her property back failed to pay the taxes.

When a property owner doesn’t pay his or her mortgage, the bank will take the property. When the bank or homeowner doesn’t pay taxes, the county takes over with a tax foreclosure.

“It’s the ugly part of my job,” Ottawa County Treasurer Brad Slagh said. Once a year, the county auctions off the properties. Someone tipped off Zamora that her property was among those to be auctioned last month.

Bidding for her own home

“I was so nervous the night before, I couldn’t sleep. … I showed up an hour early, and I’m seeing all these cars and all these people showing up,” she remembered her disappointment, knowing her chances were slim.

The room was packed: People sitting, people standing, there was no way she would be able to outbid somebody who wanted her home, she thought at the time.

Before the auction began, the auctioneer asked the crowd whether anyone was buying back lost property.

“And I raised my hand up,” Zamora said.

Her West 16th Street home was No. 13 on the list.

“Nobody else bid on it. Not even online,” she said. “I was in shock; I was in tears; I couldn’t believe I got my house back.”

Since she lost the house in 2006, Zamora and her children have moved five times.

Flooded out

In June, the family moved into an apartment. With most of their things still in the basement, the June 19 storm hit.

“That water came all the way up to my waist,” Zamora said.

She considered selling the few possessions she had left for gas money back to Texas.

And then the tax auction was a godsend, she said.

“She came back in tears. She was just a flood of emotions,” Slagh said. “The crowd applauded her when she got the property.”

There are rules to the annual county tax auction. You must have the cash in hand.

Three years of taxes, plus county’s fees totals $10,030.

That’s the price she paid, in full, to get her home back.

Without telling her, Zamora’s brother borrowed money from his 401K. Her mother cashed in a CD. A friend loaned her the rest.

In the three years since Zamora and her family had to leave, vandals have busted windows, broken in and destroyed lights, not to mention the general disrepair of a house not lived in.

A few weeks ago, after she made repairs, city inspectors cleared the home for occupation.

She began moving in immediately.

Zamora and her four children — 15, 13, 7 and 14 months — now have a home.
Deontos, on October 12, 2009 at 10:16 am said:

stopgovtwaste, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm Said:

Hopefully this will post okay – was trying to locate information on a Ms. Christina Trowbridge who signed as VP of MERS……………..

—————————————————————————————–

To: stopgovtwaste,

The only other google references I could find were other legal filings.

LINKS:

http://mylandrecords.appspot.com/pdf/ma009-44585-168/aVMN6M81eOt/foreclosure%20deed.pdf?actual=1255330163

http://mylandrecords.appspot.com/pdf/ma018-52999-566/ao4gixQevlX/foreclosure%20deed.pdf?actual=1255330452
Lisa E, on October 12, 2009 at 9:53 am said:

Linda,

Were you looking for this?

Florida Workshops on defending a foreclosure case, mortgage document audits, and other issues:

http://www.youbeaware.com/Workshops/

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
angry&not taking it, on October 12, 2009 at 8:36 am said:

i’m working on a web form that everyone fighting can fill in the names of their players …of assignments, NOD ,DOT ,BLA BLA ,YADA YADA
to create a data base for all of us fighting to compare all the fraudulent signatures & bogus recorded county doc….
together we can unravel this shit.

here is some of the leg work my better half has researched!
,, some of the weasel lineup

Litton Loan Service hires (outsources) Quality Loan Service to foreclose on homes in California.

Litton Loan Service problems:
Transfers title illegally as beneficiary … for example
Donna Dixon, employee at Litton signs as HSBC Bank
Marti Noriega, employee at Litton signs as VP of MERS
These documents are notarized and look very important and official.
But they are frauds,
LITTON WAS NEVER BENEFICIARY
MERS is more often than not is assigned Beneficiary on “security instruments” and “common law trusts” masked as Deeds of Trust and Notes from the Lenders (Fremont in our case)
These documents are notarized and look very important and official.

Next, MERS hires Quality Loan Service, (aka McCarthy and Holthus, LLP)
McCarthy and Holthus are attorneys for HSBC Bank
McCarthy and Holthus are;

http://www.qualityclaims.com/about_us.aspx?sect=_partners

Thomas J. Holthus, Esq.
Shareholder

Thomas J. Holthus is the managing partner of the law firm McCarthy Holthus, LLP based in San Diego, California. McCarthy Holthus represents mortgage servicers and lenders in eight Western states. Mr. Holthus has represented financial institutions primarily from a mortgage default perspective for the past 22 years and is an attorney licensed to practice law in the states of California, Nevada and Nebraska. He is a founding member of The National Firm McCarthy, Holthus, Baum Ackerman, LLP and a founding shareholder of Quality Loan Service, which provides default solutions to financial institutions. He also serves on the Board of Directors for Cornerstone Bank N.A., York, NE and California Business Bank, Los Angeles, CA. Mr. Holthus obtained a Bachelor of Science in Economics in Business Administration from Arizona State University and a Juris Doctorate from California Western School of Law, San Diego, California.

Kevin R. McCarthy, Esq.
Shareholder

Kevin R. McCarthy is a partner and attorney of the law firm McCarthy Holthus, LLP based in San Diego, California. He was first admitted to practice law in the State of California in 1990. Mr. McCarthy is a founding shareholder of Quality Loan Services, and member of the California State Bar, as well as the California and Arizona Federal District Courts. In addition, he is also a member of the California State Bar Association Real Property Law Section, MBA Legal Affairs Committee, United Trustee Association, Arizona Trustee’s Association, as well as the California Mortgage Banker’s Association and Southern California Mortgage Banker’s Association. Mr. McCarthy has written articles for publication in various trade newsletters and has spoken or chaired at various seminars for industry associations

Bill De Ridder (aka William De Ridder, Quality Loan Service expired business license on record at the Dept of Real Estate)
Broker
Tri-Coast Real Estate and Mortgage
619 667-3377
4711 3rd Street
La Mesa, California 919141
Bill@Tri-CoastMortgage.com

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/strategic-implications-of-the-landmark-kesler-kansas-supreme-court-decision/
Dan Williams, on October 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am Said:
Regarding interesting relationships between loan servicers, trustees and MERS, check out the firm of McCarthy & Holthus; whose managing members are all officers of Quality Loan Servicing in Washington State; servicing loans for numerous lenders; the managing partner of its Washington state location, Matthew Cleverly, is also the registered agent and managing principal for Quality Loan’s Washington State location, and I’ve no doubt, an officer of MERS. They tout their expertise in bankruptcy matters, especially in Relief from the Automatic Stay. The same principlal of the Quality Loan Washington State, and Managing Partner of McCarthy Holthus in Washington, was recently made an example of in Idaho Bankruptcy Court for, I believe, 6 different cases where the Court denied all of his motions based on MERS lack of standing and not being a real party in interest. The bankruptcy judge also pointed out the ridiculous manner in which assignments were made in an attempt to prove standing to foreclose – basically called him a fraudulent attorney with fraudulent clients. Decision July 7, 2009 Terry L. Myers – Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge – Idaho

Except as otherwise indicated or unless the context otherwise requires, all references to “LPS,” “we,” the
“Company,” or the “registrant” are to Lender Processing Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation that was
incorporated in December 2007 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of FIS, and its subsidiaries; all references to “FIS,”
the “former parent,” or the “holding company” are to Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., a Georgia
corporation formerly known as Certegy Inc., and its subsidiaries, that owned all of LPS’s shares until July 2, 2008;
all references to “former FIS” are to Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its
subsidiaries, prior to the Certegy merger described below; all references to “old FNF” are to Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation that owned a majority of former FIS’s shares through November 9, 2006;
and all references to “FNF” are to Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (formerly known as Fidelity National
Title Group, Inc.), formerly a subsidiary of old FNF but now a stand-alone company.

1848
Western Title Insurance Company (now Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of California) traced its origin to C.V. Gillespie (founder), a notary public and searcher of records in San Francisco.
1906
At the time of the San Francisco earthquake and fire, employees of Western Title Insurance Company and their wives were credited with saving the title plant and other valuable records of the company.
1920
The original Western Title Insurance Company was formed.
1961
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (FNTIC), a Nebraska corporation, received a certificate of authority and began doing business in Nebraska.
1980
FNTIC acquired the assets of a small underwriter in Tucson, Arizona. It was at this time that the Company’s current principals were first affiliated with FNTIC.
1981
FNTIC, with agency operations in the Arizona counties of Maricopa and Pima, was purchased from CIGNA. FNTIC was ranked 48th in the country among title insurance companies with revenue of $6.2 million.
Corporate offices for FNTIC were moved from Denver, Colorado, to Scottsdale, Arizona.
1984
Controlling interest of FNTIC was sold to Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (“Fidelity” or the “Company”), its present holding company. William P. Foley, II, became President and Chairman of the Board.
1985
The Securities and Exchange Commission approved the sale of Fidelity’s stock to the employees of its various subsidiaries. Fidelity became the nation’s first and only employee-owned title insurance underwriter.
1987
Fidelity began trading on the American Stock Exchange under the symbol FNF.
Fidelity Acquired Western Title Insurance Company.
Fidelity moved corporate headquarters from Scottsdale, Arizona, to Irvine, California.
1989
Fidelity acquired Western Title in Portland, Oregon.
Fidelity purchased an El Paso-based title agency, which represented Fidelity’s first direct title operation within the state of Texas.
1991
Fidelity established Premier Lenders, a concept unique to the title industry. All title work for lenders in the California counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego is performed out of one regional office.
1992
Fidelity began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol FNF.
Fidelity acquires Meridian Title Insurance Company, and Security Title and Guarantee Company, expanding Fidelity’s direct operations base to include Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
1993
Fidelity completed its acquisition of Agency Sales and Posting, Arizona Sales and Posting, Inc. and Pente Enterprises, Inc.
1994
Fidelity acquired ACS Systems, Inc., a computer software development company to enhance FNTIC’s electronic data interchange through the development and marketing of its trust, escrow and title related software.
1995
Fidelity acquires Western Title Company of Washington, creating the opportunity to expand direct operations into Washington.
Fidelity acquires the accounts receivable and the book of business of World Title Company, formerly in conservatorship. Fidelity acquires 100% of the stock of World Tax Service… enhancing its market position in California.
1996
ACS unveiled ExpressNet (now FlexNet), an integrated solution for electronic commerce between back office systems and external service providers, realtors and lenders.
Fidelity acquired Nations Title Inc, 8th largest title underwriter in the United States, made FNTIC the 4th largest title underwriter in the U.S. and doubled the existing agency base.
Fidelity acquired Alliance Home Warranty (now Fidelity Home Warranty)
Fidelity acquired CRM, now Fidelity Tax Service
1997
FlexNet™, Fidelity National Lender Express Network, is established as the single source through one interface for bundled services to include title and escrow, tax, credit, flood, foreclosure appraisal, document and recording, and electronic commerce services.
Fidelity acquired First Title Corporation, a title company with offices throughout the southeastern United States.
Fidelity acquired three credit reporting companies Ifland Credit Services, Credit Reports, Inc., and Classified Credit Data, Inc. All three have been merged and operate as Fidelity National Credit Services, Inc.
Fidelity acquired Bron Research, Inc., a flood certification company headquartered in Austin, TX. which now operates as Fidelity National Flood, Inc.
Fidelity acquired Express Network, Inc., a provider of attorney services such as courier, messenger, courthouse filing, process serving, investigation and reprographics.
1998
Fidelity acquired Granite Financial, Inc., an industry consolidator in the small-ticket lease financing market
Fidelity sold wholly-owned subsidiary ACS to Micro General, Inc. ACS provides software, systems integration and telecommunication services to small to medium size businesses in the real estate industry.
FNTIC merged with Alamo Title, the ninth largest title insurer in the United States. As a result FNTIC is now the second largest underwriter in Texas.
Fidelity formed RealEC.com, the first multiple title underwriter alliance for electronic commerce. Fidelity and Stewart Title are the founding and initial members. It is designed to be an open electronic commerce network to order and deliver essential real estate information services in the real estate transaction process.
1999
FNF, through Micro General, sponsored and financed a new interest transaction intermediary company called Escrow.com.
FNF announces its plan to acquire Chicago Title Corp. and its title insurance subsidiaries – Chicago Title, Ticor Title and Security Union Title, thus creating the world’s largest title insurance organization.
2000
FNF completes its acquisition of Chicago Title Corp., creating the largest title insurance organization in the world.
FNF moved into its new corporate headquarters in Santa Barbara, California.
FlexNet and Chicago Title’s CastleLink operation are merged to form Fidelity National Lender’s Solution – the single solution for mortgage products and services.
Linda, on October 12, 2009 at 8:25 am said:

I am looking for a foreclosure defense workshop that is scheduled for Nov. 27–I have misplaced the information and cannot find it anywhere–I am planning on attending Neil’s workshop on Nov. 1, but also wanted to attend this other one. Does anyone know the information? It’s a 2 day seminar in Florida on the East coast on Nov. 27–or that’s what I remember.
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 12, 2009 at 7:36 am said:

Chase Home Finance LLC
Incumbency Certificate

LINK DEAD

Session timed out…

To see the Incumbency Certificate go to the Worchester South Registry of Deeds and look up Book 44434, Page 276.

4closureFraud
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 12, 2009 at 7:13 am said:

stopgovtwaste,

Found It!

This should be just what you are looking for…

http://bit.ly/dKUVo

Check out the last two pages of this document. Christina Trowbridge signing as VP for Chase Home Finance LLC on June 29, 2009

It also references

*For signator authority see Incumbency Certificate recorded with the Worchester South Registry of Deeds at Book 44434, Page 276.

Priceless… Here is the page…

Chase Home Finance LLC
Incumbency Certificate

http://bit.ly/b76gm

This document lists:

Whitney Cook
Assistant Secretary
Chase Home Finance LLC

Stacy E. Sophn
Vice President
Chase Home Finance LLC

Cindy A. Smith
Assistant Secretary
Chase Home Finance LLC

Beth Cottrell
Assistant Secretary
Chase Home Finance LLC

Christina Trowbridge
Vice President
Chase Home Finance LLC

4closureFraud
Joe, on October 12, 2009 at 7:10 am said:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/Filed_08-17-2009_Appendix_E.pdf

An interesting read. Start on page 18
stopgovtwaste, on October 11, 2009 at 8:58 pm said:

Hopefully this will post okay – was trying to locate information on a Ms. Christina Trowbridge who signed as VP of MERS but works for Chase Home Finance. I could only find one reference on LinkedIn (Operations Unit Manger) but there must be other documents as well.
Any help would be greatly appreciated… thank you!

stop_govt_waste@hotmail.com

FBI Mortgage Fraud Warning
Lisa E, on October 11, 2009 at 8:47 pm said:

See the Florida Bankers Association’s comments to the FL Supreme Court Foreclosure Task Force in regards to the recommendation that ALL foreclosure cases be “verified” before they can be filed; meaning that the Plaintiff’s attorney must attest that he/she has read the complaint and that the facts contained within are true. Also, the Task Force is recommending that the Note be attached to the complaint, with the original in the hands of the Plaintiff.

GUESS Florida Bankers Association didn’t like those recommendations! Read their response below and then email comments regarding SC09-1460 to e-file@flcourts.org & beg forgiveness about missing the 10/1/09 deadline for comments submission. If possible, attached scanned copies of the fraudulent affidavits, assignments, altered notes, fake affidavits, etc.

My take on the Bankers’ comments is that either: 1) All notes were purposefully destroyed so none can be magically “found” and if they are, then they are fraudulent documents (as in my own case) or 2) All notes were NOT destroyed and therefore the objections to the recommended requirements are moot.
_____-______

Florida Bankers Association Comment

The Florida Bankers Association thanks this Honorable Court for the opportunity to comment on the Emergency Rule and Form Proposals of the Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases.

Introduction:

The Florida Bankers Association (“FBA”) is one of Florida’s oldest trade association. Its membership is composed of more than 300 banks and financial institutions ranging in size from small community banks and thrifts, to medium sized banks operating in several parts of the state, to large regional financial institutions headquartered in Florida or outside the state. The FBA serves its constituents and the citizens of the state of Florida by serving as an industry resource to all branches and levels of government in addressing those issues which affect the delivery of financial services within this state.

SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS

The Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases (“Task Force”) proposes an amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110 to require verification of residential mortgage foreclosure complaints. The proposed rule does not effectuate its stated goal of deterring plaintiffs that are not entitled to enforce the underlying obligation from bringing foreclosure actions. Existing and effective law provides better substantive protection against unauthorized foreclosure suits. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, establishes stringent proof standards when the original note is not available, and requires the court to protect the mortgagor against additional foreclosure actions. In addition, the courts have ample authority to sanction lawyers and lenders asserting improper foreclosure claims. This authority is explicit in Florida law and implicit in the courts’ inherent power to sanction bad faith litigation. Finally, the proposed amendment imposes a substantive condition precedent to foreclosing a residential mortgage foreclosures and thus appears to violate Florida’s constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

COMMENTS

I. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL NOT EFFECTUATE THE DESIRED GOAL.

The rationale for the proposed amendment is set forth in the proposal for promulgation:

This rule change is recommended because of the new economic reality dealing with mortgage foreclosure cases in an era of securitization. Frequently, the note has been transferred on multiple occasions prior to the default and filing of the foreclosure. Plaintiff’s status as owner and holder of the note at the time of filing has become a significant issue in these case, particularly because many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint. There have been situations where two different plaintiffs have filed suit on the same note at the same time. Requiring the plaintiff to verify its ownership of the note at the time of filing provides incentive to review and ensures that the filing is accurate, ensures that investigation has been made and that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note. This requirement will reduce confusion and give the trial judges the authority to sanction those who file without assuring themselves of their authority to do so.

With respect and appreciation for the efforts of the Task Force and its laudable goals, the proposed amendment will not effectuate the reduction of confusion or give trial judges any authority they currently lack.

A. Plaintiff’s Status as Owner and Holder of the Note.

In actual practice, confusion over who owns and holds the note stems less from the fact that the note may have been transferred multiple times than it does from the form in which the note is transferred. It is a reality of commerce that virtually all paper documents related to a note and mortgage are converted to electronic files almost immediately after the loan is closed. Individual loans, as electronic data, are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to the secondary market, frequently as mortgage-backed securities. The records of ownership and payment are maintained by a servicing agent in an electronic database.

The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as safer, more efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce-including the court system.

The information reviewed to verify the plaintiff’s authority to commence the mortgage foreclosure action will be drawn from the same database that includes the electronic document and the record of the event of default. The verification, made “to the best of [the signing record custodian's] knowledge and belief” will not resolve the need to establish the lost document.

B. The Process for Re-Establishing the Note Provides Significant Substantive Protection to the Mortgagor.

The process for re-establishment of a lost or destroyed instrument by law imposes a strict burden of proof and instructs the court to protect the obligor from multiple suits on the same instrument. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, sets forth the elements a plaintiff must prove in order to enforce an obligation for which it does not have the original instrument:

A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if: a) person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.

b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

c) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

Once the plaintiff has plead and proved the foregoing, there is an additional judicial requirement:

The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

§ 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added)(Footnote 1):

Footnote 1:The legislature amended Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, in 2004 to address the issues raised by the State Street court in recognition of the commercial reality that almost all purchase money notes are electronically stored and assigned in electronic form.

This protection may be effectuated by any means satisfactory to the court. It commonly takes the form of a provision in the final judgment stating that to the extent any obligation of the note is later deemed not to have been extinguished by merger into the final judgment, the plaintiff has by law accepted assignment of those obligations. In other words, the plaintiff who enforces a lost or destroyed instrument assumes the risk that a third party in lawful possession of the original note or with a superior interest therein will assert that claim. The original obligor has no liability.

C. Courts Have Statutory and Inherent Authority to Sanction Plaintiffs Asserting Claims Not Supported by Law or Evidence.

Any party seeking to foreclose a mortgage without a good faith belief-based on investigation reasonable under the circumstances–in the facts giving rise to the asserted claim may be sanctioned “upon the court’s initiative.” § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat. This statute, though somewhat underused by our courts, affords judges the authority to immediately impose significant penalties for bringing unfounded litigation. Perhaps more significant is this Court’s recent (and appropriate) reaffirmation of a trial court’s inherent authority to sanction litigants-specifically attorneys-who engage in bad faith and abusive practice. See Moakely v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2002), citing United States Savings Bank v. Pittman, 80 Fla. 423, 86 So. 567, 572 (1920) (sanctioning attorney for acting in bad faith in a mortgage foreclosure sale)(Footnote 2):

Footnote 2: The potential for sanctions is in addition to the significant economic deterrence to bringing unauthorized foreclosure actions. Presuit costs such as title searches and identification of tenants and/or subordinate lienors, the escalating filing fees and costs of service (particularly publication service and the concomitant cost of diligent search if the mortgagor no longer resides in the collateral) significantly raise the cost of filing a suit in error.

II. REQUIRING VERIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS IMPLEMENTS PUBLIC POLICY WITHIN THE LEGISLATURE’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

The Task Force Report giving rise to the proposed amendment clearly speaks to a public policy concern unrelated to the procedural concerns of the courts. The stated purpose-to prevent the filing of multiple suits on the same note-is clearly a matter of public policy rather than one of court procedure. Requiring verification of a residential mortgage foreclosure complaint imposes a condition precedent to access to courts that exceeds the procedural scope of the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110. In situations in which verification of complaints or petitions is established as a threshold requirement for pursuing an action, that requirement is imposed by the legislature. See, e.g., § 702.10, Fla. Stat. (requiring verification of mortgage foreclosure complaint where plaintiff elects Order to Show Cause procedure.) If public policy favors setting an evidentiary threshold for access to courts, the legislature must exercise its policy-making authority.

The only other rule of civil procedure which imposes the duty to verify a petition is a petition for temporary injunction. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610. The rationale for requiring verification there is clear: The petition itself and any supporting affidavits constitute the evidence supporting the requested temporary injunction. The court’s decision is made solely on the evidentiary quality of the documents before it. That is not the case here. Verification of the foreclosure complaint will not relieve the plaintiff seeking to foreclose a residential mortgage of the burden of proving by competent and substantial evidence that it is the holder of the note secured by the mortgage and entitled to enforce the mortgagor’s obligation.

Verification adds little protection for the mortgagor and, realistically, will not significantly diminish the burden on the courts. The amendment is not needed or helpful.

CONCLUSION

The Florida Bankers Association recognized the hard work and the laudable goals of the Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases. However, it appears that in the urge to find new ways to address the crisis facing mortgagors and mortgagees as well as the court system, the Task Force fashioned a new and ineffectual rule while ignoring the panoply of significant and substantive weapons already provided by Florida law. The Florida Bankers Association respectfully requests that this Honorable Court decline to adopt the proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110.

Respectfully submitted,

Florida Bankers Association

Alejandro M. Sanchez Virginia B. Townes, Esquire
President and CEO Florida Bar No.: 361879
Florida Bankers Association AKERMAN, SENTERFITT
1001 Thomasville Road, Suite 201 420 South Orange Avenue
Suite 201 Suite 1200 (32801)
Tallahassee, FL 32303 Post Office Box 231
Phone: (850) 224-2265 Orlando, FL 32802
Fax: (850) 224-2423 Phone: (407) 423-4000
asanchez@floridabankers.com Fax: (407) 843-6610
virginia.townes@akerman.com

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E, on October 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm said:

ATTN: FLORIDA HOMEOWNERS

A 90 minute phone call with Florida attorney Mr. Harley Herman resulted in six full pages of notes. I contacted Mr. Herman after reading this article about his attempts to have the Florida Bar impose disciplinary action against foreclosure mill attorney “misconduct” (aka fraud) http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090929/columnist/909291036. I left a message that I had many examples of attorney “misconduct” in my own case and had access to many fellow Floridian Foreclosees with their own examples.

He needs our help! His efforts to have the Florida Bar address this issue have been met with disbelief, skepticism, and disinterest. He has been told, “If there was a true problem with fraud in FL. foreclosure cases, we’d be swamped with complaints, but we aren’t!”

He has requested the following:

• Write out a clear letter detailing the fraud in your case, especially that which can be backed up with dubious assignments, notary fraud, altered notes, fake affidavits, foreclosure case that state the “note is attached” but fail to attach a copy of the note, etc. (Email me if you wish to be put in contact with some people from here who will help you write or proof-read your letter.)
• Call your local FL Bar office branch of Lawyer Regulation and ask if there is any chance of being accused in a slander suit if a complaint against an attorney is filed. I prefer each makes this call on their own. http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBOrgan.nsf/54e05cd1c9d5551885256b61000b58d2/3373e06c67fefbfa85256b2f006c9cfc?OpenDocument
• Make a grievance regarding the attorney conduct on your case with evidence ready to be faxed or scanned or mailed.
• Send a copy or email of the letter to the following:

Mr. John B. Neukamm, Chair Real Property Probate & Trust Law Section
Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A.
305 S. Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33606-2150
(813)276-1920
Fax: (813)276-1560
Email: jbn@floridalandlaw.com

Mr. Brian John Felcoski, Chair-elect Real Property Probate & Trust Law Section
Goldman Felcoski & Stone, P.A.
95 Merrick Way Ste 440
Coral Gables, FL 33134-5310
(305)446-2800
Fax: (305)446-2819
Email: bfelcoski@gfsestatelaw.com

Jesse H. Diner, President
Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A.
1 Financial Plaza, Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-0002
Phone: (954) 925-5501
Fax: (954) 920-2711
jhd@atkinson-diner.com

Mayanne Downs, President-Elect
King, Blackwell, Downs & Zehnder, P.A.
P.O. Box 1631
Orlando, FL 32802
Phone: (407) 422-2472
Fax: (407) 648-0161
mdowns@kbdzlaw.com

See subsequent post re: contacting the Florida Supreme Court.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E, on October 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm said:

FORECLOSURE FRAUD!

I can’t wait to review your amazing contribution!

Thank you so much for all your time and efforts!

Lisa E (Pro Se Florida)
Lisa Bep @ Gmail . com
Deontos, on October 11, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

Abby,

Here in a legal record MERS is documented as acknowledging that they don’t “hold the note” and have no beneficial interest. That being said can they actually initiate a non-Judicial foreclosure in Calif in their name? My NOD shows them as NOMINEE like so many other folks in the “duck soup” also. I assume from that they are claiming to be the CONTROLLING party in the foreclosure action.

I know you have to put in the standard disclaimer about practicing LAW. But it appears from what I’ve been reading on livinglies you are quite knowledgeable and in Calif. It’s looking more and more like the Pro Se road lies ahead for me and I am still blundering around trying to figure out what I’m doing. Any help is much appreciated!
Thank you.

——————————————————————————————

RE: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. vs. Leonard F. Girdvainis, Jr., et al.;

Case No. 2005-CP-43-278

=== Plaintiff Counsel (MERS) ADMITS error ===

snip …………………………..

PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, Robert C. Byrd, who first being duly sworn

deposes and states as follows:

1. I am one of the attorneys for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), the plaintiff herein.

2. On January 11, 2006, I filed an Affidavit with the Court on behalf of MERS stating that MERS is the “owner and holder” of the subject mortgage loan. The statement that MERS is the “owner and holder” of the loan is incorrect. MERS is the mortgagee of record, but holds the subject mortgage solely in its capacity as nominee for Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), the beneficial owner of the loan.

3. The mistake was the result of a misunderstanding on my part about MERS’s role in the transaction.

http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/MERSAffidavitandCorrectiv.pdf

See also:
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC, APPELLANT, V NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, APPELLEE
531 Cite as 270 Neb. 529
VG Diaz - Fla., on October 11, 2009 at 2:17 pm said:

Foreclosure defense is not only against the banksters, but also against judges.

Allow me to explain and you be the judge;

Indymac Federal Bank FSb filed a Lis Pendens dated 03/09/09, on 03/12/09, and recorded on 04/14/09.
An assignment dated 05/26/09 was recorded on 07/02/09, from Indymac Bank FSB to Indymac Federal Bank FSB., but never filed with the court.

It is very clear that Indymac Federal Bank FSB, the Plaintiff, lacked standing to pursue the foreclosure action as of the Lis Pendens filing date (03/12/09).

I received a letter from Indymac Federal Bank FSB (The Plaintiff) dated May, 2009 stating that the servicing has been transfer, assigned or sold to OneWest Bank FSB, but NO recorded assignment of mortgage to OneWest has been recorded or exist.

The judge continues to allow the Plaintiff to amend complaint, but there is nothing to amend. The one who filed a foreclosure action lacked standing, therefore the case should be dismissed with prejudice. But the judge refuses to do so. Now the Plaintiff amended complaint by changing the name of the Plaintiff from Indymac Federal Bank FSB to Onewest Bak FSB, which are two different entities and now the judge granted my motion to dismiss without prejudice and allowing the plaintiff to amend again, when in fact there is nothing to amend.

Is this ridiculous or what!! is it me? or am I missing something?
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 11, 2009 at 12:56 pm said:

ALL,

Here is the guide to looking up public records for fraudulent assignments. It is based in Florida but can be used everywhere. Any feedback is welcomed, good and bad. If you think something should be added just let me know. We can keep it a working document adding the forgeries that you all come across.

If anyone needs help finding information on your “vice president” or “assistant secretary” just let me know and I will see what I can come up with.

Feel free to pass it on to anyone you think it may help…

http://bit.ly/2Q4toi

Good luck!

4closureFraud
Connie in PA, on October 11, 2009 at 10:27 am said:

Neil,

A quick note of thanks for your informative and timely radio show today.

I’d like your response to the suggestion by another panel member to file with my local federal court for failure to provide initial response to the written request, and leave all of the other additional actions for the amended complaint, filed after receipt of the documents.

This will accomplish a few things; most importantly, it will prevent my lender from re-filing against us in state court. (I’m assuming that I want to be in federal and not rural PA court.) Secondly, it will give us time to develop a comprehensive strategy, and (hopefully) either find counsel or provide time to get advice from a number of attorneys.

I am looking for an attorney in the middle district of PA who is willing to try to set precedent on the secuitization issue. There HAS to be an attorney out there who feels strongly enough about this to take it on.

There are other ancillary points that I’m sure we can get some degree of relief on, and hopefully they will be enough to protect an award of attorney’s fees, but I strongly feel (1) that we need federal precedent, and (2) my case might be a good one to set it.

Thanks again, and keep up the good work!
ALLAN ~ Mortgage and Asset Backed Securities Litigation Handbook, on October 11, 2009 at 4:08 am said:

Mike, this handbook is also available at most law libraries (courthouses, state libraries, and law schools).

In Massachusetts I find such handbooks at the Social Law Library, at the various state-established law library system, and at the various law schools.

If memory serves, if a law school receives federal funding, its use must be open to public use.

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
ALLAN ~ NYTimes: Citigroup Hires Mr. Inside (lobbyist who blocked reform during the S&L crisis), on October 11, 2009 at 3:59 am said:

CITGROUP HIRES MR. INSIDE

Re: Richard Hohlt, who shielded S.& L’s as a lobbyist in the ’80s.

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and ANDREW MARTIN
Published: October 10, 2009

ALL of the nation’s major banks have a raft of Washington lobbyists, and with good reason. For people accustomed to dealing with numbers on Wall Street, the nation’s capital can seem impossibly complex.

Richard Parsons, Citi’s chairman, says of Mr. Hohlt: “I don’t bring him to meetings. He is a useful source of information.”

The nettle of rules and regulations, the web of agencies and regulators, and, of course, the harsh realities of politics combine to make Washington a confounding place. And with legislators looking to redraw the rules for financial institutions to prevent a repeat of the credit crisis, having an advocate in Washington is a must.

Few banks can use advice about navigating the federal government more than Citigroup, a company so hobbled by the crisis that it has essentially become a ward of the state, kept alive through multiple infusions of taxpayer funds.

Still, people inside and outside the bank say they were stunned when Richard D. Parsons, Citigroup’s chairman, enlisted the services last spring of Richard F. Hohlt, a longtime Washington insider with a history of aggressive advocacy for the banking industry.

Critics say that as a top lobbyist for the savings and loan industry in the 1980s, Mr. Hohlt blocked regulation of these institutions and played a pivotal role helping to prolong dubious industry practices that cost taxpayers $150 billion to clean up.

After that crisis passed, he faded from the public eye but continued advising clients, cementing his contacts in the news media and even surfacing as one among a handful of Washington insiders involved in the public outing of Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. agent.

Five former regulators who encountered Mr. Hohlt during the savings and loan fiasco expressed dismay and surprise that he had been hired by the chairman of a bank that has received tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer assistance, and voiced concerns about what exactly he had been hired to do.

“Mr. Hohlt has a track record as a behind-the-scenes, Republican influence peddler who caused severe damage to U.S. citizens by helping to delay and weaken the crackdown on the S.& L. control frauds,” says William K. Black, a former regulator and a top investigator for the definitive Congressional report on the S.& L. crisis.

“It is singularly obscene that any recipient of taxpayer assistance through the TARP program during the current financial crisis would hire one of the most infamous lobbyists in the world to represent them,” says Mr. Black, who now is a professor of law at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.

IN the 1980s, Mr. Hohlt’s tactics as a lobbyist for the United States League of Savings Institutions — which he acknowledges included reneging on a promise to support legislation to recapitalize the industry — so enraged regulators that two government officials say they banned him from their offices.

Mr. Hohlt, 61, says he was simply the messenger for the S.& L.’s in their dealings with regulators. “Yeah, mistakes were made,” he said in an interview last week. Of his current client, Citigroup, he says it has retained him as an adviser to provide strategic counsel on Washington matters related to the bank, and not as a lobbyist (meaning that he doesn’t communicate with members of Congress, the White House or regulatory agencies regarding Citigroup).

“I would classify myself as the worker bee that knows what I think would be of interest to him,” he says of his work for Mr. Parsons. “I feed him through the e-mail system quite a bit and give him my advice and counsel.”

As for Mr. Black and his other critics, Mr. Hohlt says that his work with the league was “prehistoric” and that in the years since then he has built a reputation as an honest and experienced resource.

“I wish that everyone would comprehend that because of these past experiences, mistakes made, some problems that were created because of those mistakes, I can maybe offer more candid advice,” he said. “There has to be something said that a person who’s been in the operating room and watched 13 surgeries may be a good person to watch the 14th. That makes me valuable because I can say: ‘Don’t do it! Don’t let these guys come in and say they want to change the accounting.’ ”

Mr. Hohlt says that he has never been investigated by any government agency and that his record, lobbying activities and political dealings are transparent.

Mr. Parsons says he hired Mr. Hohlt simply as a political adviser who provides information and counsel, and doesn’t focus on particular legislation. “He is an old Washington hand,” Mr. Parsons said in a interview on Friday. “I hired him to keep me in touch with what’s going on in Washington and what the mood and tenor of the town is.”

Mr. Hohlt’s role is to solve problems and help Mr. Parsons communicate more effectively, but not to lobby on Citigroup’s behalf. “I don’t bring him to meetings,” he said. “He is a useful source of information.”

A spokesman said that Citigroup was paying Mr. Hohlt’s fees, and that because he hadn’t been retained as a lobbyist, his assignment did not need to be publicly disclosed.

The savings and loan industry hasn’t been Mr. Hohlt’s only controversial client. He was the longtime lobbyist for Washington Mutual, arranging Capitol Hill meetings for the chief executive, Kerry K. Killinger, and advising the bank on regulatory matters that related to the Federal Home Loan Bank, according to Mr. Hohlt and a former associate. Washington Mutual collapsed in 2008, becoming the biggest bank failure in history. Mr. Hohlt said he wasn’t aware of the bank’s many problems.

“I thought Kerry Killinger was a guy from Iowa who played in the band,” said Mr. Hohlt, who said he lost thousands of dollars on WaMu stock when the bank failed. “Maybe I should have done due diligence on things like that.”

Mr. Hohlt has also represented the mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae, which was taken over by the government in September 2008 because of billions in mortgage losses. Once Fannie Mae went into federal receivership, it was banned from hiring lobbyists, including Mr. Hohlt.

Mr. Hohlt , an insider’s insider who creates and executes political strategies, said he had known Mr. Parsons since 1989. Back then, Mr. Parsons was running Dime Savings Bank, an institution that, like others in the field, had been hurt by mortgage losses.

Since then, Mr. Hohlt has lobbied for Time Warner, the media company that Mr. Parsons led from 2002 until 2008. He called Mr. Parsons “a personal 20-year friend that appreciates that I will be candid and maybe tell him things that others will not and give him safe advice.” He added that Mr. Parsons reached out to him because he “didn’t want to get in the cocoon.”

One of his first assignments: At Mr. Parsons’s request, Mr. Hohlt spent a Sunday in New York sitting in the back of the company’s auditorium watching its executives and directors practice for the annual shareholder meeting on April 21.

“I just sat and listened, and he asked, ‘What do you think?’ And I sent him a message saying what I thought,” Mr. Hohlt says.

But two people briefed on Mr. Hohlt’s engagement with Citigroup, who requested anonymity because speaking publicly about the situation would jeopardize their jobs, say Mr. Hohlt was also hired to advise Mr. Parsons on ways to blunt the demands of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, one of the bank’s primary regulators. The F.D.I.C. agreed to insure some $300 billion of Citigroup’s troubled assets in a loss-sharing arrangement last year and has been at loggerheads with the bank’s management over stewardship of the sprawling enterprise.

Mr. Hohlt said that it was a “fabrication” that he was hired to jockey with the F.D.I.C. “I’ve never contacted anybody at the F.D.I.C.,” he said.

A spokesman for the F.D.I.C. declined to comment on Mr. Hohlt’s hiring because the agency does not discuss specific institutions. “Generally speaking, we expect banks to adhere to high ethical and reputational standards,” said Andrew Gray, an agency spokesman.

Citigroup does not show up in lobbying records as a client of Hohlt & Associates, Mr. Hohlt’s Washington-based firm. And Mr. Hohlt said that he was “not really” advising Mr. Parsons on regulatory matters.

“My contract prohibits me from any kind of lobbying, and I’m fired if I do,” he said of his assignment from Mr. Parsons.

A HOOSIER by birth and a former aide to Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican, Mr. Hohlt parlayed his connections and experience into a lucrative lobbying business. He is also a founding member of an informal Washington salon, known as the Off-the-Record Club, where prominent Republicans, including Vin Weber and Karl Rove, gather for dinner to trade strategy. Mr. Hohlt is also a well-known background source for Washington journalists.

He surfaced in 2007 during the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., an aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Hohlt had a cameo role in the leak that identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency operative. The journalist who broke the story, Robert Novak, testified during the trial that he had given the column to Mr. Hohlt, a longtime source, before it was published. Mr. Hohlt said he gave the column to Mr. Rove, who was the White House’s political director at the time.

For the 2008 election, Mr. Hohlt gave about $108,700 in campaign contributions, nearly all to Republicans. During the 2004 re-election campaign of President George W. Bush, Mr. Hohlt was among the “Super Rangers” who raised more than $200,000.

Mr. Hohlt began working for Mr. Parsons at a time when Citigroup was increasingly reliant on the public’s largess to remain viable.

The bank received two injections totaling $45 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program last year. It has also raised $45 billion in debt using the backing of the F.D.I.C. and, through its subsidiaries, had an additional $28 billion in commercial paper and interbank deposits backed by the F.D.I.C. While other banks have weaned themselves from the program, Citi has continued to issue debt under it.

But the government is also on the hook for future losses at Citi. Late last year, regulators struck a loss-sharing deal with the bank covering a pool of assets that totaled $267 billion in the most recent financial statement. Under the terms of the arrangement, Citi will swallow the first $29.5 billion in losses on this pool; 90 percent of any additional losses will be borne by the government and the other 10 percent by Citi.

During the last decade, Mr. Hohlt and his firm also have done work for JPMorgan Chase and Sallie Mae, the student loan financing company. Mr. Hohlt was appointed to Sallie Mae’s board by George H. W. Bush in 1991.

Beginning in 2007, Fannie Mae hired Mr. Hohlt’s firm, even though as a savings and loan lobbyist two decades earlier, he had opposed the agency. “We fought against Fannie Mae,” Mr. Hohlt recalled. “I made sure we got an amendment in a bill that prohibited them from having a PAC,” or political action committee.

Hohlt & Associates has been paid more than $7 million in lobbying fees in the last decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. From 2000 to 2006, it made $400,000 to $700,000 in lobbying fees each year. In 2007 and 2008, the business took off, exceeding $1 million annually. In 2008, the year the credit crisis began in earnest, more than half of the firm’s increased business came from financial services firms. His clients also include Altria, the cigarette maker formerly known as Philip Morris; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Chevron; and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

WHILE Mr. Hohlt’s lobbying business appears vigorous, it is not nearly as high-profile as it was in his heyday as point man for the savings and loan industry and its lobbying group, the United States League of Savings Institutions. He reported to the president of the organization at the time, William O’Connell, and worked with a fellow lobbyist, James Freeman, to make sure that the industry’s views were heard on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Hohlt cultivated a close friendship with M. Danny Wall, a top aide to Jake Garn, the Utah Republican who was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

For decades, savings and loan associations were sleepy institutions that operated under tight restrictions on the loans they made and the interest rates they paid to depositors. But in 1982, with interest rates rocketing, the industry persuaded Congress to relax these restrictions. The Garn-St. Germain legislation (also named for Fernand J. St. Germain, Democrat of Rhode Island) freed savings and loans to make more-risky loans and eliminated the caps on interest rates that they could pay on deposits.

Almost immediately, S.& L.’s were bought by high-rolling entrepreneurs who saw the opportunities in taking deposits that were insured by the government and lending them out to real estate developers.

Once this mania was under way, lobbyists for the industry worked hard to keep regulators at bay, former officials recall. “The U.S. League was very active in trying to water down the capital requirements for S.& L.’s,” recalled Kenneth McLean, former staff director to William Proxmire, the late Wisconsin Democrat who headed the Senate Banking Committee in 1987 and 1988.

Two former officials, a banking regulator and an under secretary of the Treasury, said they banned Mr. Hohlt from their offices. “He wasn’t my style,” said Richard T. Pratt, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board president in the early 1980s. “He was very aggressive I thought, kind of the caricature of a lobbyist.”

Mr. Hohlt said his actions should be considered in the context of the times. He said there were fears that “draconian” regulatory action could set off a run on banks and even a depression.

Mr. Hohlt noted the significant parallels between the savings and loan mess and today’s financial crisis, only this time he says he is wiser.

“The mistake I did was follow the policy of the trade association,” he said.

Former regulators said they don’t regard Mr. Hohlt’s tenure as so benign.

“The fact is, when it came to thrift matters in Congress, the U.S. League and many of its affiliates were the de facto government,” said Edwin J. Gray, former head of the Federal Home Loan Bank, testifying before Congress in 1989. “What the league wanted, it got. What it did not want from Congress, it had killed.”

In an interview last week, Mr. Gray laughed when he heard that Mr. Hohlt continued as a paid advocate for financial institutions. “He’s a creature of Washington special interests and has been since I have known him, so I’m not surprised,” he said. “Memories are short when money is involved.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indeed, memories ARE short, when it comes to money! Get the feeling we’re reliving the S&L Crisis? What will the next financial crisis look like after we recover (if ever) from the current sub-prime mortgage crisis?

The Administration missed a great opportunity (during a crisis that sadly was wasted) to hold the banks’ feet to the fire.

What will it take to make a groundswell of discontent real? How can the middle class and those harmed by the ever-widening rift between the rich and poor sit by and not make their collective outrage a rallying point for real reform and economic justice?

RSVP
Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
ALLAN ~ Bill Moyers PBS Kaptur & Johnson VIDEO & TRANSCRIPT re The Financial Coup D'etat, on October 11, 2009 at 3:26 am said:

October 9, 2009

“Just over a year after economic calamity brought promises of reform from Washington, has Wall Street really changed? Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson and US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) report on the state of the economy.”

Transcript:

October 9, 2009

BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL.

I sat in a theater packed with passionate moviegoers, every one of them seemingly aghast at the Wall Street skullduggery exposed by Michael Moore in his latest film. It’s called ‘Capitalism: A Love Story.’ Here’s an excerpt:

MICHAEL MOORE: We’re here to get the money back for the American People. Do you think it’s too harsh to call what has happened here a coup d’état? A financial coup d’état?

MARCY KAPTUR: That’s, no. Because I think that’s what’s happened. Um, a financial coup d’état?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah.

MARCY KAPTUR: I could agree with that. I could agree with that. Because the people here really aren’t in charge. Wall Street is in charge.

BILL MOYERS: That’s the progressive Representative from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, she’s with me now. She has a Masters from the University of Michigan, did graduate study at M.I.T. and still lives in the same house in the Toledo working class neighborhood where she grew up.

She’s in her 14th term in Congress, the longest-serving Democratic woman in the history of the House, and she’s an outspoken financial watchdog on three important Committees: Appropriations, Budget and Oversight and Government Reform.

Also with me is a familiar face to viewers of this broadcast. Simon Johnson is the former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund. He now teaches Global Economics and Management at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management. He’s one of the founders of the website Baselinescenario.com. I check it out daily for Simon’s take on the economic and financial crisis.

It’s been a year since the great collapse and both my guests are well equipped to assess what’s happened since then. Welcome to you both.

MARCY KAPTUR: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: Let’s look at this story that I just read from the Associated Press this week about how Treasury Secretary Geithner is on the phone several times a day with a select group of very powerful Wall Street bankers, especially Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs. He will talk to them when Members of Congress have to leave a message on the answering machine. And these are the bankers who helped bring on this calamity and who are now benefiting from it. What does that say to you?

MARCY KAPTUR: That says to me that Wall Street and Washington is a circuit. And because Mr.Geithner headed the New York Fed that that historic relationship, unfortunately, continues. And it gives them special access and special power to influence policy.

SIMON JOHNSON: Well, I think it really tells you how the system works. The system is based on access and is based on what on Wall Street shaping Washington’s view of what’s important.

It’s the people who are very close to Mr. Geithner before when he was the head of the New York Fed. Before he became Treasury Secretary. These people have unparalleled access. And in a crisis, when everything is up for grabs, you don’t know what’s going on, the people who will take your phone calls, right, in government and people who are going to be standing in the oval office, making the key decisions. That’s the heart of the system. That’s the heart of how you get your agenda through, by changing their worldview.

MARCY KAPTUR: And they also move people. In other words, Mr. Geithner came from the New York Fed, he came from Wall Street, and he becomes Secretary of the Treasury. His predecessor, Mr. Paulson, came from Goldman Sachs, and he becomes Secretary of Treasury. You can go back decades, and you will see that there’s this revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. And I recently asked Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve, ‘Let me ask you a question. Would you be willing to consider a reform where the Cleveland Fed would have equal power to the New York Fed, in terms of how the Fed is run?’ And his answer was, ‘No.’

BILL MOYERS: And why did you ask that question?

MARCY KAPTUR: Because I think we need to democratize the Fed. I think that my region of the country, which is suffering so heavily from these decisions that were made by Wall Street and Washington, we need to have voice. And our bankers, who didn’t do the bad things, our community bankers, who are having to pay higher fees shouldn’t be treated this way. Why should the people who did it right be penalized for those that did it wrong?

SIMON JOHNSON: Remember Wall Street convinced us that trading derivatives without any regulation, that all these kind of crazy housing loans, which are very dangerous for consumers. That all of this was sensible. All of this was a good way to sustain growth. That was wrong. That wasn’t it. That wasn’t that’s not the end of the story. In the crisis, when things got bad, they also convinced the key people in Washington that they, the bankers, the big bankers, the Wall Street bankers, who are really responsible for all of these problems, they should be saved. Not just their banks, but they individually and should be saved. Their jobs, their pensions, all their perks. It’s an extraordinary moment.

BILL MOYERS: You asked on your blog, just this week, a question I want to put to you now, and to both of you. You asked, ‘Does this crisis reflect something about the disproportionate influence of a few incompetent investment bankers or a deeper breakdown of capitalism?” What’s your answer to your own question?

SIMON JOHNSON: Well, definitely, this disproportionate influence of some fairly incompetent bankers, that’s for sure. That’s what we’re seeing today. That’s what we’ve seen over the past few months. I think on the issue on the issue of capitalism, we have to take this very seriously. To me, at least, the financial part of our capitalism is very seriously broken.

SIMON JOHNSON: They persuaded us to allow them to take incredible risks. And then they pushed all the downside, all those losses onto us, the taxpayer, at the same time as really hammering hard all the people who were duped, essentially, into taking out loans. People lost their houses. It’s an absolute tragedy. This combination cannot go on. And yet, the opportunity for real reform has already passed. And there is not going to be not only is there not going to be change, but I’ll go further. I’ll say it’s going to be worse, what comes out of this, in terms of the financial system, its power, and what it can get away with.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

SIMON JOHNSON: That’s the.

BILL MOYERS: Why is it going to how is it going to be worse?

SIMON JOHNSON: Well, there’s four we used to have a dozen or so substantial big banks, now we’re down to four. Now we’re down to four big banks that have a lot more market power and a lot more political power. They make the campaign contributions. They shape agendas in ways that are that are really quite scary. If you look, for example, at derivatives. And the debate on whether or not derivatives should be regulated in a sensible manner. And at this point, actually, the Obama Administration has is leaning in a better direction. But the big financial players are absolutely against any kind of sensible regulation. And I think they’re going to win.

MARCY KAPTUR: Let me give you a reality from ground zero in Toledo, Ohio. Our foreclosures have gone up 94 percent. A few months ago, I met with our realtors. And I said, ‘What should I know?’ They said, ‘Well, first of all, you should know the worst companies that are doing this to us.’

MARCY KAPTUR: I said, ‘Well, give me the top one.’ They said, ‘J.P. Morgan Chase.’ I went back to Washington that night. And one of my colleagues said, ‘You want to come to dinner?’ I said, ‘Well, what is it?’ He said, ‘Well, it’s a meeting with Jamie Dimon, the head of J.P. Morgan Chase.’ I said, ‘Wow, yes. I really do.’ So, I go to this meeting in a fancy hotel, fancy dinner, and everyone is complimenting him. I mean, it was just like a love fest.

MARCY KAPTUR: They finally got to me, and my point to ask a question. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want to speak out of turn here, Mr. Dimon.’ I said, ‘But your company is the largest forecloser in my district. And our Realtors just said to me this morning that your people don’t return phone calls.’ I said, ‘We can’t do work outs.’ And he looked at me, he said, ‘Do you know that I talk to your Governor all the time?’ He said, ‘Our company employs 10,000 people in Ohio.’

MARCY KAPTUR: And I’m thinking, ‘What is that? A threat?’ And he said, ‘I speak to the Mayor of Columbus.’ I said, ‘Why don’t you come further north?’ I said, ‘Toledo, Cleveland, where the foreclosures are just skyrocketing.’ He said, ‘Well, we’ll have someone call you.’ And he gave me a card. And they never did. For two weeks, we tried to reach them. And finally, I was on a national news show. And I told this story. They called within ten minutes. And they said, ‘Oh, we’ll work with you. We’ll try to do some workouts in your area.’

We planned the first one after working with them for weeks and weeks and weeks. Their people never showed up. And it was a Friday. Our people had taken off work. They’d driven from all these locations to come. We kept calling J.P. Morgan Chase saying, ‘Where’s your person? Where’s your person?’ And they finally sent somebody down from Detroit by 3:00 in the afternoon. But out people had been waiting all morning and a lot of people that’s how they treat our people.

BILL MOYERS: You did a remarkable thing on the floor of the House recently. And I want to show my audience a clip of a speech in which you urge people to break the law.

MARCY KAPTUR: So why should any American citizen be kicked out of their homes in this cold weather? In Ohio it is going to be 10 or 20 below zero. Don’t leave your home. Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don’t have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can’t find the paper up there on Wall Street. So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don’t you leave. In Ohio and Michigan and Indiana and Illinois and all these other places our people are being treated like chattel, and this Congress is stymied.

BILL MOYERS: Wow. You are urging them to resist the law when the Sheriff shows up to throw them out of their home.

MARCY KAPTUR: I’m saying that they deserve justice, too. And that the scales of justice in front of the Supreme Court are supposed to be balanced, and they’re not. And that possession is 90 percent of the law. And that you have legal rights, as a home owner. You have a right to legal representation. You have a right before the judge to have the mortgage note produced by whomever in the system has it. Judge Boyko of Cleveland threw out six cases, because when the foreclosures came up, the financial institutions couldn’t produce the note. Our people deserve their day in court.

BILL MOYERS: What’s your explanation as an economist. And a student of this financial system as to why the banks are taking so long to help the homeowners when Congress has allocated funds for that purpose?

SIMON JOHNSON: I’m afraid that it’s pretty obvious and it’s very tragic. That they have no interest in helping the homeowners. They make money with what they’re doing. Bill, they’ll expected a lot of these mortgages they made to default, okay? It was in their models. A high default rate. Now, they didn’t expect house prices to come down so much. That’s where they got their losses. But they absolutely made these loans expecting they would have to foreclose on people. And figuring they would make money on that.

SIMON JOHNSON: These are very smart, very profit-oriented people. I can assure you, if there was money in it for them. They would be negotiating you know, very various kinds of re-schedulings of these loans. They don’t want to do it. They it’s not in their interest. It’s not where the money is. Follow the money. The money is where Jamie Dimon says it is. Jamie Dimon says, ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet,’ in terms of his lobby in Washington. He’s on the record as saying, he’s this is his big initiative right now.

BILL MOYERS: To?

SIMON JOHNSON: To spend more time in Washington, more time cultivating all those relationships on Capital Hill and in the executive branch. And you know what else Jamie Dimon said to his shareholders? To his shareholders meeting this year, he said, with regard to 2008, the year of what we regard as the greatest financial crisis, an absolute human tragedy. He said, Jamie Dimon said to his shareholders, ‘This was perhaps our best year ever.’

MARCY KAPTUR: Think about what these banks have done. They have taken very imprudent behavior, irresponsible. They have really gambled, all right? And in many cases, been involved in fraudulent activity. And then when they lost, they shifted their losses to the taxpayer. So, if you look at an instrumentality like the F.H.A., the Federal Housing Administration. They used to insure one of every 50 mortgages in the country. Now it’s one out of four.

MARCY KAPTUR: Because what they’re doing is they’re taking their mistakes and they’re dumping them on the taxpayer. So, you and I, and the long term debt of our country and our children and grandchildren. It’s all at risk because of their behavior. We aren’t reigning them in. The laws of Congress passed last year in terms of housing, were hollow. Were hollow.

MARCY KAPTUR: Foreclosures in my area have gone up 94 percent. And we know the basic rules of economics. Housing leads us to recovery. Housing was the precipitating factor in this economic downturn. Unless you dealing with the housing sector, you aren’t going to have growth in this economy

BILL MOYERS: You’re both saying the financial world, the banks in particular, are putting their interests above anybody else’s interest. And they’ve got the power in the executive branch, and the Congress to back up their demands, right?

SIMON JOHNSON: This is capitalism, Bill. That’s what they’re supposed to do. They represent their shareholders, they’re appointed by the board of directors to make money for their shareholders. And the way they think that they can best make money is to shape the regulatory rules around housing around derivatives, around all everything we used to have that kept the financial sector under control. Has all been, you know, washed away, one way or another, by their efforts, right? They make money in the boom, that way. And when and when bad things happen, they shove all the downside onto the taxpayer. That’s what they’re doing their job.

MARCY KAPTUR: It’s socialism for the big banks. Because they’ve basically taken their mistakes and they’ve put it on the taxpayer. That’s the government. That’s socialism. That isn’t capitalism.

SIMON JOHNSON: Well people some people call that lemon socialism. So, when it turns out to be a lemon, it’s you it’s yours, the taxpayer. When it turns out to be good, it’s mine, I’m Wall Street.

BILL MOYERS: Why have we not had the reform that we all knew was being was needed and being demanded a year ago?

SIMON JOHNSON: I think the opportunity the short term opportunity was missed. There was an opportunity that the Obama Administration had. President Obama campaigned on a message of change. I voted for him. I supported him. And I believed in this message. And I thought that the time for change, for the financial sector, was absolutely upon us. This was abundantly apparent by the inauguration in January of this year.

SIMON JOHNSON: And Rahm Emanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff has a saying. He’s widely known for saying, ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’. Well, the crisis is over, Bill. The crisis in the financial sector, not for people who own homes, but the crisis for the big banks is substantially over. And it was completely wasted. The Administration refused to break the power of the big banks, when they had the opportunity, earlier this year. And the regulatory reforms they are now pursuing will turn out to be, in my opinion, and I do follow this day to day, you know. These reforms will turn out to be essentially meaningless.

MARCY KAPTUR: When Lincoln ran into trouble, during the Civil War, he got new generals. He brought in Grant. I hope that President Obama will bring in some new generals on the financial front.

BILL MOYERS: Should Geithner be fired? And Summers be fired?

MARCY KAPTUR: I don’t think that any individuals who had their hands on creating this mess should be in charge of cleaning it up. I honestly don’t think they’re capable of it.

BILL MOYERS: Let me show you an excerpt from the speech President Obama made on Wall Street last month, September. Here is the challenge he laid down to the bankers.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

BILL MOYERS: A reality check. Not one CEO of a Wall Street bank was there to hear the President. What do you make of that?

SIMON JOHNSON: Arrogance. Because they have no fear for the government anymore. They have no respect for the President, which I find absolutely extraordinary and shocking. All right? And I think they have no not an ounce of gratitude to the American people, who saved them, their jobs, and the way they run the world.

BILL MOYERS: In the scheme of things, it is the Congress, and the government that’s supposed to stand up to the powerful, organized interests, for the people in Toledo, who can’t come to Washington. Who are working or trying to keep their homes or trying to pay their health bills. What’s happened to our government?

MARCY KAPTUR: Congress has really shut down. I’m disappointed in both chambers, because wouldn’t you think, with the largest financial crisis in American history, in the largest transfer of wealth from the American people to the biggest banks in this country, that every committee of Congress would be involved in hearings, that this would be on the news, that people would be engaged in this. What we’re seeing is– tangential hearings on very arcane aspects of financial reform. For example, now we’re going to have a consumer protection agency to help the poor consumer, who doesn’t understand all of this, rather than hearings on the fundamental new architecture of reforming the American financial system, so that we have prudent lending, capital accumulation at the local level again; that we encourage savings and limit debt by the American people. Our country needs this. Those aren’t the hearings that are happening.

If you want a marker at the Federal level of how serious we are to get justice out of this financial crisis, look at the F.B.I. Look at the number of people who are really prosecuting and investigation mortgage fraud and securities fraud. It is so small

I’ve been one of the Members of Congress trying to increase by ten times the agents to get at the justice issues for the American people. For companies that have been hurt. For shareholders that have been hurt. Our government isn’t doing it. That it’s very easy to look at the budget of the F.B.I. in mortgage fraud and securities fraud and say, ‘How serious is the government?’ And until those numbers increase, we will not begin to get justice.

BILL MOYERS: If we can’t get reform out of this calamity, when can we get it then, given the realities you have both described?

SIMON JOHNSON: That’s the worry, Bill, right? And I’m very serious. I’m very serious about this. Which is, you know, does it take- we have elements of the Great Depression now, in terms of the impact on people, okay? I mean, people losing their jobs, their homes, their health insurance.

BILL MOYERS: Even though Wall Street says, ‘Well, we’re past the crisis now. Profits at the banks are up. And Wall Street- and the stock market is stirring.’

SIMON JOHNSON: We’re out of the financial part of the crisis, we’re not out of the human part of the crisis.

MARCY KAPTUR: And we’re not out of the housing crisis. The President ought to take these empty units and require his Administration to broker rental agreements with families, so they’re not kicked out. Property values are dropping, all over the country, sometimes by as much as 25 percent. You can do a 30 year mortgage, even a 40 year mortgage, where people have a job or even unemployment benefits, if they’re going to get them for another year. Well, my goodness, you can keep them in their home. Empty units do no one any good.

Let me tell you what happened in- where I live in Toledo, Ohio. The house next to me was foreclosed. And so, I called, the other day, a little plaque appeared on the door of this house. And it said, ‘$500 down, $300 a month rent.’ I said, ‘What is that, a land contract deal? What’s going on there?’ So I called the number. I get a repossession dealer in South Carolina. I said, ‘Hello sir, what’s your name?’ ‘Johnny,’ or something. I said, ‘And what’s your address?’ He gave me a P.O. Box number. I said, ‘Now listen,’ I said, ‘Your property is bringing down the value of our property because you’re on our heels.’ ‘Lady, I get these things from the bank.’ And he said, ‘You know, we try to unload ‘em. What are you going to offer me?’ This is what he’s saying to me over the telephone. I don’t think a single one of my neighbors knows that that home is now in possession of a group in South Carolina that could care less about it.

SIMON JOHNSON: Just to reinforce this point. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are now government agencies. Okay? They not only hold a lot of mortgages that are in default or close to default. They’re also responsible for enormous amount of the new loans- that are being originated anywhere in the country, actually. They work for the President. The kinds of proposals that Congresswoman Kaptur’s put in forth are entirely reasonable. And can be implemented by the executive branch, hopefully with Congress on board, certainly at the urging of certain members of Congress, obviously. But they can do it.

BILL MOYERS: So Simon, go ahead- you were saying- what is it that scares you? You’re worried?

SIMON JOHNSON: Another Great Depression. Right? If you don’t fix the financial system, Bill. If you allow them to have the same attitude. If you- if you actually allow them to increase their economic power, their ability to take risk, and their belief that they can shove the losses onto the government. And that’s why they didn’t show up to President Obama’s speech on Wall Street.

BILL MOYERS: Why don’t they respect him?

SIMON JOHNSON: Because they think that the next time they won’t even have to ask. They’ll just be given the bailout that they want.

MARCY KAPTUR: Right. That’s been their history. Their bed is feathered. When they messed up during the 1980s, they put their bill through the savings and loans crisis on the American people. $140 billion.

BILL MOYERS: And we’re still paying that off, by the way. I think the last payment will be made in 2013.

MARCY KAPTUR: Very good. Most people don’t even know that.

BILL MOYERS: Well, I covered that.

MARCY KAPTUR: But that, you know, it opened the flood gates. They go, ‘Oh, we can get away with $140 billion?’ This time how many trillions have they gotten away with? Plus all the deregulatory actions that were taken during the 1990s. I remember when they came to the Congress, when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. And they came down to the Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Committee, and they took the name off the door. And they changed it to Financial Services. And people began to see that they had money in the bank, and they charged them a fee to cash their own check on their own money. And then fees went up for everything. And the ordinary consumer found, ‘Hey, it’s not so smart to have a savings account, because it costs me more money if I have under $10,000 in the bank, they charge me all this money on my own money.’ They got exactly what they wanted. And so, then all the abuses and the irresponsible and imprudent behavior of the 1990s that led to this, nobody did anything. They just kept opening more floodgates to them. And then with the removal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, which I-

BILL MOYERS: That was the rule that kept the investment banks from being owned by banks, right?

MARCY KAPTUR: It’s about separating banking and commerce.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

MARCY KAPTUR: They said as a country, you know, banks have extraordinary power. They have the power to create money. And decide how much that is worth. They have extraordinary power. And we used to have capital ratios. We need to get back to them. Ten to one. For every dollar in your bank, you can lend ten. You know what J.P. Morgan did? A hundred to one. And then with derivatives, who knows how much? Glass-Steagall separated banking from commerce, so that we didn’t have these institutions getting too big, getting into too many things. And we just gave them total abandon. And they took it.

SIMON JOHNSON: Well, the final end of the last vestige of Glass-Steagall came in just now in August. Unnoted, but I think very significant. Goldman Sachs, you remember, was an investment bank, a securities company. Not allowed to be a commercial bank; didn’t have access to the Federal Reserve and this ability to tap into the money supply of the country. Until September of last year, when the crisis broke, they were allowed a very short notice to convert to being a bank holding company. This was what saved Goldman Sachs in my opinion. Also Morgan Stanley. Which meant they could stay in the securities business. And they could also have access to the Federal Reserve. In August, just now, they converted to what’s called a financial holding company. That may seem like a technical detail to you, but this means they can borrow from the Fed, at essentially zero interest rate now.

They can invest in, I mean, as far as we can see, from the outside, looking at their portfolio, anything they want, including, you’re going to love this one, they just bought some stock, big chunk of stock in a Chinese automotive company. Okay? So, that’s your money, that’s your Federal Reserve, financing a highly speculative investment. And if it goes well, they get the upside. And if it goes badly, that’s another one for us.

BILL MOYERS: Well, and this is what we were talking about earlier, the system. I mean, President Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin helps eliminate Glass-Steagall. And then leaves the government and goes to work for? Citicorp?

SIMON JOHNSON: Well Rubin’s a fascinating character. He ran Goldman Sachs, he went into the Clinton White House, then he became Secretary of the Treasury, and it was on his watch that, first of all, Glass-Steagall began to really seriously crumble, and then it was completely swept away- replaced, abolished, really. And then, of course, Rubin goes on after he leaves Treasury, to be the senior guru type figure at Citigroup. And Citigroup is absolutely epicenter of everything that’s gone wrong with our financial system.

BILL MOYERS: And wasn’t it Robert Rubin the mentor, the guru to both Tim Geithner and Larry Summers?

SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. Both Geithner and Summers advanced to senior positions in the Treasury under Rubin was instrumental in bringing Larry Summers to be President of Harvard, after the Clinton Administration. And according to published new report, he was absolutely key person in making sure that Tim Geithner first went to a senior job at the IMF, and then became President of the New York Fed. And there are unconfirmed reports that Robert Rubin was an essential advisor to then candidate Obama in fall of last year, with regard to who he should bring on board as the leadership team on the economic side.

MARCY KAPTUR: And you know, looking at it from the heartland, when I look at Wall Street and all their connections into Washington, and I’ve been at it a while now, it’s very disheartening to me, because I know they don’t care about us out there. We’re flyover country for them. And they’re just out to make money.

And I have seen people that I worked with in the Carter White House, who were associated what the bond industry of Wall Street, use their access and create for themselves a money path that today has led them to head organizations like Black Rock, and get private contracts with the Federal Reserve. The over $2 trillion, we don’t know how much that the Federal Reserve has extended at this point.

BILL MOYERS: And Black Rock is?

MARCY KAPTUR: Black Rock is an institution that has gotten the major contract of the Federal Reserve to do the mortgage workouts. And my question is, the very people involved in Black Rock, who’ve gotten these confidential contracts with the Federal Reserve, they were involved on Wall Street in creating the instruments in the first place. So how do we know that they are not covering up their own crime?

BILL MOYERS: So, Simon, what happens now? If we’re going to avert a depression and the next calamity, what needs to be done?

SIMON JOHNSON: Well, I think you have to keep at it, Bill. I mean, that’s the lesson from previous generations of Americans, who have really confronted entrenched power like this. You have to keep at it. And you mustn’t be satisfied. When the Administration says, ‘Okay, we fixed it. Don’t worry. We did some technical tweaking on capital requirements, for example, in the banks.’ You have to say, ‘No, that’s not true. Let’s look at what’s happening, let’s follow it through.’

The muckrakers of today are absolutely essential, I think, to really pushing these banks. And revealing what they’re doing. And by the way, Bill, it’s going to I think it’s going to be a long haul. I think that the economy will start to recover. We’ll get some jobs back. It’s going to be very painful for a lot of people. But other people’s attention is going to drift. It’s a three, five, seven, maybe twelve year cycle. But when it comes back, it will come back with a vengeance. And it will be even, I think, even more devastating, in all likelihood, than what we just saw.

BILL MOYERS: How do we get Congress back? How do we get Congress to do what it’s supposed to do? Oversight. Real reform. Challenge the powers that be.

MARCY KAPTUR: We have to take the money out. We have to get rid of the constant fundraising that happens inside the Congress. Before political parties used to raise money; now individual members are raising money through the DCCC and the RCCC. It is absolutely corrupt. It’s good people.

BILL MOYERS: Those are the fundraising groups both parties-

MARCY KAPTUR: Parties.

BILL MOYERS: In the Congress.

MARCY KAPTUR: And then people wonder, ‘Well, why doesn’t Congress get along?’ Because they are made into arch enemies by the type of fundraising system that is embedded in the very guts of the institution. So, you’ve got to clean that out. But meanwhile, we need to get hired over at the justice department, 1,000 agents, in mortgage fraud and in securities fraud. Then, I pray, that the leadership of both chambers will do the kind of robust hearings that the nation deserves to rout out those who did wrong and to change the fundamental financial architecture of this country. And then the President needs to get his top housing advisors in the room with him. And they need to meet all weekend. And they need to get their arms around this housing market, in order to stem the rising foreclosures. We haven’t stopped the bleeding out there.

BILL MOYERS: Does President Obama get it?

MARCY KAPTUR: I don’t think President Obama has the right people around him. The poor man inherited a total mess, globally and domestically. I think some of the people that he trusted haven’t delivered. I urge him to get new generals. It’s time.

SIMON JOHNSON: Louis the Fourteenth of France, a very powerful monarch, was famous for having many bad things, you know, happen under his rule. And people would always say, ‘If only Louis the Fourteenth knew. I’m sure he doesn’t know. If we could just tell him, he’d sort it out.’ You know. I’m skeptical.

BILL MOYERS: Simon Johnson, Congresswoman Kaptur, thank you both very much for this interesting discussion.

MARCY KAPTUR: Thank you.

SIMON JOHNSON: Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a remarkable conversation! My favorite takeaway: as Lincoln had to do in prosecuting the War To Save The Union, ‘time to change the generals’!

Feedback welcome.

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Marcus, on October 10, 2009 at 1:13 pm said:

Mike,
The handbook can be purchased for $249 from their web site.

http://west.thomson.com/productdetail/146955/40711471/productdetail.aspx

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on October 10, 2009 at 12:50 pm said:

Hello Milton,
I think the law library will have an access for the public.
I will check my law library; it seems very interesting.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
mike linton, on October 10, 2009 at 9:11 am said:

Does anyone have unlimited access on westlaw?

I thought I did, but I just have a student subscription. There is a treatise entitled “Mortgage and Asset Backed Securities Litigation Handbook”

There is a complete section of “borrower claims”
here is the outline:

Chapter 5. Borrower Litigation
I. Borrower v. Trust
A. Litigating Origination-Based Claims Involving Securitized Loans
§ 5:1. Introduction
§ 5:2. Traditional financial markets and originator/lender liability
§ 5:3. Federal legislation
§ 5:4. –Truth in Lending Act
§ 5:5. –Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
§ 5:6. The interplay between federal, state and local legislation relating to predatory lending
§ 5:7. –Federal and regulatory levels
§ 5:8. –State and local levels
§ 5:9. –Practical implications
§ 5:10. –Pending legislation and regulation
§ 5:11. Standing and assignee claims and defenses
§ 5:12. –Assignee claims and defenses
§ 5:13. Potential common law theories of assignee liability for securitized loans
§ 5:14. –Aiding and abetting
§ 5:15. –Civil conspiracy
§ 5:16. –Joint venture
§ 5:17. Conclusion

I was hoping someone had it and could download it in word and email it to me. mrlinton82@aol.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 10, 2009 at 6:46 am said:

Abby,

Found some interesting info on your vp Steve Nagy. I emailed it to you… Check the signatures between the docs I sent to your assignment.

4closureFraud
Abby in CA, on October 9, 2009 at 8:38 pm said:

Marcus
did you see the interviews Michael Moore did of Marcy Kaptur? Love it!!
Marcus, on October 9, 2009 at 8:05 pm said:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur was on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS tonight. She is indeed a rare breed in Washington.
You can read and watch the video at the link below.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/profile.html
Deontos, on October 9, 2009 at 7:22 pm said:

Foreclosure Fraud,

I am in Calif ………

Always thought “Motions”
had something to do
with Cameras. And hadn’t
heard the word “Assignment”
since I had HOMEWORK.

Give me the Guide!
I’ll tell you no LIES.

Seriously:

deontos.is at gmail dot com
floridadefenseteam, on October 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm said:

Hi Foreclosure Fraud,

We’ll test out your website – we’re in Florida and have
a few assignments that are fraudulent…
Abby in CA, on October 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm said:

foreclosure fraud
I will review your draft guide book on looking up public records for california

send to carra2009@gmail.com
Rik, on October 9, 2009 at 3:06 pm said:

Squeek!!

rbienvenue@yahoo.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 9, 2009 at 2:54 pm said:

Have a rough draft of the guide to looking up public records / assignments. Any guinea pigs out there that would like to try it out? It all makes sense to me but I want to see if someone that has no knowledge on how to do this follow it.

Would like someone in Florida since that is where I based it off of and someone from another state to see if it make sense to them.

Made it as simple as can be with pictures…

4closureFraud
Marcus, on October 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm said:

Banks Making Short Sales Tougher

Banks are backing away from short sales, forcing sellers to pay extra at closing or demanding a promissory note for the amount due. One-third of borrowers owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, according First American CoreLogic.

When their situations were really tough, most banks preferred short sales because they were their best opportunity to get the most money back. But with an improving economy, and because the losses on many of these properties have already been written off the books, banks are increasingly reluctant to negotiate a short sale.

Today, banks demand 9.5 weeks to respond to a short-sale request, compared to 4.5 weeks a year ago, according to research firm Campbell Communications. Their reluctance is frequently stymieing sales and frustrating real estate practitioners.

“It drives me up a wall,” says Robert G. Hertzog of Summit Home Consultants in Phoenix. “[The bank is] holding my client hostage.”

Source: BusinessWeek, Christopher Palmeri (10/09/2009)
Deontos, on October 9, 2009 at 12:35 pm said:

If you are in Calif you should likely be aware of this lenders
advisory to DEFEAT homeowner use of Lis Pendens……

CA: Early Removal of a Lis Pendens

A lis pendens or a notice of pendency of action is recorded in the real property records in connection with a lawsuit. To a loan servicer or lender in the process of a foreclosure action, a lis pendens will likely be recorded against the property by the borrower or junior lienholder in connection with its lawsuit so the property cannot be sold at REO without resolution of the lawsuit. However, one does not always have to wait for resolution of the entire lawsuit before having the lis pendens expunged or removed from the property.

The effect of a lis pendens is to place a cloud on title to the real property and to give constructive notice of the lawsuit to third parties. Once it is recorded in the real property records, any subsequent purchaser will take the property “subject to” the lawsuit and the court’s orders against the property.

The California statutes provide that the lender can take steps to expunge the lis pendens and effectively clear the title — and that these steps can be taken prior to the resolution of the lawsuit. This allows the lender to have the cloud on title removed prior to the resolution of the entire lawsuit, thereby empowering the lender to sell the property at REO without waiting the 1-2 year time period for a courtroom trial.

The area of lis pendens is governed in California by Section 405, et seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The statute is written toward preferring the removal of the lis pendens wherever possible, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff’s attorney to keep the lis pendens in the real property records. In California Code of Civ. Pro. § 405.30, upon motion by the lender’s attorney, the court will review four case-specific areas to determine if the lis pendens can be removed.

First, the plaintiff’s lawsuit must contain a real property cause of action. If the lawsuit is only regarding the loan terms and does not affect the deed of trust or property securing the loan, then the court should order the lis pendens expunged.

Second, if the plaintiff’s lawsuit does contain a real property cause of action, then the plaintiff’s attorney must prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” (meaning, more likely than not) that the plaintiff’s lawsuit is for a valid real property claim, and that the plaintiff will likely be successful at trial.

Third, the plaintiff must prove that the proper statutory notice procedures were performed in recording the lis pendens. To be valid, a copy of the lis pendens must be provided to all parties with interest in the property by either registered or certified mail, return receipt requested before the lis pendens is recorded in the real property records.

Fourth, the court will look to see if monetary relief would be adequate to redress the plaintiff’s grievances. If financial recovery alone under the lawsuit would be sufficient, the court should expunge the lis pendens. In reviewing “adequate relief,” the statute specifically provides that the plaintiff’s argument that his real property is unique and one of a kind will only apply where the property is a single-family dwelling that the plaintiff intends to occupy.

Given that the statute is drafted toward the removal of the lis pendens unless its protection is specifically required, that the burden of proof to keep the lis pendens is on the plaintiff’s attorney, and that the removal of the lis pendens would allow the lender to sell the property at REO prior to full resolution of the lawsuit, then it would be advisable for the lender to discuss this opportunity with its outside counsel in defending litigation.
ALLAN ~ Boston Globe: Massachusetts (non-judicial) "Foreclosure sales in limbo over title issue", on October 9, 2009 at 10:05 am said:

BOSTON GLOBE
Home / Business

Foreclosure sales in limbo over title issue
Expected ruling may complicate transactions

By Jenifer B. McKim

Globe Staff / October 9, 2009

A court decision expected as soon as today could negate the validity of sales of thousands of foreclosed homes in Massachusetts, causing havoc for buyers and sellers and further stalling the housing market’s recovery in hard-hit areas.

At issue is proof of ownership at the time of a foreclosure sale. During the housing boom, millions of mortgages were bundled into bonds and sold to investors, a process that resulted in lengthy and twisted paper trails that can obscure ownership. Many lenders believed they could complete foreclosure transactions and later produce formal proof they held the mortgage.

That changed in March when Justice Keith C. Long of Massachusetts Land Court found that two foreclosures in Springfield were invalid because ownership of the mortgages was not clear at the time of the foreclosures.

Long’s ruling, which came as a shock to many who deal with distressed properties, called into question the ownership of hundreds if not thousands of foreclosed homes in Massachusetts, prompting some lenders to delay sales out of fear they could later be voided, title companies to balk at insuring them, and nonprofits to steer away from certain foreclosed homes altogether.

“There are thousands and thousands of titles that have gone through foreclosures with these late filed’’ ownership records, said Lawrence Scofield, an attorney with Ablitt Law Offices in Woburn, who represented plaintiffs in three consolidated Springfield cases ruled on by Long. “Judge Long is saying you don’t really own it. That is the real, overwhelming, economic effect.’’

Two of the plaintiffs asked Long to reconsider the ruling, and a decision is imminent.

Among those watching the case are Boston city officials, who say they hope Long will clarify title issues for homes that have already gone into foreclosure. In the meantime, the judge’s actions have stymied the city’s effort to buy as many as 20 bank-owned properties, hurting much-needed redevelopment efforts in neighborhoods plagued by foreclosure, officials said.

“It has put some properties in the state of limbo,’’ said Evelyn Friedman, director of Boston’s Department of Neighborhood Development.

While title issues can affect any home sale, Long’s ruling addressed procedures required under foreclosure law and therefore only affects properties foreclosed on by a lender. His decision builds on a growing national movement among housing advocates, courts, and some lawmakers to push lenders dealing with foreclosed properties to produce accurate documentation before deals are consummated.

Kathleen Engel, professor of law at Suffolk University, said the federal government should step in to help states deal with “toxic titles’’ that are clogging up the system from California to Florida. She said until recently few people were scrutinizing paperwork of foreclosing lenders, whose actions are causing problems for borrowers, investors, and municipalities. No matter how Long rules, she said, the problem isn’t going away.

“The fundamental problem is the paperwork was really shoddy,’’ said Engel. “The mess was created by Wall Street.’’

Locally, the Massachusetts decision has pitted advocates trying to revive neighborhoods against others trying to help homeowners stave off foreclosures.

Gary Klein, a consumer law attorney who filed a friend of the court brief in the case, said the real estate system placed “expedience and convenience’’ before the law. Providing home buyers with a “full set of procedural protections,’’ he said, is more important than comforting lenders who ignored the law. He said the lending community created the mess and it needs to fix it .

Klein said there is a benefit to the ruling for homeowners in trouble: It is slowing the foreclosure process, allowing them more time to try to save their homes. Indeed, since March, the number of foreclosure deeds has slowed, according to Warren Group, a Boston company that provides real estate data.

“There are probably at least a thousand families who are getting at least some period of temporary delay while lenders go back and get a proper paper trail,’’ said Klein, an attorney with the Boston-based law firm Roddy, Klein and Ryan. “Slowing foreclosures down allows people to get loan modifications and other relief.’’

The Springfield lawsuit was filed not by homeowners seeking to regain their houses, but by the foreclosing lenders who were trying to remove a “cloud from the title’’ of properties created because of where the lenders chose to publish foreclosure auction notices. A secondary issue was whether the notices – which did not officially name the mortgage holders – complied with the law, and that is what Long is concerned about.

The Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, a statewide group with 3,000 members, joined the plaintiff’s attorney to ask the court to reconsider its ruling. Attorney Christopher Pitt, chair of the group’s Title Standards Committee, said many banks already have changed their procedures as a result of the March decision and are now coming to foreclosure-sale closings with completed paperwork.

But that doesn’t help people who already bought a foreclosed property from a bank.

“If a property has one of those arguably defective foreclosures in its back title, right now you may not be able to refinance or sell it,’’ said Pitt, who works for the law firm Robinson & Cole, which has an office in Boston.

In Springfield, the ruling scuttled purchases of two foreclosed properties in depressed areas, said Rudy Perkins, a staff lawyer with HAPHousing, a nonprofit that promotes affordable housing. As a result, Perkins said, the agency now steers clear of properties with similar title questions.

“There is a danger that if this can’t be resolved, those properties will stay boarded up,’’ said Perkins. “It killed the deals and, unfortunately, it is going to kill deals on other properties.’’

In North Andover, real estate agent Linda Kody said some banks have moved to redo a foreclosure rather than wait for Long’s decision. Others are not moving forward with foreclosures. Twelve pending sales in her office have collapsed recently, Kody said, and another 25 bank-owned property listings are on hold as lenders wait for a ruling.

“It is very upsetting,’’ said Kody, president of the real estate firm Kody & Co. Inc.

Biju Kachappilly, a father of two, is one of the many hopeful buyers awaiting the decision. Kachappilly said his pending purchase of a four-bedroom, $400,000 Colonial in Tyngsborough in April fell through over questions about the title. He still hopes to buy the home, but in the meantime is paying higher rent on a month-to-month apartment in Billerica after notifying the landlord of his plans to move.

“We are trying to buy a house and move our family there; it is good for the neighborhood and it is good for the town,’’ said Kachappilly. “Many families and houses are in limbo because of this decision.’’

Jenifer McKim can be reached at jmckim@globe.com.

© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is front page news in Massachusetts where Long’s decision likely won’t be long, or short.

What would it take to examine the docs submitted on those countless foreclosures that have already taken place? How far back can one go? Is the statute of limitations tolled where there is newly discovered evidence or where plaintiffs have in bad faith covered up the true identity of the holder of the original note? How about using Rule 60b? Can a layman who researches court and land records and finds fraud bring it to the court’s attention, without being an interested party? Can a layman submit an amicus brief?

Am looking with great pride and admiration upon the stellar initiatives taken by the active participants here, some of them Pro Se, on our foreclosure defense blog. Thank you, Neil and others for giving us the foundation, platform and inspiration to weigh in with impact and substance on this nationwide grassroots movement that truly is from the ground up. May we all be activists for economic justice.

Allan
Cambridge, MA/Miami, FL
BeMoved@AOL.com
MAvSLAPP@AOL.com
TW, on October 9, 2009 at 9:06 am said:

This sounds much like an organized crime ring… racketeering.
I’ve posted the ROLLING STONES ARTICLE on my public folder if anyone would like to have a copy of the pdf file please visit http://tawebster.spaces.live.com and look for the folder named “PUBLIC” on the left hand side; select ROLLING STONE_WALL STREET NAKED SWINDLE

stop_govt_waste@hotmail.com
angry&not taking it, on October 9, 2009 at 8:52 am said:

fwiw..
After reading the mortgage banksters news letters @ usfn . org
Title insurance WILL NOT cover FRAUD!.. well this is what their counsel has stated.
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 9, 2009 at 8:19 am said:

Here is the online version of the Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone article with some video…

Short-Selling Vs. Naked Short-Selling: An Explanation

http://bit.ly/45fgyc

4closurefraud
Deontos, on October 9, 2009 at 8:18 am said:

Foreclosure Fraud

Do you have this keyword in your “Twitter feed”?
“toxic title”

————————————————————————————-

An article snip from your twitterstream……..

Foreclosure sales in limbo over title issue
Expected ruling may complicate transactions
By Jenifer B. McKim

A court decision expected as soon as today could negate the validity of sales of thousands of foreclosed homes in Massachusetts, causing havoc for buyers and sellers and further stalling the housing market’s recovery in hard-hit areas.

At issue is proof of ownership at the time of a foreclosure sale. During the housing boom, millions of mortgages were bundled into bonds and sold to investors, a process that resulted in lengthy and twisted paper trails that can obscure ownership. Many lenders believed they could complete foreclosure transactions and later produce formal proof they held the mortgage.

That changed in March when Justice Keith C. Long of Massachusetts Land Court found that two foreclosures in Springfield were invalid because ownership of the mortgages was not clear at the time of the foreclosures.At issue is proof of ownership at the time of a foreclosure sale. During the housing boom, millions of mortgages were bundled into bonds and sold to investors, a process that resulted in lengthy and twisted paper trails that can obscure ownership. Many lenders believed they could complete foreclosure transactions and later produce formal proof they held the mortgage.

That changed in March when Justice Keith C. Long of Massachusetts Land Court found that two foreclosures in Springfield were invalid because ownership of the mortgages was not clear at the time of the foreclosures.At issue is proof of ownership at the time of a foreclosure sale. During the housing boom, millions of mortgages were bundled into bonds and sold to investors, a process that resulted in lengthy and twisted paper trails that can obscure ownership. Many lenders believed they could complete foreclosure transactions and later produce formal proof they held the mortgage.

That changed in March when Justice Keith C. Long of Massachusetts Land Court found that two foreclosures in Springfield were invalid because ownership of the mortgages was not clear at the time of the foreclosures.

While title issues can affect any home sale, Long’s ruling addressed procedures required under foreclosure law and therefore only affects properties foreclosed on by a lender. His decision builds on a growing national movement among housing advocates, courts, and some lawmakers to push lenders dealing with foreclosed properties to produce accurate documentation before deals are consummated.

……….Kathleen Engel, professor of law at Suffolk University, said the federal government should step in to help states deal with
>>>>>>>>>> “toxic titles’’ <<<<<<<<<<
that are clogging up the system from California to Florida. She said until recently few people were scrutinizing paperwork of foreclosing lenders, whose actions are causing problems for borrowers, investors, and municipalities. No matter how Long rules, she said, the problem isn’t going away. ……….

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/10/09/title_troubles_leave_some_foreclosure_sales_in_limbo/
TW, on October 9, 2009 at 7:44 am said:

***This months ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE has a tremendous article “Wall Streets Naked Swindle” that just expanded my peripheral big time!

P. 11 of the article compares the selling of “phantom” stocks to home mortgages. Title Insurance claims will no doubt go through the roof in the next several years on securitized loans where the chain of title has been compromised and (in my instance) MERS was insured as mortgagee on my loan and title policy.

These thugs on Wall Street & Capitol Hill are no joke! To borrow a phrase from my good friend Mario Kenny – “they have designed their system for the maximum amount of destruction permissible by law”.

Please check out this months issue of Rolling Stone Magazine and take time to read this very insightful article.

To Dawn Rapoport and Mario Kenny of Rapoport Law Group in Ft. Lauderdale, FL – THANK YOU!!!

Take care and may GOD Bless you and your family!
Alina, on October 9, 2009 at 7:21 am said:

Neil,

FYI – this attorney is on your list of “Attorneys who get it.” He was one of the attorneys I had contacted early on in my case.

Here is the story from Home Equity Theft Reporter:

Attorneys Accused Of Misleading Consumers About Nature Of Legal Services, Level Of Attorney Involvement When Offering Loan Mods Begin Feeling The Heat
Buried in a recent column in the Miami Daily Business Review is a recounting of a South Florida homeowner’s experience with a local attorney selling loan modification services to the public:

* The [Florida Attorney General's] office is investigating consumer complaints that Brian Korte, a West Palm Beach attorney tied to a Fort Lauderdale company called Legal Modification Attorney at Law, allegedly charged advance fees and “misled consumers regarding the nature of the legal services provided by the company and the level of involvement the attorney would have with each consumer’s case,” [deputy director Ryan] Wiggins said.(1)

***

* Homeowner Peter Fischer of Sunrise said in a complaint to the AG’s office that he paid Korte’s law firm $2,900 to oversee a loan modification. According to Fischer, Korte and his staff told him to stop paying his mortgage and not to contact or answer calls from the lender. Fischer said he was told the fee would be refunded to him if the modification did not go though.

* Fischer said after several failed attempts to reach Korte, a member of the lawyer’s staff called and said Fischer’s files had been lost and they needed his information again. Shortly after that, Fischer said, a Korte staffer told him he did not qualify for a loan modification. “I asked for the paperwork on why I was denied and nothing was ever sent to me,” Fischer said. “So I asked for my money back and they said ‘let me think about it.’”

* Fischer said he was later told half of his fee would be returned. Fischer said ‘half is better than nothing,” but still filed a complaint with the attorney general’s office. The AG’s Wiggins said it has received six other complaints about Korte, but declined to discuss details of the investigation. The Florida Bar said it too has received multiple complaints against Korte, but would not provide additional information because the investigation is confidential. Bar complaints remain confidential until a grievance committee finds probable cause for the investigation to continue.

For the story, see Record number of complaints target modification lawyers.

(1) Reportedly, the attorney general’s investigation is continuing and no charges have been filed. Korte did not return messages left at his West Palm Beach office and did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment, according to the story. UnauthPractOfLawTheta
Marcus, on October 9, 2009 at 6:52 am said:

U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout, Experts Say

A year after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered, industry executives and Washington policy makers are worrying that another government mortgage giant could be the next housing domino.
Problems at the Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees mortgages with low down payments, are becoming so acute that some experts warn the agency might need a federal bailout.

Running questions about the F.H.A.’s future — underscored by interviews with policy makers, analysts and home buyers — came to the fore on Thursday on Capitol Hill. In testimony before a House subcommittee, the F.H.A. commissioner, David H. Stevens, assured lawmakers that his agency would not need a bailout and that it was managing its risks.

But he acknowledged that some 20 percent of F.H.A. loans insured last year — and as many as 24 percent of those from 2007 — faced serious problems including foreclosure, offering a preview of a forthcoming audit of the agency’s finances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/business/09fha.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Marcus, on October 9, 2009 at 6:42 am said:

Another Kind of Foreclosure Crisis
Source: NYTimes.com

The foreclosure crisis is being made substantially worse by a shortage of lawyers for people whose
homes are at risk.
According to a new study, an overwhelming number of homeowners who face foreclosure do not have legal help in protecting their rights. As a result, people are losing their homes who do not need to.

In 2008, more than three million foreclosures were filed, and the number keeps growing. By one estimate, more than eight million families may lose their homes in the next four years. Having a home taken away is devastating for the families involved. This churning of people out of their houses, and in some cases into homeless shelters or out on the streets, is also expensive and disruptive for the nation as a whole.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 86 percent of people facing property foreclosure last year in economically challenged Stark County, Ohio, lacked counsel. In Queens County, New York, 84 percent of defendants lacked full legal representation in proceedings involving foreclosures on “subprime,” “high cost” or “non-traditional” mortgages — ones disproportionately targeted to low-income and minority populations.

The law of mortgages and foreclosures is complicated even for many lawyers. It is hard to imagine what it must be like for a poor person with little legal knowledge to have to fight on his or her own to keep a home.

Homeowners often have legal defenses, but laypeople are unlikely to know what they are or how to use them. A lawyer can also persuade lenders to slow down foreclosure proceedings, or to renegotiate terms, by invoking the appropriate federal, state and local laws.

Foreclosures should not be allowed to go forward until, as the Brennan Center recommends, homeowners are at least given enough counseling to know whether they have viable legal claims.

Although budgets are tight these days, Congress and the states need to come up with more money for foreclosure legal assistance.

Class actions can be a powerful tool in challenging practices, like predatory lending, that affected large numbers of homeowners. Right now the Legal Services Corporation, which provides essential civil legal services to low income Americans, is barred by law from representing clients in class action suits. Congress should lift that and other unwarranted restrictions on legal service providers. Too many Americans urgently need help.
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 9, 2009 at 5:11 am said:

Linda

Working on the “guide” and will hopefully have it completed this weekend…

4closureFraud
Linda, on October 9, 2009 at 5:06 am said:

Bryan, so sorry for your situation–could you pass along name of Arizona attorney who is helping–thanks
Linda, on October 9, 2009 at 4:56 am said:

Foreclosure Fraud, I would like to research the names (notaries, vp’s, assistant secretaries, etc. on my assignments)–I have tried to google and have not had success, please tell us how to do that and how to access your guide as mentioned in your post.

“I am putting together a “guide” on how to look up assignments. How about all the notary’s on these documents? Where do they work? Are they even real? We will look them up too…the “vice presidents” on your assignment are employers of your foreclosing “lender” or don’t even really exist. ..it will show you how to look up information about where they work, where they live, getting copies of their property records, (if available) and comparing their signatures on their own personal mortgages to the signatures on your assignments. You will be able to show them as “vice presidents” of 50 plus different lender’s, some even on the same day.”
Deontos, on October 8, 2009 at 11:54 pm said:

Foreclosure Fraud,

I look forward ANXIOUSLY
to your proposed contribution.
ie “The Guide”. Thank you!
And thank you again for your
Twitter innovation, I put it on
my iGoogle page.

I really REALLY feel like
somehow I have fallen
down the RABBIT HOLE
in a Alice in Nightmare Land
horror story.

I can’t believe some of the
INSANE things that are going
on in our country.

I guess I’ll feel a lot better
after this Saturday when I
go to see Michael Moore’s
movie.
Bryan, on October 8, 2009 at 7:09 pm said:

Oh, I forgot to mention that the hearings against all the contractors is the 28 of this month and I still haven’t found a body gaurd yet.

The advive I got from the Sheriffs Department is to carry a digital pocket recorded so that after he beats the hell out of me I will have it on tape along with wittnesses.

WTF — I don’t want to get beat up or killed just to have it on tape in order to prosecute and get my money back.
Bryan, on October 8, 2009 at 7:04 pm said:

Hi Everyone,

Well, living in my truck is hard as heck. Though the illegal auction was postponed the bank never told me, and they never told me a new date.

Once again, I am still without answers and still without an attorney.

For those who know me, the gal in Scottsdale with the same situation as me found an attorney and they have already filed their federal lawsuit against M&I Bank.

Her attorney is doing good for her and even though our situations are almost identical. He wouldn’t even respond to me. And I became a victim 3 years before she did. I am now hoping she will send me a copy of her lawsuit so I can use it.

I wish her and all of you the very best…

Oh, by the way, the stress of all of this crap caused me to have a heart attach last week. I survived it, obviously. However, the stress is growing and the fight in me is very little. I am fading away, and not by choice.
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 8, 2009 at 6:50 pm said:

Opps

Small typo…

It is amazing what you will find and I cant see how it can be disputed in the courts when you can show that the “vice presidents” on your assignment are EMPLOYERS of your foreclosing “lender” or don’t even really exist.

Meant to say…

It is amazing what you will find and I cant see how it can be disputed in the courts when you can show that the “vice presidents” on your assignment are EMPLOYEES of your foreclosing “lender” or don’t even really exist.
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 8, 2009 at 6:43 pm said:

Ian,

I never heard of anyone bringing a foreclosure action that had 20 days AFTER the foreclosure to prove ownership but I am not an attorney and do not provide any legal advice.

I know you have 20 days to answer the complaint once you are served or No sooner than twenty days (20) after the notice of trustee sale is filed, the home may be sold at public auction for the amount of the debt plus foreclosure costs.

Anyone else want to comment on this?

Anyway, by the request of Lisa E., I am putting together a “guide” which I will share here (if okay with Neil) on how to look up assignments and how to “go through the files of foreclosures which had already taken place and find out if anyone ever filed a correct and legal chain of assignment” as you requested as well.

It is all public record, available online, for you to research from the comfort of you own home, during the late night hours, when you are up all night, thinking about the situation you are in, where you went wrong, how this is happening to you, what to do next, where to go, what about my credit, what about my job, my career, what will my family and friends think… Sorry got into a rant there…

Actually it is more of a guide for everyone to look up their own cases for (fraudulent) assignments but it can be used for any case.

It will also show how to do reverse look-ups to see the strategies of our plaintiffs attorneys. How to go to the court house and look up affidavits, motions, orders, etc.

How about all the notary’s on these documents? Where do they work? Are they even real? We will look them up too…

Challenge Everything…

It is amazing what you will find and I cant see how it can be disputed in the courts when you can show that the “vice presidents” on your assignment are employers of your foreclosing “lender” or don’t even really exist.

It will show you how to pull up the records of these “vice presidents” and see multiple different squiggly lines that are their “signatures”. Or even if they are really who they say they are, it will show you how to look up information about where they work, where they live, getting copies of their property records, (if available) and comparing their signatures on their own personal mortgages to the signatures on your assignments.

You will be able to show them as “vice presidents” of 50 plus different lender’s, some even on the same day.

If everyone here starts doing this we will see that the same (fraudulent) “vice presidents” are on on all of the assignments and we can exchange notes on the findings…

Again, I am not an attorney, I am just someone who has been dealing with this since the beginning of 2008 and has invested much time and effort fighting these fraudsters.

Why am I doing this?

I have just gotten to the point of total disgust watching friends, family, co-workers, and even complete strangers, lose everything that they have worked for by NOT “living out of their means”, or “bought a house they couldn’t afford” and have to go though this because of the greed and corruption of all who is behind this mess.

So I decided to do whatever I can to make a difference and share as much knowledge as I can with my peers.

Isn’t that what the Internet is for?

@4closurefraud

BTW
Wouldn’t even be on this mission without the enlightenment and guidance provided by Neil, Brad, this website, and a few other very knowledgeable people in this arena such as Nye Lavalle.
Ian, on October 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm said:

To Foreclosure Fraud or anyone who can authoritatively answer this query: re: the Ohio ruling that “plaintiffs who do not own the mortgage have no right to bring a foreclosure action”. I thought anyone bringing a foreclosure action had 20 days AFTER the foreclosure to prove ownership, perfected chain of assignment, etc. So I have thought all along, that someone who had alot of time on their hands could go through the files of foreclosures which had already taken place and find out if anyone ever filed a correct and legal chain of assignment. I thought that there must be a mad scrambling around behind the scenes with notes being forged, backdated, recorded after the fact, etcetera in order to satisfy the paper requirements, even if it is all fraudulent. Anybody? thanks!
Vicki M, on October 8, 2009 at 10:22 am said:

Thank you Alina for all of your hard work. I appreciate it very much!
mike linton, on October 8, 2009 at 8:20 am said:

Hon. Jacqueline Schwartz
State of Florida County Court, Dade County
Dade County Courthouse
73 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
Dade County
(305) 569-2502
http://www.jud11.flcourts.org

Hon. Caryn C. Schwartz
State of Florida County Court, Dade County
Dade County Courthouse
73 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
Dade County
(305) 354-8761
http://www.jud11.flcourts.org
Alina, on October 8, 2009 at 7:50 am said:

Foreclosure Fraud,

Another great victory in Ohio. This decision reinforces Boyko’s October 2007 dismissals.

On another planet (namely the State of Florida), we have a another 3rd DCA decision that is a bit distressing. In the case of Republic Federal v. Doyle (http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/images/news_photos/57774/3D09-2405.pdf), Judge Schwartz strikes again by delivering a stern warning to the trial court judge. The trial judge granted the homeowners a month extension from the foreclosure sale in order to sell their home. The bank appealed this decision to the 3rd DCA who in effect stated that “benevolence and compassion” have no place when it comes to setting foreclosure sales. Additionally, the 3rd DCA stated that the trial judge’s reasoning was flawed and “an abuse of discretion in the most basic sense of that term.”

I want to remind everyone that the senior Judge Schwartz is the same judge in the MERS v. Revorado that defined MERS as a “modern innovative instrument of commerce.”

I have been unable to locate contact info for this judge and the other 2 judges, Barbara Lagoa and David Gersten.
Deontos, on October 7, 2009 at 10:36 pm said:

Credit to Commenter “Foreclosure Fraud” for finding this.

Significantly, the defendants who prevailed here were **Pro Se**.
In my opinion the Appeals Court judges were acting VERY in accord with the spirit of Honorable Judge Schack in their Decision as regards to the plantiff not having their act together.

——————————————————————————————

Ohio Supreme Court Lets Wells Fargo v. Jordan Stand. Foreclosure Plaintiffs Who Do Not Own the Mortgage at the Time of Filing Lack Standing to Pursue Cases

on October 4, 2009 at 11:32 pm

In a significant victory for consumers and particularly victims of predatory lending the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday quietly let stand what may turn out to be a landmark decision prohibiting banks, trusts and other loan servicing entities who cannot prove ownership of a mortgage note from foreclosing on Ohio homeowners.

Following a trend originally initiated by U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko, Northern District of Ohio in Federal Court, The 8th District Court of Appeals(Cuyahoga County) ruled in June of this year that banks, loan servicers and trusts did not have standing to pursue foreclosure of homes in Ohio if they could not prove that they owned the mortgage note at the time of the filing of the complaint. In Wells Fargo v. Jordan Judge Frank D. Celebrezze Jr. writing for a unanimous panel of the 8th District held that in order to bring a lawsuit in Ohio the plaintiff must have an genuine interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit

http://dannlaw.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/ohio-supreme-court-lets-wells-fargo-v-jordan-stand-foreclosure-plaintiffs-who-do-not-own-the-mortgage-at-the-time-of-filing-lack-standing-to-pursue-cases/

——————————————————————————————

Ohio Supreme Court:
September 30, 2009

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
V.
Oties Jordan et al.
Case No. 2009-1030

ENTRY
Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this case, the Court declines jurisdiction to hear the case.

(Cuyahoga County Court of’ Appeals; No. 91675)

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/180831.pdf

——————————————————————————————

snipped highlights below ………

Full File: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-Ohio-1092.pdf

[Cite as Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jordan, 2009-Ohio-1092.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 91675

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
OTIES JORDAN, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED

Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-631753

BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Rocco, P.J., and Kilbane, J.
RELEASED: March 12, 2009
JOURNALIZED:

FOR APPELLANTS
Oties Jordan (pro se)
Sylvia Jordan (pro se)
960 East 78th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44103

Review and Analysis

{ 13} We next address the merits of Jordan’s appeal, in which he raises three assignments of error for our review. We find Jordan’s first assignment of error dispositive of the case.

{ 14} “I. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the substitute party plaintiff as genuine issues of material fact remained outstanding to be determined.”

{ 15} In his first assignment of error, Jordan argues that summary judgment is improper because there was no evidence presented that WFB owned the Mortgage. Although we disagree with Jordan’s claim that summary judgment was improper due to a lack of ownership evidence, we find that WFB did not have standing when it filed the complaint; therefore, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of WFB and should have dismissed this case without prejudice.

{ 21} “A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action. State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515, syllabus. The Eleventh Appellate District has held that ‘Civ.R. 17 is not applicable when the plaintiff is not the proper party to bring the case and, thus, does not have standing to do so. A person lacking any right or interest to protect may not invoke the jurisdiction of a court.’ Northland Ins. Co. v. Illuminating Co., 11th Dist. Nos. 2002-A-0058 and 2002-A-0066, 2004-Ohio-1529, at

{ 23} In Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Steele (6th Cir., Jan. 8, 2008), Case No. 2:07-CV-886, the court held: “While a court has no duty to search the record and may properly limit its review of an unopposed motion for summary judgment to the facts relied on by defendant, Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 404-05 and 407 (6th Cir. 1992), it cannot enter judgment if the moving party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Several judges have held that a complaint must be dismissed if the plaintiff cannot prove that it owned the note and mortgage on the date the complaint was filed. E.g., In re Foreclosure Cases, (N.D. Ohio 2007), Case Nos. 1:07CV2282, et seq., (Boyko, J.); In re Foreclosure Cases (S.D. Ohio 2007), 521 F. Supp.2d 650, (Rose, J.). Thus, if plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

{ 25} …..facts ……are. Delta Funding Corporation owned
the Mortgage for the Property on August 3, 2007, the date WFB filed its complaint against Jordan. On September 24, 2007, WFB filed a Notice of Filing of Final Judicial Report. Attached to the Notice were a Final Judicial Report and an Assignment of Mortgage, indicating the Mortgage had been assigned to WFB on August 22, 2007, nearly three weeks after it filed its complaint. In short, WFB was not the real party in interest on the date it filed its complaint seeking foreclosure against Jordan.

{ 26} Thus, WFB lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against
Jordan. As such, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of WFB because WFB was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We sustain Jordan’s first assignment of error, reverse summary judgment, and order the trial court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

{ 28} This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is ordered that appellants recover of said appellee costs herein taxed. 1Appellant’s remaining Assignments of Error are included in the Appendix to this Opinion. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
Admin@borrowerhotline.com, on October 7, 2009 at 8:17 pm said:

Marcus , Excellent my well informed researching purveyor of intellectual stimuli!

Now Sire, if I could only get others like you to pull their head out and breath again (instead of attack me – you will see that I know what I am talking about). Again, no Carls Jr, KeyStone Cop, nuclear hot sauce and buttered Lost Note toast here. Your article refers to 1122 AB which I tried to sell attorneys Gardas and Wen Chen Kop on six months ago…. it’s enforced by the SEC . (Their Poor clients) …Ugggg!

What is contemplated now is a private right to action and potential for halting the lenders operations (by injunction) subject to the problem of these servicer venders and violations of the commission oversight. The private right will likely come from the SEC.

MSoliman
————————————————————————-

Discretionary Activities With Respect to the Trust
The following is a description of material discretionary activities that may be taken with regard to the administration of the mortgage loans or the certificates:

The servicer will be authorized to exercise discretion with regard to its servicing of the mortgage loans in accordance with the servicing standard specified in the pooling agreement.
See “The Servicers—The Servicer—Servicing Procedures” in this prospectus supplement.

Each of the sponsor and the depositor will have discretion to determine whether to repurchase a mortgage loan or to substitute for a mortgage loan, if required under the pooling agreement to repurchase or substitute for a defective mortgage loan. See “Description of the Mortgage Pool—Representations and Warranties Regarding the Mortgage Loans” in this prospectus supplement.

msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 7, 2009 at 7:51 pm said:

Ohio Supreme Court Lets Wells Fargo v. Jordan Stand. Foreclosure Plaintiffs Who Do Not Own the Mortgage at the Time of Filing Lack Standing to Pursue Cases

http://bit.ly/14GCL1

4closureFraud
Deontos, on October 7, 2009 at 7:39 pm said:

Michael Moore: Foreclosed Homeowners Like Rape Victims
Filmmaker tells Sean Hannity blaming irresponsible borrowers ‘like asking a woman how short was your skirt after she’s been raped.’

The foreclosed and/or evicted homeowners that have played such a role in the current economic meltdown – are they irresponsible borrowers that lived beyond their means or are victims that got swindled? Michael Moore is clear on where he thinks they fall.

Moore matched up with Fox News and conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity on Hannity’s October 6 program and Hannity attempted to have Moore explain why he didn’t think there was a personal responsibility angle to the home foreclosure crisis.

Here’s how it unfolded (emphasis added):
video
and
story: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091007091530.aspx
Lisa E., on October 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm said:

Motion for Production of Documents.

I have cobbled together a very thorough Production of Document Request.

I’m pretty happy with it. This will be my second request for Productions. As I learned more and more about defending myself, I realized that my first request for Productions was not as complete as I’d like. LUCKILY FOR ME, Plaintiff refused to provide any documents and objected to all requests. (Well, except for a COPY of the Mortgage and the Note………..What? No original? Thanks, but no thanks).

Would you say that this item covers TARP funds and Credit Default Swaps that would have been applied to the line item accounting of the loan? (Am I even making one iota of sense here…………I barely understand what in the heck I’m talking about. I suspect that’s painfully obvious to the reader!)

9. All documents concerning each and every amount, other than payments made by or on behalf of the Borrower, by which you credited the Borrower’s account, from the date of the origination of the loan to the date of this request, including;
a. The date of each and every amount of credit/payment;
b. The amount of each and every credit/payment; and
c. The resulting principal balance due and owing on the account;
d. The nature and purpose of each and such credit/payment.

Does that cover it or should I be more specific? And if so, HOW?

Thank you VERY VERY much!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida, Obviously not an attorney)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
James#, on October 7, 2009 at 2:30 pm said:

I added my Fraud complaint to the “Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission” web site.
http://www.tellthecommission.com
Alina, on October 7, 2009 at 7:40 am said:

Foreclosure Fraud,

Although I like your suggestion of emailing judges to keep them apprised of current events, I have to caution you that, in my experience, emailing or communicating with the judge in your own case without notification to opposing counsel is considered ex-parte communication and is frowned upon.

Please note that I am not an attorney and this should not be construed as legal advise.
stopgovtwaste, on October 7, 2009 at 6:57 am said:

* if you need help finding your judges email address just let me know…

Yes – please let me know how I can also reach out to those in the local judicial branch so I can help disseminate some of this very valuable information.

Thank you!

stop_GOVT_waste@hotmail.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 7, 2009 at 6:33 am said:

Homeowner to Mortgage Servicing Company: “Step Up and Do the Right Thing!”

This is yet another story from a frustrated homeowner who found herself stunned that she is caught up in a mortgage servicing nightmare.

Here is a public plea and video message
To: West Coast Servicing, Huntington Beach, CA

http://bit.ly/3w2Cvb
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 7, 2009 at 6:17 am said:

All,

urbanlotus, on October 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm Said:

“Oh and I forgot to mention that there IS A LOT OF MENTION OF NEILS WEBSITE here in the Huffington Post under comments in this article:”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/lack-of-legal-help-one-mo_b_310353.html

Linda”

This is what we ALL need to do…

Post in the comments section in every mainstream article/report/blog post that we come across regarding anything related to these frauds. Send emails to all the bloggers/journalists/reporters mentioning the frauds. Facebook it, Twitter it, Reddit, Digg it, and update your blogs DAILY. Contact your circuit JUDGES through their email address and faxes (I send emails directly to my judge and his assistant once or twice a week, if you need help finding your judges email address just let me know. Figured out a 90% success rate on getting them).

The masses still do not understand what has transpired not to mention the judges. They still look at it as a borrower got in over their head and did not live within their means… That is absolute BS! We didn’t create the inflated home values, we weren’t looking for signatures to fill presold notes, we weren’t “investors” trying to flip houses, or Wall Street selling securities, we weren’t looking to get paid out on insurance or bailouts etc. We were homeowners looking to better our families, our lives, our future, and our childrens future, that believed in a system, a government, that was lead by greed and corruption.

There are so many people that read/contribute to this site. If we all start doing this we can help turn the tide. I know I will…

4closureFraud
Abby in CA, on October 6, 2009 at 3:34 pm said:

http://www.tellthecommission.com/

Phil Angelides, California, is leading the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Go to the brand new site and voice how you were ripped off during financial crisis.

Phil is supposed to make a non-partisan report to congress.
Abby in CA, on October 6, 2009 at 2:50 pm said:

RESPA CASE AWARDED DAMAGES!!

Emotional distress claims permitted under RESPA
Posted Wed, 08/26/2009 – 12:16 by Headliner

Type “Headline News”: Headline News
A magistrate judge in Virginia has denied defendants’ partial motion for summary
judgment, ruling that claims for emotional distress are actual damages permitted
under RESPA and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In their claims,
the plaintiffs seek actual damages, alleging that Countrywide Home Loans failed
to properly credit payments on a mortgage loan.

The case is: Dannie R. Carter and Dorothy M. Carter v. Countrywide Home Loans
Inc., et al., (Civil No. 3:07CV651).

On Sept. 17, 2007, Dannie and Dorothy Carter filed a lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of Henrico County, Va., against Countrywide for several claims relating to
Countrywide’s alleged failure to properly credit payments that the Carters made
toward their mortgage loan with Countrywide. The case was moved to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division in
October 2007.

Following a discovery conference with all parties, the District Court provided
the defendants with an opportunity to file cross motions for summary judgment on
the limited issue of whether “actual damages” as defined under RESPA and the
FDCPA include or exclude claims for economic loss and emotional distress. On
April 14, Judge Dennis Dohnal issued his opinion on the matter.

The plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to recover actual damages,
additional statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs for the defendants’
alleged RESPA and FDCPA violations. Included in the plaintiffs’ list of actual
damages are: the loss of equity in their home resulting from the foreclosure,
economic damages, damage to their reputation, and damages for emotional and
mental distress, frustration and humiliation. The District Court previously
ruled that “any actual damages claimed by plaintiffs that are related to the
foreclosure of plaintiffs’ home are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,”
given that the state court had already ruled on such issues. The issue remained,
however, on whether or not the plaintiffs’ claims for economic damages and
emotional distress constitute actual damages that are recoverable.

Countrywide argued that the Carters have no evidence to support their claims and
requested dispositive relief on the issue.

“However, Countrywide does not argue, as was suggested at the conference with
the court, that the Carters’ claims for economic loss and emotional distress are
not available under RESPA or the FDCPA. At the same time, [the defendants] argue
in [their] motion that plaintiffs’ claims should fail as a matter of law,” said
Dohnal.

Emotional distress under RESPA

Dohnal determined that Section 2605(f) of RESPA, which governs the servicing of
mortgage loans and the administration of escrow accounts, allows recovery of
actual damages, but the question before the court was whether or not actual
damages under § 2605(f)(1) includes compensation for economic loss and/or
emotional and mental distress.

§ 2605(f) of RESPA provides:

“Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this section shall be liable to
the borrower for each such failure in the following amounts: In the case of any
action by an individual, an amount equal to the sum of any actual damages to the
borrower as a result of the failure; and any additional damages, as the court
may allow, in the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the
requirements of this section, in an amount not to exceed $1,000.”

Dohnal looked to other cases that have examined § 2605(f) and noted that other
courts have consistently found that actual damages includes emotional distress
damages. He pointed to several specific cases indicating this, including Wright
v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, where the court concluded that actual damages
includes damages for non-economic loss, such as pain, suffering and emotional
distress, and Ploog v. HomeSide Lending Inc., where the court said “RESPA’s
actual damages provision includes recovery for emotional distress.”

“The courts which found RESPA’s actual damages provision includes damages for
emotional distress did so on the basis that RESPA is a consumer protection
statute that should be construed liberally,” said Dohnal. “Even courts that have
not had occasion to consider the issue of whether § 2605(f) permits recovery for
emotional distress damages have interpreted RESPA as being a consumer protection
statute.”

Dohnal cited just two courts that have held RESPA’s actual damages provision
does not encompass emotional distress. He pointed to Katz v. Dime Savings Bank
and In re: Tomasevic. In Katz, Dohnal said the court examined the legislative
history of § 2605 and concluded that it “was originally enacted by Congress in
1990 as part of the Affordable Housing Act, the purpose of which was to help
provide for more affordable housing in the United States.”

Dohnal said the court reasoned, “[T]he duty of a loan officer to respond to
borrower inquiries is just one small part of a broad statute designed to help
facilitate home ownership. … If Congress had intended for this statute to have a
remedial purpose, then it would have explained such an intention either in the
language of the statute or the accompanying legislative history.”

Dohnal disagreed with this analysis indicating that it contrasts with the
express terms of RESPA.

“As noted earlier, the statutory language is clear that Congress intended for
RESPA to be a remedial consumer protection statute,” Dohnal opined. “As the
court in Rawlings explained, `it is also worth noting that the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development…also interprets RESPA as being a consumer
protection statute.’”

Dohnal further noted that if Congress intended for this one Section of RESPA to
not serve a remedial purpose, it is his belief that Congress would have been
explicit with such intention, particularly as it would have been contrary to the
purposes of the remainder of the statute.

“Because this Court finds the rationale of [other] cases persuasive, and because
nothing in the pertinent statutory language limits the scope of actual damages,
the court concludes that § 2605′s actual damages provision includes possible
recovery for plaintiffs’ emotional distress damages,” Dohnal concluded.

Regarding the plaintiffs’ claims to economic loss, according to the court, the
defendants did not challenge the fact that the plaintiffs are entitled to
recover damages for out-of-pocket expenses for their RESPA claim. However, they
argued that the plaintiffs have failed to prove any economic loss resulting from
the defendants’ actions. The court declined to rule on the issue in order to
afford ample time to develop the record on whether the plaintiffs have proven
any loss.

FDCPA reads like RESPA

According to Dohnal, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is similar to RESPA
in that its actual damages provision also encompasses emotional distress
damages.

“The language of the FDCPA’s § 1692k and § 2605(f) of RESPA are essentially
identical,” Dohnal noted. “Not surprisingly, courts that have analyzed the FDCPA
have held that § 1692k’s provisions allow for recovery of emotional distress
damages. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission’s commentary to the FDCPA has
established that `actual damages’ for FDCPA violations include `damages for
personal humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish or emotional distress’ as
well as `out-of-pocket expenses.’”

View the court opinion here. (6 page PDF file)
http://www.respanews.com/Media/MediaManager/Carter_v_Countrywide.pdf

Article:
http://www.respanews.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=49D9906DABAA4BC481…
Marcus, on October 6, 2009 at 12:22 pm said:

Firms Are Getting Billions, Yet Aren’t Averting Foreclosures
Source: Brandon Herald, FL

WASHINGTON – Oct. 6, 2009 – The federal government is engaged in a massive mortgage modification program that’s on track to send billions in tax dollars to many of the very companies that judges or regulators have cited in recent years for abusive mortgage practices.

The firms, called mortgage servicers, have been cited for badgering, manipulating or lying to their customers, sticking them with bogus fees, or improperly foreclosing on them.

Mortgage servicers are the middlemen between homeowners and the investors that hold their mortgages, collect homeowners’ checks and disburse payments for the mortgages, property tax and insurance. They’re a necessary player for any modification.

The reliance on such companies points to an ironic paradox for federal regulators: Cleaning up the nation’s financial crisis often rewards the firms that helped create the mess. Those Wall Street banks and mortgage servicing companies argue that they’re best positioned to repair the damage they’ve helped cause. In the case of the mortgage program, the firms getting the taxpayers’ money are, after all, the firms that control the troubled mortgages.

To make matters worse, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ watchdog, has said that the Treasury Department hasn’t done enough to oversee the companies participating in what’s known as the Home Affordable Modification Program, which emerged from the bank bailout bill Congress passed last fall.

The modification program has been slow to get off the ground. Since it began this spring, only 12 percent of a potential 3 million delinquent mortgages have begun the process of being reworked, or put into “a trial modification,” according to Treasury Department data through August, the most recent available.

“We’ve consistently been behind this problem,” said Mark Pearce, North Carolina’s chief deputy commissioner of banks, who works with a state-level group of attorneys general from across the country. “Two years ago, maybe some were caught by surprise. But we still haven’t gotten to a point where the servicers have demonstrated an ability to handle the problem.”

Housing advocates say homeowners still face “reluctant lenders,” said Irwin Trauss, an attorney who represents low-income homeowners for Philadelphia Legal Assistance. He recently testified at a hearing of the Congressional Oversight Panel, the watchdog that monitors the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP, or the bank bailout bill.

Trauss said that Bank of America, at least through July, told homeowners that they couldn’t participate in the program when they should’ve been allowed to do so, and he alleges that Saxon Mortgage forced one of his clients into bankruptcy without providing a valid reason for turning down her modification request. Trauss’ comments were echoed by other housing advocates, who’ve found mortgage servicers slow to respond and confused about modification rules.

“Servicers look for reasons to avoid making the modifications when they are most needed, rather than for opportunities to make them,” Trauss said.

Saxon Mortgage said it couldn’t comment on Trauss’ testimony because it wasn’t provided with specific details of the account in question. Bank of America said there could have been instances in which improperly trained employees were confused about the modification rules, but the vast majority of customers have been given proper information.

Although it’s early in the Treasury Department’s program, housing advocates say the servicer industry for years has resisted helping customers with modifications. Donna and Ronnie Fruia, of Troutman, N.C., learned firsthand how difficult it can be.

The couple was in the midst of a series of health crises, and three members of the family – the couple’s son, Donna’s mother and Ronnie – were in the hospital.

It was then that Donna got an urgent call that somebody from her mortgage company, CitiFinancial, had just showed up in her husband’s hospital room, where he was recovering from a stroke.

“They said, ‘Some guy’s in there aggravating him,’ “ she said.

“At the time, I couldn’t even really talk that good,” Ronnie said. “But he wanted me to sign a bunch of papers.”

The Fruias had been trying to get a mortgage modification from CitiFinancial. The company, however, was pushing the Fruias to accept a modification that wouldn’t have cut their interest rate, they said.

Only after the episode in the hospital room and the involvement of state regulators did CitiFinancial cut the mortgage’s interest rate from 11.5 percent to 5 percent, lowering their monthly payment from $985 to $602. The process took from the start of the year until July.

“They were the perfect candidate for someone with a subprime rate getting a modification,” said Henrietta Thompson, who as housing coordinator for United Family Services, a United Way-funded organization in Charlotte, helped the Fruias. “I know if the banking commissioner hadn’t gotten involved, it wouldn’t have happened.”

While CitiFinancial, a unit of Citigroup Inc. – one of the largest recipients of TARP bailout funds – said it couldn’t talk about specific customers, it’s “pleased” that the case was resolved.

“We have strict guidelines concerning the behavior of our representatives, and the incident you described would not be acceptable under our policies, even if well-intentioned,” said Mark Rodgers, a spokesman.

It shouldn’t have been a surprise that the mortgage service companies would have trouble executing wide-scale mortgage modifications. They generally aren’t set up for the complicated business of reworking loans.

In 2007, an assistant attorney general in Iowa, Patrick Madigan, analyzed the looming mortgage meltdown and found that mortgage service companies have a “highly automated process, spending as little time as possible on an individual loan and preferably no time actually talking to the customer.”

“Loan modifications, by contrast, are a time-intensive process that requires a great deal of individualized attention,” he wrote. “In some situations, it may be easier and cheaper for a servicer to simply foreclose on a borrower than to try to fix the underlying problem.”

Service companies had high turnover and employees who saw their jobs as akin to that of collection agents. Some were known to hang up on callers if they started to get tough questions, Madigan wrote. He urged mortgage service companies to hire far more staff and boost training.

That year, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller convened a group of state officials (Iowa’s Madigan helped coordinate the effort), who then contacted the nation’s 20 largest servicers of risky subprime mortgages.

By September 2008, however, as the economy went into free fall, the mortgage industry’s efforts had been “profoundly disappointing.”

“Too many homeowners face foreclosure without receiving any meaningful assistance by their mortgage servicer, a reality that is growing worse rather than better,” said a report from the State Foreclosure Prevention Working Group.

By this year, more federal and private efforts were under way to modify millions of troubled mortgages, and customer service was beginning to improve. Companies, though, were still having trouble getting the job done.

“It is difficult for homeowners to initiate productive discussions with lenders because many servicers lack the capacity to deal with a large volume of modifications,” the Congressional Oversight Panel reported. “Servicers are generally understaffed for handling a large volume of consumer loan workouts.”

The panel found that it’s “unlikely” that mortgage servicers will be able to do all they’re being asked to do: “Servicers are simply in the wrong line of business for doing modifications en masse,” it said.

Madigan, the assistant Iowa attorney general, said in an interview that “the mortgage industry has responded to this crisis with a series of half steps based on a notion that a turnaround in the housing market was just around the corner.”

Under the Treasury Department’s mortgage modification program, three parties can participate: the company that owns the loan, the company that services the loan, and the homeowner. All get a portion of the more than $20 billion that the federal government currently estimates it could spend to keep homes out of foreclosure.

While the Treasury said it’s necessary to take in as many mortgage service companies as possible, the GAO found that the department wasn’t doing enough to monitor the process.

In a July report, the GAO said that the department had “significant gaps in its oversight structure,” and was short-staffed in the office monitoring the modification program. As of July – eight months into the program – the Treasury had filled fewer than half the positions in a key modification office. (Many of those jobs have since been filled, the department said.)

Beyond that, the government had conducted “readiness reviews” of only seven of 27 mortgage servicers the GAO examined; no more were planned. The reviews only included interviews with senior executives – and the information gathered wasn’t verified.

“Treasury cannot identify, assess and address risks associated with servicers that lack the capacity to fulfill all program requirements,” the GAO said.

Treasury said it’s beefing up its review procedures and also said it recognizes many of the problems and has been working to correct them. “Clearly, we’re not there yet,” said Seth Wheeler, one of the Treasury officials who oversees the modification effort. “Clearly there’s still inconsistent application of the program, even though we have made progress.”

Several companies in the Treasury program have been cited by judges or regulators for engaging in improper behavior with their customers.

They include Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., a Utah-based company formerly known as Fairbanks Capital Corp.; Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, now a unit of Bank of America Corp.; Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, based in California; Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., a unit of Morgan Stanley; EMC Mortgage Corp., now a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.; and Green Tree Servicing, a Minnesota company.

Ocwen Financial Corp., a Florida-based company that services more than 300,000 mortgages nationwide, could receive more than $200 million in TARP payments.

“Ocwen has screwed up my finances so bad you can’t believe it,” said Brad Rhoton, whose rental properties in the Houston suburbs are part of a nationwide lawsuit against Ocwen. “It’s been the most maddening process you can imagine.”

Rhoton’s lawsuit charges that Ocwen constantly misapplied Rhoton’s mortgage payments and tacked on unnecessary fees and insurance, causing his accounts to fall behind.

So far under the Treasury’s modification program, Ocwen has started trial modifications in 8 percent of potential mortgages – below the national average and well below some other servicers.

Paul Koches, a company spokesman, said the number is misleadingly low. Ocwen, he said, has set rigorous standards in documenting its modifications and is therefore likely to have a far higher share of its modifications stick than other companies. He said that Ocwen undertook its own loan modification program in 2007 and has beefed up its staff substantially since then.

As for the suits against it, Koches said they represent a fraction of the firm’s customer base, and many were copycat lawsuits that tried to paint Ocwen with the same brush as other mortgage servicer firms. He said the company continues to vigorously defend itself against lawsuits.

Over the years, Ocwen has lost other lawsuits and has been slapped down by a federal judge for its conduct.

In one Texas bankruptcy case, for example, a federal judge blasted Ocwen after it tried to pass the cost of a $1,000 sanction onto the customer it was cited for mistreating. When the judge found out, he said, “Ocwen’s course of conduct in this proceeding bordered on the outrageous.” He fined the company an additional $27,500.

The case was far from isolated, however. A jury in Galveston, Texas, ordered the company to pay $11.5 million, and one down the coast in Corpus Christi ordered it to pay $3 million for unfairly foreclosing on homeowners (both cases were then settled in the appeals process for undisclosed amounts).

In both cases, the plaintiffs were on the edge financially, and so when Ocwen added extra fees to their accounts, they quickly fell behind.

That was part of their strategy, plaintiffs’ attorneys said. One of the key witnesses before both juries was a former Ocwen account officer who said the company trained its sights on customers who had substantial equity in their homes. In those cases, the company had the most to gain if customers lost their homes in foreclosure.

“We didn’t treat the people very well, but the money was pretty good,” the former account officer, Ron Davis, testified during one of the trials. (Davis couldn’t be reached for further comment.)

The motive, he said, was simple: force people into foreclosure as a way to earn higher bonuses.

“We would call the customers and ask them what bridge they were going to live under,” Davis testified.

Ocwen lost that lawsuit. A Texas jury found that the company engaged in “fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading” tactics that it called “unconscionable.” The case involved an elderly Texas woman the bank tried to evict from her home even after a local judge had ordered it not to. The jury awarded her $11.5 million, which was reduced to $1.8 million, according to Ocwen’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings; the case was settled during appeals.

Outside the courts, federal regulators in 2004 approached Ocwen to request that the company enter into a formal supervisory agreement under which it promised to improve its customer service. It required, for example, that Ocwen beef up its ombudsman to take customer complaints; adopt a “borrower-oriented customer service commitment plan”; take reasonable actions to see if homeowners already have hazard insurance before adding it to customers’ accounts; and regularly report to federal regulators about outstanding customer complaints.

Koches of Ocwen said the agreement was merely an attempt to formalize many of the steps the company was already taking – and that the company and federal regulators wanted to avoid the kind of problems other firms had experienced.

Later that year, however, Ocwen took steps to ensure that such regulatory findings wouldn’t come again.

By successfully petitioning to have itself removed from the oversight of the Office of Thrift Supervision, the supervisory agreement hatched just months before was ended, according to Ocwen’s regulatory filings. Ocwen said it removed itself from OTS oversight for business reasons unrelated to the supervisory agreement and that it continues to follow the intent of the agreement.
Alina, on October 6, 2009 at 7:26 am said:

Marcus,

Regarding the foreclosure bills – Soto is the representative from my district in Florida. I have called him and written him but have never received a response. I know from the Orange County Clerk’s dockets that he represents several homeowners who are in foreclosure. I requested his help several months ago but never received any form of reply.

With regard to one of the homeowners he represents, the assignment is signed by the infamous Laura Hescott. I advised Mr. Soto that I have several assignments with her signature from various states across the nation in which she everything from a Supervisor for Fidelity National Foreclosure Solutions to Assistant Secretary of Option One Mortgage Corporation. Additionally, I sent to him the Judge Schack decisions.

He is running once again and has a website – http://www.darrensoto.com/. If anyone can get through to him, that would be great. Right now I am swamped (that’s an understatement) at work and have literally no free time.

I would love to get him in our corner.
Lisa E, on October 6, 2009 at 3:49 am said:

Brilliantt and funny Power Point on Submprime Loans

http://docs.google.com/present/view?skipauth=true&id=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
John Woodward, on October 5, 2009 at 7:20 pm said:

Marcus:

In regards to Titanium Solutions. I am a RE agent here in South Florida. They recruit RE agents to go bang on the doors of those who they can’t reach. What they want us to do is get these people on the phone with their “people.” Having delt with a lot of short sales, and foreclosures, and following this blog for over a year. I have come to believe that people give this info to the lenders to be used against them later…or it could be.

The fact is they do offer (sometimes) a principal reduction. Given the fact we are 50% down from the peak…which translates to about 1999-2000 prices, their offer falls way short. WHY in the world would anyone sign on for a 10% reduction???? The answer, grasshopper, can be found with one simple question, “where is there money in this for the banks.” They reduce the principal and get these borrowers to sign documents the lender has probably already lost….thus, no defense in a foreclosure now the borrower has given them documents they lost. The eventually goes into foreclosure (unemployment is around 12%), and house is still upside down.

The long and the short is, Titanium pays from $30-100 or so for every homeowner. $30 is the property is vacant and/or no contact is made after 3 attemps. If contact is made and they are not interested, you get a little more than the 30. If you can get them on the phone with their servicing/lender, thet is the higher payout. My experience was, most were gone and the ones that were there, didn’t neet a bill collector/REALTOR banging on their door, cold, to shake them down for some info at dinner time (as specified in the order).

For me, it was short lived. I kept my family aware, I was pulling up and if they didn’t here from me within 15 minutes to call for help. Spooky stuff. I know what I would do if confronted with this type of “contact.” I have been a REALTOR for 18 years…. I know, the profession is in there with user car sales types and the Fuller brush man. But I have never given advice that, if in the same situation, I would take as gunine in the first place. I never felt like what they were doing was good anyone other than the bank…and these people are beaten down enough. They don’t need someone else coming at them with a “hey, I’m here to help” story only to be given the shaft again somewhere down the road. From a professional standpoint, I am to do all of this for $100 ?? I don’t think so.

So I did about 5 or 8 of these before I quit. I told Titanium I don’t see where being a REALTOR translates into being a debt collector. And their “offers” were not meaningful enough for me, as the professional with knowledge, could get excited about enough to feel like it was truly a good thing for the homeowner. In fact, it’s just another way to beat up homeowners with REAL troubles and REAL families who don’t have any answers or solutions. Coming at them with “an answer that can help” when I in fact know better, is nothing I would want to be a part of. If had ever found someone who really wanted to talk to me about the offer Titanium/the bank was proposing, I would tell them NOT to take it….to explore other options.

Perhaps it will evolve into something that will work. At least they are trying to make contact to do something. But until banks are willing to write down the loans to a level where the market is, mortgage modifications are a waste of time (I know of someone who did a modification last year which involved the homeowner giving $25k or so to do it…I told them they really should think about what they are doing….it’s in foreclosure so say goodby to the house anyhow…and the retirement fund they raided to “do the right thing.. it didn’t help the homwowner’s balance sheet.)

There is my two cents on that…keep up the fight
Abby in CA, on October 5, 2009 at 6:11 pm said:

By Arianna Huffington

LACK OF LEGAL HELP. ONE MORE WAY THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER!

As bad as America’s foreclosure crisis is — and it’s very bad, with over 300,000 homes receiving a foreclosure filing every month — it’s being made even more devastating by the lack of legal assistance available to beleaguered homeowners.

According to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice, set to be released tomorrow, “the nation’s massive foreclosure crisis is also, at its heart, a legal crisis” — with the vast majority of homeowners facing foreclosure doing so without legal counsel.

For example, in New York’s Nassau County, in foreclosures involving subprime or non-traditional mortgages (which disproportionately are targeted at minorities), 92 percent of the homeowners did not have a lawyer.

Having legal help can be the difference between people keeping their homes and being evicted. A lawyer can stop foreclosure proceedings or put enough pressure on lenders to get them to rework the terms of the loan. A lawyer can also intervene in other ways, such as enforcing consumer protection laws or spotting legal violations by banks and lenders.

According to the report, the barriers keeping homeowners from obtaining proper legal representation are twofold. The first, not surprisingly, is funding.

In 1996, the budget for the Legal Services Corporation, the primary agency that provides help for low-income Americans in civil cases, had its budget cut by one-third. At this point, to match the funding level the Legal Services Corporation received in 1981 would require an increase of $753 million. If Goldman Sachs or Bank of America needed that kind of cash (or even 10 times that kind of cash), Washington wouldn’t think twice. But low-income homeowners have no clout in DC. No wonder the Brennan Center found that legal service programs for the poor are currently “besieged with requests for foreclosure assistance.”

The second barrier is that restrictions to adequate legal help have been deliberately built into the system. Remember the “Contract With America”? It turns out one of its provisions severely limited the ability of homeowners to get legal protection from predatory lenders. For instance, homeowners represented by the Legal Services Corporation are barred from bringing class action suits. Nor are they able to make the other side pay attorneys’ fees even when the law would normally allow it. As the report states, “the possibility of having to pay attorneys’ fees provides a critical incentive to help ensure that a better funded legal adversary does not drag out proceedings in an attempt to exhaust the indigent client’s resources.”

The Obama administration has called on Congress to remove many of these limitations, but its $789 billion stimulus plan didn’t contain a single dollar for foreclosure-related legal help. That’s about as “shovel ready” a program as one could ask for, but it somehow didn’t make the cut.

I’ve written before how foreclosures are a gateway calamity, with every foreclosed home creating a whole other set of crises. The Brennan study backs this up with cold hard statistics. According to the report, an estimated 40 million homes are located next door to a foreclosed property. The value of these homes drops an average of $8,667 following a foreclosure. This translates into a total property value loss of $352 billion. And vacant properties take a heavy toll on already strapped local governments: an estimated $20,000 per foreclosure (California is estimated to have lost approximately $4 billion in tax revenue in 2008).

And the negative impact of a foreclosed home can affect the entire community: a one percent increase in foreclosures translates into a 2.3 percent rise in violent crimes.

But even though the collateral damage of the foreclosure crisis is widespread, the crisis continues to get short shrift by the media and by Washington. And as the Brennan Center study powerfully demonstrates, the legal deck is utterly stacked against struggling homeowners. It’s time to do the right thing and give at-risk homeowners — especially those who have been the victims of discriminatory lending practices — access to at least a tiny fraction of the legal tools at the disposal of the banks forcing them into foreclosure.

To read the full report in pdf format, click on “Full Report” on the Brennan Center’s website.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/lack-of-legal-help-one-mo_b_310353.html
usedkarguy, on October 5, 2009 at 5:29 pm said:

Hello ALLAN! Great to hear from you! I would suspect that the proof is in the pool performance stats. I’ve snuck onto some of the A B S sites and pulled down the loss and default rates/foreclosed/bk/reo on the trust that holds my loan and the numbers show a 40% PLUS default rate. The loss rates are only 2-3-4%. How can that be? The insurance proceeds are paying the loans off (35%) and they take the foreclosure proceeds and dump them in the petty cash (Z) tranche (also owned by the sponsor, like 1A,1A1, 1A2 principal only strips). Maher talks about the violations as they relate to 140-3 (extinguishment of liabilities), AB1122 (servicing/carrying), GAAP, and FIN 47. There are laws against the misrepresentation of the collateral (inflated appraisals) and defrauding the investor as to the capacity of the borrowers to pay (prospectus/8k, 10k, other filings). Then there’s Sarbannes-Oxley for transparency (back to the open-market transaction on the courthouse steps)! I keep asking myself “Where are the Feds on this?”. The REMIC trust is itself a tool for tax evasion, AND being “bankruptcy remote” pretty much puts the business (TRUST) in bankruptcy at it’s inception. Talk about a great business plan! (see “Securitization is Illegal”). This violates the intent of the Bankruptcy Code! I’m trying to get my head around a book about “Fraudulent Conveyances” from the late 1700′s. It is the Banks that are engaged in fraudulently conveying the assets from/to each other to avoid paying back the investors who put up the money in the first place!! That’s why they forego the proper recording procedures. If they recorded their interest in the county recorders office, they couldn’t continue to carry the loan on their books as an “asset”. The asset is a liability to the investor (in other words, a LOSS) THIS IS FLIPPIN’ NUTS!
bt, on October 5, 2009 at 3:00 pm said:

Could you expand more about what these two Supreme Court rulings mean to a few things; 1) it seems obvious MERS will not try to foreclose in its name 2) what about foreclosure suits where MERS was used to transfer the securtized loans and the suit is being brought by a Trustee for the MBO 3) What about foreclosures where MERS is a Defendant with the borrower on the loan in foreclosure.
Marcus, on October 5, 2009 at 11:18 am said:

Foreclosure Bills Face Uphill Climb
Source: The Bradenton Herald,

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Oct. 5, 2009 – A trio of early bills filed in Tallahassee aim to provide more protections to Florida homeowners and tenants in foreclosure cases, but it’s unlikely any will be passed.

The bills, all filed by House Democrats, likely will have an uphill battle next year in the Republican-controlled Legislature, which didn’t act on similar proposals in 2009. All three measures also face resistance from the state’s banking industry, which remains politically influential despite the economic beating it has taken.

And, foreclosure experts say, some of the bills’ provisions might be undercut by state and federal laws and mortgage-relief efforts.

“I doubt any will get passed, but we’ve got to do something about this crisis,” said Rep. Darren Soto, D-Orlando, who filed two of the bills.

Florida ranks second nationally in foreclosure activity, with one in every 140 homes receiving a foreclosure-related notice in August, according to RealtyTrac, a tracking firm in Irvine, Calif.

One of Soto’s bills would prohibit deficiency decrees in final foreclosure judgments against homesteaded property. A deficiency decree is a judgment against a borrower for the balance still owed if his property is auctioned for less than the final foreclosure judgment amount.

The other would, among other things, allow borrowers to invoke mediation in foreclosure cases involving homesteaded properties.

A third bill by Rep. Hazel Rogers, D-Lauderhill, would force lenders to provide greater notification and financial assistance to tenants involved in foreclosures or short sales.

Mediation bill has tough road

Soto’s “Foreclosure Bill of Rights” appears to have the steepest climb to passage, as an identical bill never got a committee hearing during the 2009 session.

It would let homesteaded borrowers invoke mediation in foreclosure suits still pending as of July 1, 2010, or filed between that date and July 1, 2015. In preparation for mediation, lenders would have to conduct an updated appraisal and furnish copies of the mortgage, note and closing papers to borrowers. Lenders also would be required to negotiate in good faith, with a judge making that determination.

In turn, borrowers would have to provide up to three years’ worth of personal financial information.

If the mediation results in a reduction in the mortgage principal, the lender would be allowed to file a forbearance lien for the amount of the reduction – basically postponing the foreclosure. That allows the lender to recoup any loss if the mortgage is later refinanced or the home is sold for excess funds. If there are no excess funds, the lender can seek to foreclose on the lien.

Soto, a lawyer who has represented borrowers in foreclosure cases, says the bill would force lenders to bargain in good faith. It also would encourage lenders to do more in mediation than just offer lower mortgage payments without reducing principal despite the property’s drop in value, he says.

“All that really does is create balloon loans,” Soto said, which are more likely to fall back into default.

The Florida Bankers Association hasn’t taken a position on the bill, as it is waiting to see what the Florida Supreme Court does in response to a task force report that urged mediation, an official says. But the group sees several potential problems.

“We’re not opposed to mediation,” said Anthony DiMarco, the association’s executive vice president of government relations. “We’re opposed to it being misused as a delaying tactic.”

The trade group also would oppose the required appraisal if its purpose is to reduce the principal and relieve borrowers of their financial obligations, DiMarco says. And the forbearance lien provision won’t be attractive to lenders, many of whom don’t own the mortgage they’re seeking to foreclose on.

Anne Weintraub, a Sarasota attorney and foreclosure expert, says the lien provision could stoke more litigation after foreclosure.

“The ultimate goal here should be finality so both the borrower and lender can move on when the home is sold,” she said, adding she supports the bill’s encouragement of mediation.

Differences on deficiency bill

Weintraub and the bankers’ group differ on Soto’s deficiency decree bill.

A deficiency decree can be valid for up to 10 years, with a 10-year renewal period. Soto calls it “a double anvil” that could stifle the housing market’s recovery.

“We don’t need this huge debt saddling them for 20 years, because it could block them from getting back into the housing market,” he said.

But Weintraub calls the bill “long overdue,” saying many other states already outlaw deficiency judgments in foreclosure proceedings.

“It is about time that the state of Florida protects its homestead homeowners,” she said. “Bravo to the Legislature if they can get this bill passed.”

But DiMarco says the bankers association believes it would unfairly let borrowers off the hook for part of their financial obligations.

“You signed a note and borrowed a certain amount of money and agreed to repay it,” he said, adding it should be the lender’s choice whether to seek a deficiency judgment.

Others say the bill could infringe on contract rights in mortgages that contain a provision for such a judgment.

Tenants bill: mixed reactions

Rogers’ bill would require lenders to notify tenants of rental properties that may be subject to a foreclosure action or short sale. Lenders also would be required to give the tenant first chance to buy the property and use any escrow funds the lender has accumulated from the property owner toward the tenant’s closing costs.

If the tenant decides not to buy, then any available escrow funds must be used to help relocate him. To qualify, the tenant must have a written lease and a one-year rental history.

It would have limited impact, Weintraub says, as it would only apply to tenants with annual leases. Also, many tenants are former homeowners who don’t have the credit needed to buy the place they are renting because they’ve lost their previous homes to foreclosure or short sales.

The bankers group would oppose the escrow provisions because that money is supposed to pay for property insurance and taxes, DiMarco says. Lenders also could unfairly take a big financial hit if they have to relocate hundreds or thousands of renters from an apartment complex, for example.

Experts say the bill’s provisions would duplicate a federal tenants’ rights law that was passed earlier this year.
Marcus, on October 5, 2009 at 7:21 am said:

Report on Bailouts Says Treasury Misled Public

Source: NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — The inspector general who oversees the government’s bailout of the banking system is criticizing the Treasury Department for some misleading public statements last fall and raising the possibility that it had unfairly disbursed money to the biggest banks.
A Treasury official made incorrect statements about the health of the nation’s biggest banks even as the government was doling out billions of dollars in aid, according to a report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program to be released on Monday by the special inspector general, Neil M. Barofksy.

The report also provides new insight into the way the Treasury allocated billions of dollars to nine of Wall Street’s largest players. The report says that Bank of America appeared to qualify for more aid earlier, under the government plan. That assertion adds another element of intrigue to continuing investigations of the bank’s merger with Merrill Lynch and the role that regulators played in the deal, even as Merrill’s condition deteriorated.

The bailout formula called for banks to get an amount equal to as much as 3 percent of their risk-weighted assets, with aid capped at $25 billion for each institution, according to the report. By size, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America could have qualified for more, and the first two received $25 billion.

But Bank of America was given only $15 billion in October, since Merrill Lynch was earmarked for $10 billion. The two companies agreed to a merger, though their deal had not yet been approved by regulators or shareholders.

Bank of America ultimately received Merrill’s $10 billion in January — as well as $20 billion in additional bailout funds — but if the bank had not been involved in the Merrill deal, it would probably have received $25 billion at the outset, as did Citigroup and JPMorgan.

Another company in the process of a merger was not treated the same. Wells Fargo was acquiring Wachovia, and it received both companies’ money at the start, according to the inspector general.

Mr. Barofsky’s office also says that regulators were wrong to tell the public last year that the earliest bailout recipients were all healthy.

Former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., for instance, said on Oct. 14 that the banks were “healthy,” and that they accepted the money for “the good of the U.S. economy.” The banks, he said, would be better able to increase their lending to consumers and businesses.

In truth, regulators were concerned about the health of several banks that received that first bailout, the inspector general writes.

The inspector general said government officials need to be more careful when describing their actions and rationale. In a letter included with the report, the Federal Reserve concurred with Mr. Barofsky’s concern about the statements made last year, but the Treasury Department said that any review of announcements last year “must be considered in light of the unprecedented circumstances in which they were made.”
Foreclosure Fraud, on October 5, 2009 at 6:56 am said:

Dateline NBC on Mortgage Fraud…

Cant believe I haven’t seen this…

YouTube Link

http://bit.ly/2UU4vD

4closureFraud
Lisa E, on October 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm said:

Florida Workshops on defending a foreclosure case, mortgage document audits, and other issues:

http://www.youbeaware.com/Workshops/

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
stopgovtwaste, on October 4, 2009 at 5:55 am said:

*Lisa E –

On most of these mortgage docs you will find on page 2 a bunch of different boxes where the lender will ‘check mark’ the riders (or addendum) that applies. This is not the same as a note.

Mortgages and riders are recorded in public record – notes are not. Back in the day you would have to make a call to someone at the bank who would actually have to go into the “vault” at the bank to retrieve a note… MERS changed all of that.

Like the article in the New York Times “Mortgage Machine Backfires” says, “dotting i’s and crossing t’s can be such a daunting task,” (CLASSIC)!
Lisa E, on October 4, 2009 at 1:59 am said:

Is an ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER the same thing as a NOTE?

I’ve seen these Adjustable Rate Riders as part of the Mortgage, and recorded in the county records as part of the Mortgage. Is that the “NOTE”? It does not seem to specify a total amount borrowed, but does specify an interest rate and a monthly payment for the duration of the first term’s interest rate.

I’ve seen several complaints where the Plaintiff purports to have included a copy of the Note, but all I see is the mortgage and this Adjustable Rate Rider.

Does any one know if there is existing case law or real estate definitions about this topic?

Thank you very much!
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Attorney malpractice, on October 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm said:

Kalona

Vent away! Your disappointment (understatement) is shared by countless others. You might consider first filing a grievance with the bar, then shopping your professional malpractice case around to lawyers that specialize in that area of law. They’re brethren, so it’s a rare attorney who’ll go up against another, but you’ll find a few who are invested in keeping their brethren accountable.

I don’t know where you experienced this breach of fiduciary duty or malpractice/malfeasance, but in some states, such as Massachusetts, you can send a Chap 93A (one of the UDAP statutes) demand letter which gives the respondent 30 days to propose settlement of your claim. If they fail to settle and you litigate and win, you stand to win double or treble damages as well attorney fees. Careful with statutes of limitation and repose. Oh, also be sure to choose a lawyer who won’t cause you “to throw good money after bad.”

I personally understand your frustration. CAVEAT EMPTOR. Two out of three lawyers in Miami forgot I was their client, and compromised my case BIG TIME. One, after assuring the judge, in bad faith, I had agreed to a full settlement proposed by my adversary, when I hadn’t because it was utterly against my express interests. He even scheduled a hearing on his fees, to which he was not entitled, canceled and rescheduled a hearing I was not informed of and was awarded those fees anyway over my protestations. And, now he wants to go on to become a judge! Can’t wait to weigh in.

The other accepted a huge corporate account that monopolized his time. He couldn’t be bothered to enforce discovery after a key witness produced nothing and missed 4 depositions.

In Florida, I’m not sure a complainant filing a grievance with the bar has immunity from suit. Of course, these rules are all written by the self-serving foxes themselves.

Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Kalona S B, on October 3, 2009 at 1:23 pm said:

I just have to vent this out.

My attorney from hell is so bad, he is actually trying to have me arrested if I show up at my case! He tried to get a TRO against me claiming I have threatened him and that he is afraid. His TRO was denied. Thank god there was a judge who got it that this man has lost his mind and then some.

WOW It’s bad enough he cost me 48k due to his incompetence but now this? OMG!!

I have NEVER once been that stupid to ever in any way threaten this man in any way. Just when u think u have seen the worse of the worse, it’s not so. WOW. Unreal!
Too shocked to even bother to respond to his insanity.
THE ODC states they are still looking into it and may be a long time. There is no where to turn and no one to turn to. It’s going to be a miracle to survive this on top of everything else.

So for any of u thinking u have bad representation, let me tell u, it really can’t be near as crazy as this.

Just venting. Had to say it to someone. Dagg!
Manning the ramparts, on October 3, 2009 at 12:16 pm said:

Well done, Lisa!

In that same vein, Usedcarguy, back on Sept 26 you wondered: “Isn’t this the point where the REMIC (non-taxable) business plan is violated?
The Trust (via the Trustee/Servicer/scavenger /sheriff sale) turns the real
estate into cash (and cash flow) that violates the REMIC tax status? Instead of
passively distributing interest from mortgage loans, they end up running their
own little real estate business (timing the market with foreclosure, disposal)?
And then the proceeds end up in the bottom tranche, also owned by the Sponsor?”

That got me thinking that if we, here, collect info, along the lines as Lisa suggests for fraud upon the court, except in our case, for patent (prima facie) violations of REMIC, we could turn tables on tax violators. Anybody have any ideas on how we can make that happen, and how we can prove violations of REMIC guidelines? Also, if memory serves, weren’t these IRS guidelines relaxed recently in an accommodation to the banksters?

RSVP

Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
usedkarguy, on October 3, 2009 at 11:52 am said:

http://www.clayton.com/pdfs/ClaytonIPSPrimer.pdf

This is a link to an article that discusses the pricing models for mortgage backed securities. It will shed some light on the accounting issues that have to be dealt with.

Also, on the lighter side……..
I stopped by the Sheriff’s Office to see what’s happening on the foreclosure/Sheriff’s Sale front. When I asked how long it takes to get the Sheriff’s Sale scheduled after the foreclosing lender files the order and the paperwork, the clerk said in a kindly voice “We’re running about 15 MONTHS right now.” “FIFTEEN MONTHS???” I asked? “Why, yes sir, we’re quite busy with, well, you know, all these foreclosures!” How’s that sound? It may take them another 15 month’s to get the house to sale. Add that to the 18 months I haven’t been paying, and I’d say I already have a little victory. NOW LET’S GO FOR THE KILL!!!
rey, on October 3, 2009 at 7:50 am said:

I was served foreclosure summmons paper I here an attorney to defend me but all she had done so far is filed a letter of appareance to the court house; I dont know if this is enough to respond the summons ; please help and give me advise.
Lisa E, on October 3, 2009 at 6:50 am said:

ATTN FLORIDA “FORECLOSEES”

Do you have clear evidence of fraudulent and fabricated documents which you can scan and email to me; ie fabricated assignments, Notes, Affidavits with incompetent affiants, sneaky substitution of Plaintiff?

Please do so!

Scheduled for Weds 10/7/09 is a conference call with Attorney Harley Herman a long standing member of the Equal Opportunity Law Section of the Florida Bar Board of Governors (undertaking a review ethical and professional violations of foreclosure mill attorneys). The Florida Bar has the power to disbar or sanction or otherwise disciplne Florida attorneys.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Angela_in_FL, on October 2, 2009 at 6:55 pm said:

Ok, I am post foreclosure, but they have not taken posession of the house. Got a letter today: EX PARTE MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF BID. Wells Fargo wants to assign it’s bid to EMC.

1) Why are they doing this?

2) Should I make any objection?

I am a Tenant with a Lease. The Fed Law passed in May says the Bank must honor the lease, and also give 90 days notice.

3) Will an assignment of bid affect my ability to keep my lease??

The whole foreclosure was the usual BS, with MERS fabricating bogus assignment after bogus assignment (which conflicted with each other, BTW) AFTER beginning foreclosure proceedings. I obected to each bogus assignment, but, eventually, the judge let them get away with one that was fabricated and filed over a year after the proceedings began.

Opinions? Ideas? I would appreciate any comments or advice. I wish I had a FL lawer on contingency to sue them for wrongful foreclosure.

Thanks, Angela
Abby in CA, on October 2, 2009 at 6:09 pm said:

Diaz
I’ve been a big supporter of those in foreclosure on this site for over a year. Go back and read.

I find the movie to provide more valuable information on what went on in Washington DC, with the FED and with the financial meltdown & Countrywide and derivatives.

I think right now, as you will note from the movie, that you will see how strong the banks are in ;running’ Washington DC.

I’m not here to argue whether the USA should become socialist.
VG Diaz, on October 2, 2009 at 6:02 pm said:

Abby –

I find Michael Moore’s new documentary Capitalism, a disgrace for America. Michael Moore made his fortune in a Capitalist system. I don’t see him giving away his fortune to anyone, do you? He is a hypocrite!

What is Capital? Capital is the means of production. What’s the difference between American Capitalism and Communist China Capitalism? In USA, the private sector has control and own the capital vs. in Communist China the capital is own and control by the state.

Do you want to live in a country that owns and controls the capital? if so, why are living here and not in a communist country?

This is a blog and a website to assist those in need of help in foreclosure defense, NOT to promote garbage!
Abby in CA, on October 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm said:

A must see right away is Michael Moore’s new documentary Capitalism, A Love Story.

Outstanding!!

He interviews US Rep Marcy Kaptur multiple times!!

Wait til you see him expose Dodd
Marcus, on October 2, 2009 at 12:50 pm said:

Freddie Mac goes door-to-door to help owners

MCLEAN, Va. – Oct. 2, 2009 – Freddie Mac, a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), has hired a private vendor to promote mortgage modifications to homeowners who have missed payments but aren’t responding to mail or phone calls. The vendor, Titanium Solutions Inc., will meet with delinquent borrowers at their homes to help them supply missing information, documents and complete other actions to qualify them for a three-month trial payment period under Freddie Mac’s under President Obama’s Making Home Affordable program.

Titanium will also help borrowers who have started trial periods to complete the documentation needed to convert into final modifications.

“By meeting with our borrowers one on one, in their homes, Titanium Solutions can help them overcome the roadblocks keeping them from starting their Home Affordable Modification trial periods,” sys Ingrid Beckles, senior vice president of default asset management at Freddie Mac. “We believe this can give borrowers seeking Home Affordable Modifications the same type of personalized guidance they may have had when they were buying their home or applying for their mortgage.”

To minimize fraud, Titanium Solutions representatives will not accept mortgage payments or any other money from borrowers. Representatives will also carry a copy of the servicers’ solicitation letter the borrower initially received. The letters are uniquely formatted and include unique information about the mortgage loan.

For more information about Freddie Mac efforts to help borrowers and support Making Home Affordable, visit http://freddiemac.com/avoidforeclosure.

Congress established Freddie Mac in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation’s residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
stopgovtwaste, on October 1, 2009 at 9:01 am said:

**Floridadefenseteam**
FIDELITY NATIONAL is one of the largest title insurance underwriters in the business… others include Stewart, LandAmerica, Chicago Title (which may be under Fidelity), Old Republic, etc.

THEY ARE ABOUT TO GET THEIR CHOPS BUSTED FOR INSURING MERS AS LENDER. MY TITLE POLICY INSURES MERS AS THE LENDER. TOTALLY FALSE!!!

*I recommend people obtain a copy of their title insurance policy that was issued subsequent to your escrow closing – look to see if MERS was insured as lender, very important!
stopgovtwaste, on October 1, 2009 at 8:56 am said:

at 1:39 he says they sold them unknowingly… i don’t get it, who didn’t know? the banks didn’t know they were blackballing honest appraisers and taking advantage of the HUGE Grand Canyon loophole that was and is the AMC LOOPHOLE?

who is in charge of valuation – the market, free market? i demand we see some accountability on the dumbing down of the appraisal industry and amc’s pimping out the valuation assignment to the lowest bidder they have sold out likes of which i’ve never seen before.

but like a bank that leaves the vault door open, lenders are ‘surprised’ that property values were over/hyper-inflated and property conditions were misrepresented. what bank or lender loans money without knowing exactly what the collateral is worth… banks and lenders do business exactly this way!
Abby in CA, on October 1, 2009 at 8:42 am said:

Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve filed a notice it will appeal a judge’s order requiring the central bank to identify the companies that benefited from its emergency loans.

The filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York today was authorized by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the Obama administration’s top courtroom lawyer, according to Charles Miller, a spokesman for Kagan.

“Public disclosure is likely to cause substantial competitive injury to these financial institutions including the loss of public confidence in the institution, runs on banks and possible failure of some institutions,” the Fed said in its notice, which asks to put the lower court’s order on hold until the appeal is prepared.

Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued the Fed on Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit, demanding details about the Fed borrowers and the collateral they put up. That information is “central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” Bloomberg said in the suit.

“One way or the other, the Fed is going to have to come clean,” Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat, said today in a statement delivered through his spokesman, Matt Stoller. Grayson helps oversee bailout programs as a member of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee.

Extending Credit

“There is not a single American who does not have a stake in how the Federal Reserve and other major banks operate,” Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said an interview. “To deny American taxpayers simple information about how their money was used and by whom is inexcusable.”

Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska had set today as the deadline for the appeal of her Aug. 24 ruling ordering the Fed to disclose information. Fed lawyer Kit Wheatley asked Preska on Aug. 27 to halt enforcement of the order to give the central bank time to get Kagan’s consent.

Jennifer Psaki, a White House spokeswoman, declined to comment, directing requests to the central bank.

The Fed last year began extending credit directly to companies that aren’t banks for the first time since it was created in 1913 to manage the nation’s monetary policy. It has refused to divulge details about the companies participating in 10 lending programs, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders.

Exceeding $2 Trillion

Releasing the information would also impair the central bank’s “ability to perform important statutory functions at a time of economic upheaval,” according to today’s filing, written by Wheatley and Senior Counsel Yvonne Mizusawa.

President Barack Obama and some lawmakers criticized the Bush administration’s handling of the U.S. financial rescue plan, the $700 Troubled Asset Relief Program passed by Congress last October, saying funds were spent with too little accountability or transparency.

Total central bank lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time on Nov. 6, and reached $2.14 trillion on Sept. 23, the last time the statistics were issued. Over 12 weeks beginning Sept. 14, 2008, loans climbed by 138 percent, or $1.23 trillion after the board of governors relaxed collateral standards to accept securities that aren’t rated AAA, the highest grade.

Categories of Collateral

In February, the Fed began publishing a breakdown by broad categories of the collateral it holds. The $899 billion pledged as of June 24 included $235 billion in commercial loans, $155 billion in asset-backed securities and $90 billion in commercial real estate, according to the central bank’s Web site. The numbers are updated about every two months.

The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg suit, filed in New York, doesn’t seek money damages.

Today’s filing couldn’t be immediately confirmed in court records.

The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 30, 2009 18:07 EDT
Deontos, on October 1, 2009 at 8:39 am said:

SNIP:

The Wall Street Journal

* REAL ESTATE
* OCTOBER 1, 2009

Banks Bite Bullet on Loans
Lenders Start to Write Off Some Principal in Modifying Terms for Troubled Mortgages

By JAMES R. HAGERTY

Banks and loan investors are starting to bite the bullet and lower the principal due on home mortgages for some struggling borrowers, a new report from bank regulators shows.

That’s good news for some homeowners…………. The tradeoff for banks is that by taking the hit now they can boost their chances of being repaid.

Primary Source

* Read the full OCC report.

Banks and loan servicers modify loans primarily by reducing interest rates or extending the term of the mortgage. …………….. Now, in a small but growing number of cases, banks are going further and writing off some of the loan altogether.

Part of this is due to prodding from the Obama administration, which has made saving homeowners from foreclosure a cornerstone of its economic-rescue strategy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125431960273352535.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews
floridadefenseteam, on October 1, 2009 at 4:49 am said:

Lisa,

Checkout FIS (Fidelity National) – its a foreclosure facilitator in Jacksonville, Fl – they magically assist attorneys who need the right documents. Perhaps the attorneys who get caught say “me didn’t know”.
Lisa E, on October 1, 2009 at 3:09 am said:

Fabricated documents filed by foreclosure mill attorneys?

See, this is one of the most shocking and unbelievable things to me! I don’t need to go far for examples, just open up my own case notebook and see it right before my eyes.

That this is Modus Operandi in MILLIONS of foreclosure cases is beyond my comprehension! Morals, ethics, and attorneys held to standards of their own profession anyone? Youuuuuu Hoooooo Hellllllllllllooooooooooooo………is anyone in a position of authority listening?

Bank/Servicer & their Attorneys: “Oh, darn! We don’t have a single shred of evidence to prove we have any more right to foreclose on a family’s home than does the judge sitting on that bench? Drat it all! Well, we won’t let that little obstacle get in our relentless way to evict this family. OH NO WE WON’T, silly judicial system and it’s onerous rules demanding proof! We’ll try to foreclose without showing any proof, and NANNIE BOO BOO if the homeowner has the audacity to force us to produce proof our motto is: Make it up I say! Make it up!”

Are we in the twilight zone yet?

At least one member of the Florida Bar is trying to get the word out: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090929/COLUMNIST/909291036/2256/NEWS?Title=LYONS-Foreclosure-chicanery-not-a-funny-lawyer-joke

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Robert, on September 30, 2009 at 6:15 pm said:

Local couple on Phx., AZ news found an old CD from a local bank that has since been sold or bought out by another bank. Now the CD is worth over $400,000 and the bank says they can’t find any record of the CD and since the original bank has been sold and resold they don’t know who should honor the CD. Sounds like the bank is using the “produce the note ” defense to keep from paying on this CD.
http://www.kpho.com/news/21154951/detail.html
Search the Web on Snap.com, on September 30, 2009 at 4:42 pm said:

FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

YOUR SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE IS “REQUESTED BY” THE PARTY SUBSTITUTING ON. IT CAN ONLY BE DONE BY THE BENEFICIARY, MERS OR THE AGENT. A RUBBER STAMP IS ADDED AFTER THE FACT AND IS A FRAUD.

THE NOTORY MAKES THE DOCUMENT GENERATION SUSPECT AS TO THE STATES IN QUESTION AND THE DATE OF THE DOC- THAT DATE OF THE DOC WAS PRODUCED BY A SUSPICIOUS PARTY (OF INTEREST).

THE DOCUMENT IS DEFECT AND A FRAUD AND THAT SHOULD HOLD UP THIS CASE.

BUT IT TELLS ME SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER HERE. LOOK FOR YOURSELF AGAIN!
Search the Web on Snap.com, on September 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm said:

The KC Supreme court is telling us somthing I thought I conveyed to all of you ahhhhh last year! The obligation stands but the integrity and enforecabilty of the security is lost to the lender.

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Don, on September 30, 2009 at 12:23 pm said:

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-foA Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card For 60 Million Mortgages?

Lawrence Delevingne|
Sep. 22, 2009, 4:27 PM | 5,151 |21

Could half of all U.S. mortgages — some 60 million — be protected from foreclosure?

That’s how some are interpreting a ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court.

Ellen Brown/Huffington Post: A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose — on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound.

That, says Karl Denninger, “sounds much more definitive than it really is, yet outlines a potential major problem for the secutized loan industry.”

Market Ticker: The underlying issue is that many of these so-called “securities” (MBS, CDOs, etc) were issued “light” of the required legal mandates to keep the chain of assignments and actual consent signatures required for enforcement. Many people charge that the reason behind this was simple volume. I disagree.

I believe that a large part of the root cause of these “lost” documents is to cover up blatant and in many cases outrageous fraud. It is difficult to prove that a bank or other lender knew and ignored stated-income fraud (or allegedly “investigated” and “underwrote” a file when it did not) when the original file has been turned into ticker-tape confetti courtesy of the closest paper shredder!

MERS has thus given cover to a tremendous amount of fraudulent conduct – the very conduct that predatory lending statutes, “wet signature” and “chain of title” laws are supposed to prevent.

The real bottom line here is that securitized bondholders may in fact be holding worthless pieces of paper.

Here’s the full thing if you want to analyze the wording yourself.

The Kansas decision needs to be closely examined and watched, but it doesn’t affect the rest of the country — yet.

r-60-million-mortgages-2009-9
Foreclosure Fraud, on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 am said:

Well here is all the info I could find… Anyone like to comment on the validity of the filings?

Countrywide / MERS

The homeowner, 64-year-old Kurt Aho.

01/05/2005 DEED TRST
Country Wide / MERS
http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs/pdf/20050018754.pdf

06/25/2009 SUB TRSTE
MERS
http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs/pdf/20090585806.pdf

06/25/2009 N/TR SALE
http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs/pdf/20090585807.pdf

4closureFraud
Marcus, on September 30, 2009 at 10:26 am said:

BT,
The quiet title examples I was able to find are either Count or Counter Claim as part of an answer to a foreclosure compalint.

I just loaded a quiet title case filed by an attorney in Pinellas county Florida. It was part of an answer. Look at the counterclaim on page 2. The document title is “Sample Answer With Quiet Title”
www. foreclosureprose.com/pleadings/

——————————————
COUNT VIII (QUIET TITLE–BROWN CONSTRUCTION)

91. Paragraphs 1 through 90 are hereby realleged and reasserted as if fully rewritten, herein.

92. Plaintiff is the current owner of the residence and property located at [Address], Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, 44103, permanent Parcel No. [Number].

93. One or more of the named Defendants filed, or caused to be filed the Bogus Mortgage in the favor of “Brown Construction Company, LTD” on or about July 15, 2004.

94. The Bogus Mortgage contains a signature that, although it purports to be that of Plaintiff, Christine Consumer, it is not her signature.

95. Upon information and belief, the false “Mrs. Consumer” signature that appears on the Bogus Mortgage was placed there by a representative of, or at the express direction of an employee, agent or representative of Brown Construction and/or Peters.

96. The Bogus Mortgage represents a claim on Plaintiff’s land that is adverse to her own interest, thereby creating a cloud on the title to her property, that is both unlawful and invalid.

97. The aforementioned cloud on the Mrs. Consumer’s property prevents her from the unencumbered enjoyment of her premises, as sole and rightful owner.

98. Plaintiff is entitled to a court order, pursuant to O.R.C. 5303.01, canceling the Bogus Mortgage in favor of Brown Construction, and an order quieting the Plaintiff’s title in the her property, and for an award of damages to compensate her for the wrongdoing that created the need for this Quiet Title Action, along with its costs and attorney fees.
Luis, on September 30, 2009 at 9:59 am said:

I wish some federal agency would look into this.

I wonder if he was pushed out of his mind because of some scam or fraud with his mortgage.
Kalona S B, on September 30, 2009 at 9:42 am said:

FF

WOW powerful news story. Makes me wonder if that will be the trend in home owners trying to hang on to their homes. No doubt this was suicide by cop shooting. And speaking of suicides I wonder if any studies have been done to know just how many people have commited suicide over thier home scams. Probably way more then the media has come close to reporting or knowing.
So messed up!
Abby in CA, on September 30, 2009 at 9:04 am said:

Marcus
thanks for tip to Nomi Prnis

Read yesterday’s article EVERYBODY!!

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/142944
bt, on September 30, 2009 at 7:21 am said:

QUIET TITLE ACTION- does anyone have any links to florida quiet title lawsuits to use for reference for a securtized loan. or complaints to view.
Foreclosure Fraud, on September 30, 2009 at 6:32 am said:

Former Homeowner Dies in Officer-Involved Shooting after losing home in foreclosure…

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/officer_involved_shooting_09_29_2009
Marcus, on September 29, 2009 at 5:02 pm said:

The link below point to articles written by Nomi Prins an former managing director at Goldman Sachs turned journalist.

http://www.nomiprins.com/articles.html
Amber J Williamson, on September 29, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

On a FHA loan Washington Mutual wrongfully foreclosed my property and admitted liability, sold the servicing rights to Wells Fargo and allegedly sold the “note” to Lehman Brothers. A wrongful foreclosure lawsuit was filed in 2007 and due to the banks failure FDIC is involved and although they have approved a claim in my favor they can not reverse the foreclosure. It appears that JP Morgan Chase may be the owner of the property but no entity can prove ownership? Not one entity agrees to pay attorney’s fees for their corporate screw ups? Also, I am told and claim approved by FDIC kicks out my lawsuit, is that true?
Amber J Williamson, on September 29, 2009 at 3:17 pm said:

On a FHA loan Washington Mutual wrongfully foreclosed my property and admitted liability, sold the servicing rights to Wells Fargo and allegedly sold the “note” to Lehman Brothers. A wrongful foreclosure lawsuit was filed in 2007 and due to the banks failure FDIC is involved and although they have approved a claim in my favor they can not reverse the foreclosure. It appears that JP Morgan Chase may be the owner of the property but no entity can prove ownership? Not one entity agrees to pay attorney’s fees for their corporate screw ups? Also, I am told and claim approved by FDIC kicks out my lawsuit, is that true?
Lisa E, on September 29, 2009 at 10:41 am said:

Hi Alina!

RE: Fraud by Florida Foreclosure Attorneys & their Clients

Thank you for the great info about the section of the Florida Bar’s presentation this Friday!

The Florida Bar Lawyer Relations Ethical Division where one can fax a letter with the issues of fraud in their case with copies of the documents in question: FAX: 850-422-2454
PHONE for individual complaints against an individual Florida attorney: 850-561-5600 x4 x3 x1 x1

I tracked down an attorney who is presenting on this topic this Friday at the Equal Opportunity Law Section of the Florida Bar Board of Govenors. I left him a message that I have my own examples of fraudulent docs, incompetent affiants and false affidavits as well as having access to many others with similar examples. I explained that I was calling solely to assist him in his presentation with an offer of real life, easy to discern fraudulent foreclosure mill attorney activity. We’ll see if he calls me back.

The two reporters who wrote articles for the Herald Tribune are:

Todd.Ruger@heraldtribune.com

Tom.Lyons@heraldtribune.com 941-361-4964

Good Luck to us all!
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com
TW, on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 am said:

Link to The National Information Center (NIC) website;
http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/NicHome.aspx

From the site: “A repository of financial data and institution characteristics collected by the Federal Reserve System.”

*I’ve found this site useful in tracking banking entity transfers…
take care and make it a great day! TW
Alina, on September 29, 2009 at 9:32 am said:

To all FLORIDA homeowners:

The state group that disciplines lawyers is debating how to deal with reports of attorneys using errors and false statements to retake property in foreclosure cases. A section of The Florida Bar that seeks to give everyone equal access to the courts says stories like those prompted it to push for a special committee to review any ethical violations in foreclosure cases.

Here is a link to the Sarasota Herald Tribune article:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090928/ARTICLE/909281040/-1/NEWSSITEMAP

According to the article, they are meeting with the Board of Governors this Friday. I have tried to find out who to contact with stories. If anyone in Florida can get a contact person, that would be great. We need to get our stories to them.
Marcus, on September 29, 2009 at 9:16 am said:

Interesting read on FASB-140.

FAS 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities

http://accountingonion.typepad.com/theaccountingonion/2008/03/fsp-140-3.html

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on September 29, 2009 at 8:16 am said:

Jason,
You should send a cease and desist letter to the attorney and that you will take them to Federal court if they attempt to collect on a debt that has been rescinded. He could loose his license for that.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on September 29, 2009 at 8:08 am said:

Linda,
One more thing. Some of the assets are still under receivership. I think it is about $28 million. So the rule of evidence applies. Make them prove everything. The burden is on them.

marcus,
Marcus, on September 29, 2009 at 7:40 am said:

Linda,
Two things to consider:
1) If BankUnited assumed the mortgage of BankUnited FSB, then the entity (BankUnited FSB) has no standing; the case should be dismissed. They are no longer the party in interest.

2) If BankUnited (new entity) want to foreclosure, they have to show the chain of title and valid transfer of assets.

Notice how the names are very similar. I believe it is not a coincidence; it is a way to trick people into believing it is the same entity.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Linda, on September 29, 2009 at 7:16 am said:

Marcus, I’m the one who emailed you yesterday about BankUnited loans–I spoke with an FDIC representative–the new BankUnited has assumed the loans of BankUnited FSB–I thought the loans would be in receivership, but apprarently not. And yes I read all the information on the FDIC site.
Jason in GA, on September 29, 2009 at 5:25 am said:

I have a question concerning my recent TILA rescission. My lender completly ignored my rescissio notice that I sent them last month. This comes after months sending QWR’s and finally me stopping making payments. Their attorney sent a letter yesterday notifying me that pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, I am in breach of the note and security deed they have been hired to take action against me and my property. Then it goes on to tell me I have 30 days to request validation of the debt after which it will be considered valid ect…ect…
My question is this. Is this the usual protocol in a non-judicial state like GA, or are they trying a different angle to collect since they know they have missed their deadline to legally assert a claim against my rescission? Any ideas?
MSoliman, on September 29, 2009 at 12:06 am said:

Thanks used car guy LOL!

Soliman
MSoliman, on September 28, 2009 at 11:59 pm said:

September 29th 2009

Dear Servicer

There is an especially disturbing effort seen by the parties of interest to the note conspiring to defraud a trustor and distort the facts. Under FAS 140-3 the obligation and asset was originated by a member bank intended to be sold under the FDIC or OTS authority. Under GAAP, the initial transfer should be evaluated to determine if, without consideration of the repurchase financing it meets the requirement of sale accounting under FAS-140 and other GAAP provisions for a lender in a securitization.

A lender “transferor and transferee” acting as a combination must analyze the repurchase financing as a repurchase agreement with both parties using the same criteria. If the linked transaction does not qualify for sale accounting it should be accounted for based on economic substance of the combined transactions.

Typically these represent a forward contract to be accounted for in accordance with FAS 133. Herein is our problem. The loan that was originated is not a true bonifide sale to a Wall Street investor but actually a transfer under a forward agreement where control has not been given up.

That could mean the transfer is a combined transaction where neither party gives up control of the asset. That likely disqualifies the sale!

Your servicing department is clearly attempting to circumvent the real issues surrounding a wrongful foreclosure attempt today. My contention is the investment structure the borrowers loan fits into is subject to derecognition and for classifying impairment (for all affected trust assets). Under the current financial reporting rules pursuant to GAAP its apparent prudent lending and honest servicing do make for any lender integrity.

Everyday is proof theservicing and collections effort towards a borrower’s property is a thief from an accounting perspective (not a legal assertion).

The subject property is subject to review and any attempts at a foreclosure will demonstrate how securitization does not work unless the “pretender” lender takes wrongful possession the home in a trustee sale.

Your part of a deceptive Wall Street “lender” scheme seeking to have the subject dwelling legally sell in an “open market” transaction. They are using the Trustee Sale for this sole purpose and voiding the rights of the borrowers in a workout resolution under the new administrations TARP and CA Cccp 2923.5

Consider contacting a securities attorney to protect your firm from growing concerns towards unlawful recovery efforts causinga call to derecognition of all CMO and MBO trust assets.

You’re participating in a deceptive and non transparent deal establishing trustor claims of wrongful foreclosure subject to having now been given ample warning.

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
http://www.borrowerhotline.com
Kalona S B, on September 28, 2009 at 8:38 pm said:

Marcus I agree very much. Fortunately for me I was on gaurd and did not give any personal info. I found it interesting they had none about my case either. The value of my home, when they signed on as the insurance provider, etc.

I think that an insurance comapny would want to know the value of the home they are insuring and other important info on the person and the home they are insuring.

He got loud with me trying to drown out my questions which at that point I threatened to disconnect the call.
Then he tried to tell me he needed to get the info fast speed up the process. He claimed he was documenting the call. But I was glad to tell him so was I doing the same. So now I will report them for fraud practices being they NEVER once told me in any way they were a debt collector!
Kalona S B, on September 28, 2009 at 8:22 pm said:

Mahalo Dan

That is correct. I went to their web site that I found on the e-mail and there it was…BY LAW they are supposed to let u know they are a debt collector.

They failed to tell me. Instead they said they wanted to get me a loan modification because they had an interest in the case because they would lose their insurance they placed on my home.

I asked quite a few questions and slowly it unravled.I knew in my gut by the answers I was getting something didn’t sound right.

There is no real loan modification done by them. I would have been scammed again. But fortunately I have had enough scam to be very paranoid about what people say and I want it in writing that I can read and understand. At first he insisted he was PMI and then he slightly changed it to working with PMI. And then changed it to contracting with PMI.

The flags in this case was the obessesive calls, the hurry up and get us those papers now or else. Hmmm or else? Wrong answer.

So now I can move in another direction and ck out those opetions. dagggggg so annoying.

It’s amazong what these companies will do to take our homes and whatever money they can get.
Marcus, on September 28, 2009 at 8:13 pm said:

For people who have loans with BankUnited FSB read the page from the FDIC.
The bank no longer exists.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/bankunited.html

Marcus,
Marcus, on September 28, 2009 at 8:09 pm said:

Kalona S B,
Look at my posting on PMI on September 5th 2009 and August 24 2009.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Lisa E, on September 28, 2009 at 7:47 pm said:

In the process of helping two friends, each involved in their own foreclosure cases, I’ve come across something odd.

Both have the same strange thing going on which I can’t figure out. At loan origination of these original purchases in 2005, both of these loans were “split” for reasons unclear and unexplained.

For example, a total borrowed $215,000 was split into 2 loans, one for $140,000 and the other for $75,000. There were 2 separate monthly statements and 2 separate monthly payments, each to different servicers.

Now, in both of these foreclosures, the foreclosure cases are brought by a Plaintiff (Deutche Bank & Amtrust Bank respectively) holding the larger mortgage amount, without any mention or including the other lender (Saxon and Ocwen respectively) as either a Plaintiff or Defendant. In fact, in one of these cases, the lender of the larger amount got a Summary Judgment on 3/20/09 and there was a sheriff’s sale on 8/11/09, and still the smaller lender CONTINUES TO SEND MONTHLY STATEMENTS with accruing late fees.

Does anyone know what was going on that these original loans were split between two lenders?

Thank you,
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces toemail)
Dan Edstrom, on September 28, 2009 at 7:36 pm said:

Kalona S B,
Somebody else on this site said PMI was a debt collector. They said they sent them a dispute letter. That is all I know about them.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Kalona S B, on September 28, 2009 at 6:06 pm said:

Abby

I agree. I have spent some time at the law library but honestly I get so sick there. My stomach balls up into complete knots at just the thought. But no doubt I will have to go back in and work more.

I still hope that if I can get even a few of my questions answered it will give me some places to know to look closer at.

This so called PMI Finance agency is really sending me red flags. I get the feeling that they should know more info then they have. I at this point have been very gaurded as to what info I am willing to give them. It seems to me that if they are my actual PMI, they would have my basic info at very least. So for now I am not giving them any personal info until I have more answers from them. Something just isn’t right. Or maybe I have become very cautious and really don’t trust anyone any more.
Abby in CA, on September 28, 2009 at 3:15 pm said:

Kalona SB
I think you need to spend time at the law library.

You cannot get discovery via a letter.

I’m not trying to be glib, but just suggesting.
Abby in CA, on September 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm said:

Reminder
to all those dealing with New Century or HOME123
be sure to read the Missal Report.

http://www.klgates.com/FCWSite/Final_Report_New_Century.pdf

Missal was court appointed Bankruptcy Examiner for New Century.

This is loaded with information
Kalona S B, on September 28, 2009 at 2:28 pm said:

Aloha All

I have some questions. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. I read every comment that is on this site in hopes something will hit home and guide me to make better informed choices of action.
I absolutely cannot explain how I am hanging on this long. But in my heart I know that each day is one more day. Getting passed the deep knots in my stomach and the extreme fears of losing everything at times has been numbing as I am sure it must be for all of u.

Trying to learn and understand all the terms is far beyond challenging to me. But I am trying very hard to make the efforts.

I have a company that has been calling me every day, several times a day. PMI Financial, They claim they are the insurance company for my home. They state they want all my info, taxes, income etc. 1 866 794 7884.
It sounds like a boiler room in the background. What is this company. If they are the insurance company for the loan, then shouldn’t they have the loan balance, interest rates and other info? I’m concerned this could be another agency doing a scam to gain info.

Now that my sorry loser of an attorney has been able to remove himself from mortgage case, I am still standing with countless unanswered questions. He lost the case to GMAC for attorney fees and cost for 48K. Needless to say I was absolutely shocked. I haven’t heard a word from them. Not sure what that means. I asked my lawyer several times when was the deadline to file for an appeal. I am by no means a lawyer. I haven’t gotten a single straight answer from him and now I am trying to figure out where to begin with the courts. Can I do depositions? Request witnesses? What do I do first and how do I get that info to start the process to figure out what I am supposed to do now. Am I allowed to ask for all the documents? Will they charge me for them? Do I need to write the other lawyers and ask them what the status of the case is? I honestly don’t know what the heck to do.

If I should write a letter, can I ask for discovery and what should I ask for? Is there some kind of letter format that I could use that can guide me in writing them a letter? Do I need to asking the judge for a certain date for what?

Is it too late to deal with the 48K GMAC won against my bone headed lawyer?

I am so lost!!! Please any help at all would mean a great deal to me.
MAHALO
SB
Abby in CA, on September 28, 2009 at 1:50 pm said:

FYI

In case anyone is fighting their bankrupt loan originator or lender in Delaware BKR court,
there is a company Parcels Inc. which will FILE AND FAX SERVE documents for only $20.20. Like I am using for the Adversary Proceeding against New Century. Parcels, Inc phone number is 302-658-9911.
email docs to them deliveries@parcelsinc.com
Abby in CA, on September 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm said:

I have a question–with the securitization scheme, PSAs etc. and the insurance taken out by the schemers that the homeowner would default and the schemers could reap 30x or more on the insurance payments back to them–at what point could those insurance payments be considered ‘excess proceeds’ from the foreclosure sale?? I thought I saw that neil had mentioned this. Could a former borrower whose house was foreclosed upon, but who is still in the home and has fraud. TILA etc. case filed, also include a count in the lawsuit to reclaim those insurance monies as ‘excess proceeds’?

Appreciate anyone’s thoughts on this .

FOR NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE STATES
Former borrower would get any excess proceeds from a sale of a foreclosed home. Keep in mind that any expenses the lender suffered would be subtracted from the excess. Lawyer fees, late fees, foreclosure fees, court fees, filing fees, and anything else the bank had to pay as part of the foreclosure process would be paid before any of the excess money from the sale was given to you.

Be sure to check your state laws on this.
usedkarguy, on September 27, 2009 at 11:19 am said:

Hey Dan! We started in this about the same time last year. Yes, we do sometimes feel like we know nothing (especially after talking to Maher), but I believe you are mostly right on.
They are circumventing the law with the way they are doing business. The REMIC is definitely supposed to be a “passive” operation. They (the banks) are operating outside the law and no government entity wants to hear about it. As always, Good Luck! Great to hear from you!
Dan Edstrom, on September 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm said:

This post is long, but for those interested in Seller Financing, FAS 140, and True Sale it will be interesting. The companies that securitized my loan are all under GMAC (this posting is from a 10-K SEC filing by GMAC dated 9/27/2008. Just to make it clear, in the prospectus issued in my case, it says that although they said they sold the loans, they really used seller financing. That means my mortgage was ON BALANCE SHEET but sold OFF BALANCE sheet into a “bankrupt-remote” entity (I had to read this numerous times).
Look for the “60 days past due” reference. Remember that your loan will never be 60 days past due because they do the assignment 42 to 55 days BEFORE the foreclosure sale. Before that time, your payments were current (but that is not what they told you).
Also look for loan modifications to “off balance sheet mortgages”. How can they do that? If they are off-balance sheet it means THEY DO NOT OWN OR CONTROL THEM!

GMAC (various excerpts from GMAC 10-K SEC filing on 2/27/2008)
• Correspondent Lender and Other Secondary Market Purchases – Loans purchased from correspondent lenders are originated or purchased by the correspondent lenders and subsequently sold to us. Most of the purchases from correspondent lenders are conducted through GMAC Bank, a subsidiary. As with our mortgage brokerage network, we approve any correspondent lenders who participate in the loan purchase programs.
• We are a provider of warehouse lending facilities to correspondent lenders and other mortgage originators in the United States. These facilities enable those lenders and originators to finance residential mortgage loans until they are sold in the secondary mortgage loan market. We provide warehouse lending facilities principally for prime conforming and government residential mortgage loans, including mortgage loans acquired through correspondent lenders. We also provide limited warehouse lending facilities for prime nonconforming and prime second-lien residential mortgage loans, including mortgage loans acquired through correspondent lenders.
• We provide most of the warehouse lending facilities through our subsidiary, GMAC Bank. Advances under warehouse lending facilities are collateralized by the underlying mortgage loans and bear interest at variable rates.
• Nonperforming Assets
The following table [not shown] summarizes the nonperforming assets in our on-balance sheet held for sale and held for investment residential mortgage loan portfolios for each of the periods presented. Nonperforming assets are nonaccrual loans, foreclosed assets, and restructured loans. Mortgage loans and lending receivables are generally placed on nonaccrual status when they are 60 days or more past due or when the timely collection of the principal of the loan, in whole or in part, is doubtful. Management’s classification of a loan as nonaccrual does not necessarily suggest that the principal of the loan is uncollectible in whole or in part. In certain cases, borrowers make payments to bring their loans contractually current; in all cases, mortgage loans are collateralized by residential real estate. As a result, our experience has been that any amount of ultimate loss is substantially less than the unpaid balance of a nonperforming loan.
• During the year, ResCap completed temporary and permanent loan modifications. In accordance with SFAS 140, the majority of the modifications adjusted the borrower terms for loans in off-balance sheet securitization trusts, for which, we retained the mortgage servicing rights. The remaining loans exist primarily in our on-balance sheet securitization trusts.
• Securitization
As part of our ongoing operations and overall funding and liquidity strategy, we primarily securitize consumer automotive finance retail contracts, wholesale loans, mortgage loans, and asset-backed securities. Securitization of assets allows us to diversify funding sources by enabling us to convert assets into cash earlier than what would have occurred in the normal course of business and to support the core activities of our Global Automotive Finance and ResCap operations relative to originating and purchasing finance receivables and loans. Termination of our securitization activities would reduce funding sources for both Automotive Finance and ResCap and disrupt the core mortgage banking activity, adversely affecting our operating results.
Information regarding our securitization activities is further described in Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. As part of these activities, assets are generally sold to bankruptcy-remote subsidiaries. These bankruptcy-remote subsidiaries are separate legal entities that assume the risk and reward of ownership of the receivables. Neither we nor these subsidiaries are responsible for the other entities’ debts, and the assets of the subsidiaries are not available to satisfy our claim or those of our creditors. In turn, the bankruptcy-remote subsidiaries establish separate trusts to which they transfer the assets in exchange for the proceeds from the sale of asset- or mortgage-backed securities issued by the trust. The trusts’ activities are generally limited to acquiring the assets, issuing asset- or mortgage-backed securities, making payments on the securities, and periodically reporting to the investors. Because of the nature of the assets held by the trusts and the limited nature of each trust’s activities, most trusts are QSPEs, in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities (SFAS 140). In accordance with SFAS 140, assets and liabilities of the QSPEs are generally not consolidated on our Consolidated Balance Sheet; therefore, we account for the transfer of assets into the QSPE as a sale.
Certain of our securitization transactions, while similar in legal structure to the transactions described in the foregoing (i.e., the assets are legally sold to a bankruptcy-remote subsidiary), do not meet the isolation and control criteria of SFAS 140 and, therefore, are accounted for as secured financings. As secured financings, the underlying automotive finance retail contracts, automotive leases, or mortgage loans remain on our Consolidated Balance Sheet with the corresponding obligation (consisting of the debt securities issued) reflected as debt. We recognize income on the finance receivables, automotive leases and loans, and interest expense on the securities issued in the securitization; and we provide for credit losses on the finance receivables and loans as incurred.
As part of our securitization activities, we typically agree to service the transferred assets for a fee, and we may earn other related ongoing income. We may also retain a portion of senior and subordinated interests issued by the trusts; for transactions accounted for as sales, these interests are reported as investment securities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet and are disclosed in Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Subordinate interests typically provide credit support to the more highly rated senior interests in a securitization transaction and may be subject to all or a portion of the first loss position related to the sold assets. The amount of the fees earned and the levels of retained interests that we maintain are disclosed in Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
We sometimes use derivative financial instruments to facilitate securitization activities, as further described in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Our exposure related to the securitization trusts is generally limited to cash reserves held for the benefit of investors in the trusts’ retained interests and certain purchase obligations. The trusts have a limited life and generally terminate upon final distribution of amounts owed to investors or upon exercise by us, as servicer, of a cleanup call option when the servicing of the sold contracts becomes burdensome. In addition, the trusts do not invest in our equity or in the equity of any of our affiliates. In certain transactions, limited recourse provisions exist that allow holders of the asset- or mortgage-backed securities to put those securities back to us.
We have also entered into agreements to provide credit loss protection for certain high loan-to-value (HLTV) mortgage loan securitization transactions. We are required to perform on our guaranty obligation when the security credit enhancements are exhausted and losses are passed through to investors. The guarantees terminate the first calendar month during which the security aggregate note amount is reduced to zero. Refer to Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Guarantees section in this MD&A for further information.
• Other Off-balance Sheet Activities
We also use other off-balance sheet entities for operational and liquidity purposes, which are in addition to the securitization activities that are part of the transfer and servicing of financial assets under SFAS 140 (as described in the previous section). The purposes and activities of these entities vary, with some entities representing QSPEs under SFAS 140 and others, whose activities are not sufficiently limited to meet the QSPE criteria of SFAS 140, considered to be VIEs and accounted for in accordance with FASB Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (FIN 46R).
We may also act as a counterparty in derivative financial instruments with these entities to facilitate transactions. Although representing effective risk management techniques, these derivative financial instrument positions do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, as the assets or liabilities that are economically hedged are carried off-balance sheet. These derivative financial instruments are reported on our Consolidated Balance Sheet at fair value, with valuation adjustments reflected in our Consolidated Statement of Income on a current period basis, and are disclosed in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on September 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm said:

usedkarguy,
I don’t really know. I think the servicer keeps the proceeds and the insurance is paid to some GMAC (in my case) subsidiary (30 times the principal) – they then provide the amount collected from the Trustees sale back to the Trust (downright neighborly of them).

That’s just my guess based on what Neil and others have said.

Title to the loans are in the name of the Trustee, not the trust. I don’t know if this helps them avoid that or not. Plus, it is the servicer (with power of attorney) who actually forecloses and does the sale. The actual Trustee (in my opinion) doesn’t have know the sale took place (plausible deniability?)… Look at Deutsche Banks statements in regard ot the number of lawsuits they have against homeowners.

But, you could be right on. Its just amazing that are government will not get involved in this at any level.

(I am not a lawyer and don’t know what I am talking about …)

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on September 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm said:

Thanks Dan. You have made that part of the scam very understandable.

My 3 largest defendants (3 major banks) and I have to add more players….are all with the same big law firm in CA.

Later
usedkarguy, on September 26, 2009 at 5:08 pm said:

Isn’t this the point where the REMIC (non-taxable) business plan is violated? The Trust (via the Trustee/Servicer/scavenger /sheriff sale) turns the real estate into cash (and cash flow) that violates the REMIC tax status? Instead of passively distributing interest from mortgage loans, they end up running their own little real estate business (timing the market with foreclosure, disposal)? And then the proceeds end up in the bottom tranche, also owned by the Sponsor?
Dan Edstrom, on September 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm said:

I do not know if that is when they are most vulnerable. They also seem to be in a bad spot once they hold the “sale” – but that also puts you in a bad spot. I will not let the house go to sale without kicking and screaming. I believe you need to find out who these parties in interest are and find the PROOF that requires JOINDER (in a lawsuit – either them sueing you or you sueing them). This will mean detailed analysis of the SEC filings for your case. Believe me, it says a TON. Including the fact that because of the pledges (seller financing), they are at risk in bankruptcy and receivership. Which is really funny because that was one of the primary reasons the “investors” had a safe investment in the first place. But is all there in the prospectus (its in mine anyway).

I don’t know that any of this is easy to fight – there is just a TON of information and we are really only starting to get to the bottom of this. Receivership is a HUGE issue for them though because it basically means they are INSOLVENT. How can they not be – they have all these loans that borrowers allegedly haven’t been paying on – and which they have not marked down to market value (mark to market). On the other hand, they would probably make the claim that the payments HAVE been made on these loans and that they are current (that is what I would say if I were them and faced with receivership). But this just means that the servicer(s) (and/or others – such as insurance,etc) have been making your payments for you. But this means they have no right to foreclosure. Of course this ignores all of the fraudulent documents that have been flying around (some say you are current and some say you are not current).

Everyone: these guys are not stupid – they are very smart and will have some very good lawyers waiting for you if you ever get to that point.

Of course I am not a lawyer, a CPA, a securities expert or anything else. This is my opinion and what I have been looking at for my case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Don, on September 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm said:

Dan,

Are you saying that prior to the open market transaction (trustee’s sale) they are most vulnerable because they “pledged” the asset and a TRUE SALE has not taken place. That is when I should hit them with the TRO and injunction?
Dan Edstrom, on September 26, 2009 at 3:56 pm said:

Abby,
Yes Maher is referring to the Trustee in securitization (usually the party foreclosing – although it is probably the servicer with Attorney in Fact for the Trustee).

The Wall Street “lenders” have to sell the asset in an “open market” transaction. They are using the Trustee Sale for this transaction.

What he is saying is what I have been saying – they “pledged” the asset and a TRUE SALE has not taken place. The Trustee (of the Trust in securitization) does not have perfected title because ALL of the “transfers” were using seller financing without FULL consideration. This “process” (yeah right) comes to fruition (for them) at the Trustees Sale. At that point they have clear title (or so they think). Remember, this goes with what Neil has been saying: that the originator has been PAID IN FULL. Everyone else has “an interest” in your title (and there are a lot of parties with interest!). But who is the REAL party in interest? My contention is the only possible REAL party in interest would be a JOINDER of ALL the parties in interest. Not ONE of these parties has full, clear and perfected title on its own.

Everything was done very carefully and deliberatly to get us to the point we are at now. I used to believe they made a bunch of mistakes. Now I don’t believe that for one second.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on September 26, 2009 at 3:43 pm said:

The Mortgage Machine Backfires

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: September 27, 2009

A ruling last month against the Mortgage Electronic Registration System has significant implications for both the mortgage industry and troubled borrowers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/27gret.html
Abby in CA, on September 26, 2009 at 2:58 pm said:

Maher Soliman-
Please repost the case numbers and state of the courts or if federal case, please note.

Am anxious and would like to review the cases. The information you provide will streamline the searches, especially in PACER.

Also, as to one of your most recent posts. Am I understanding correctly that you say ‘securitization does not work unitl the pretender lender takes the home to a trustees sale’.? Do you mean the ‘securiteis trustee’ ?

What are you claiming happens once there is a trustee sale?
MSoliman, on September 26, 2009 at 12:43 pm said:

Remember, the issue of pretender lender is not just a poke at the beneficiary. I content and submit your lender cannot obtain clear title until the home goes to sale. The trustee sale is an auction.

Read: GAAP – THE INITIAL TRANSFER SHOULD BE EVALUATED TO DETERMINE IF, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE REPURCHASE FINANCING IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF SALE ACCOUNTING UNDER SFAS 140. Transferor and transferee should analyze the repurchase financing as a repurchase agreement with both parties using the same criteria. There is the missing “link”.

If the linked transaction does not qualify for sale accounting it should be accounted for based on economic substance of the combined transactions. Typically these represent a forward contract to be accounted for in accordance with FAS 133.

Herein is your problem Mr. Lender. The loan you originated is not a true bonifide sale to a Wall Street investor but actually a transfer under a forward agreement where control has not been given up. That means the transfer is a combined transaction where neither party gives up control of the asset. That likely disqualifies the sale!

The next borrower who considers filing suit should do so under a call for derecognition and classifying all affected trust assets. That is a threat of receivership and won’t be taken lightly.

(Note – we are not a foreclosure “fit –it” firm like many believe. We offer in depth and detailed accounting and registrant reported earnings reviews. Our staff looks to determine procedural errors and omissions by a mortgage securities registration.) What we find is potent!

Bottom-line – Under the current financial reporting rules under GAAP show securitization does not work unless the “pretender” lender takes your home to a trustee sale.

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
MSoliman, on September 26, 2009 at 12:11 pm said:

marcus

I provided this site with over 10 cases and references. Have your seen them posted?

msoliman
erlinda, on September 26, 2009 at 9:01 am said:

green,

i would do my motion OPPOSING for RELEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY and challenge the pretender lender about their standing to foreclose. go to sec and find out who is the depositor on the underlying trust and the underwriter who issued the certificate. don’t waste your time and have your loan audited. we are in the same boat, but mine is different my case is now pending in the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in ninth circuit court as a pro se caused my incompetent lawyer did not file any motion to opposed the relief from stay. keep fighting and if it takes you to go for an appeal do it. the court and the judges here in ca ” don’t really get it ” so with some attorneys i spoke to
Abby in CA, on September 26, 2009 at 8:10 am said:

Greene–

I am not an attorney and you should always consult one and since you did consult two, I will give you my opinion, which is only an opinion:

I would not wait. In my case the ‘wrong or not entitled’ entity committed a fraud upon the bankruptcy court with respect to my bkr and their motion to lift the stay.
I was, at that earlier time, unaware of the nuances of all this fraud stuff, security trusts etc. and neither was my bkr attorney.

My bankrutpcy has been long over, and the house foreclosed upon. I just received information from the court that I can re-open my bkr and file motions etc that
will bring forth the fraud upon the court! I do intend to do this.

FYI–once that Motion to Lift Stay is granted to ‘lender’, whether the right one or not, they will move quickly to auction the property.

Read through many of Neil’s posts on his site here on
what you can do in bkr.

IMHO, I would not wait for anything.
Abby in CA, on September 26, 2009 at 8:01 am said:

Luis
go to ScribD and search for Adversary Proceeding Templates.
Marcus, on September 25, 2009 at 3:41 pm said:

MSoliman,
Could you please provide county and case number of your success stories? I would like to check the facts maybe learn something from them. If what you said is true, a lot of people could benefit from it.
Hope to hear from you soon.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on September 25, 2009 at 3:39 pm said:

Sherri

pls email me at carra2009@gmail.com
Luis, on September 25, 2009 at 12:12 pm said:

Help,

The mortgage company that filed for foreclosure has now filed for bankruptcy protection. Right now I’m waiting for a hearing date on a motion for sanctions and dismissal that I filed because of the plaintiff’s failure to answer an order to compel production of documents.

Now I’m wondering if I should file Adversary Proceedings in the bankruptcy court as plaintiff has not proof that they hold the note and mortgage.

Does anybody have any samples of Adversary Proceedings that would apply to my case that I could see?

Thanks a million.
Abby in CA, on September 25, 2009 at 11:56 am said:

One more thing for Sherri

If you have not gotten certified copies of all the county recordings, you should consider doing so.

Examine carefully. I found
irregularities, potential fraudulent signatures, out of sequence filings etc. Glaring that there is no true chain of title.

Usually you can look online at your county and order them that way.

It is my understanding that if you find recording irregularities, you may be able to get foreclosure reversed. Always consult an attorney.
Abby in CA, on September 25, 2009 at 11:45 am said:

Sherri

Disclaimer-I am not an attorney, nor offering legal advice or professional services.

This is what a friend did –after writ issued–she filed an appeal ( UD) and in Calif. I think one only has 10 days.

Also, I think she went to the court where fraud case is
and filed ‘motion to stay eviction’ and maybe an injunction (you need to check on this) and a lis pendans (which if pro se, judge will need to sign) and then you send that to county recorder. Lis pendans, puts a sort of cloud on title so in case there are any potential purchasers of your home (like if new bank owner tries to sell it) then they will know there is ongoing litigation related to ownership of property.

If your original lender/loan originator is in BKR (as in my case New Century Mortgage/HOme123) then you might want to do as I and others have done–file an Adversary Proceeding in that bankruptcy court against the original lender/originator.

AP is like a lawsuit within a bankruptcy.

Again–you should consult an attorney. I am not offering legal advice. i am describing what my friend and I have done in our cases.
Greene, on September 25, 2009 at 11:42 am said:

PLEASE HELP- BANKRUPTCY/ FORECLOSURE QUESTION !

I filed Chapter 7 , and am under the automatic stay right now. I recieved the Motion for Relief from Stay from ‘ Wells Fargo Bank, NA Servicer for US Bank as Trustee for WFSASC 2002-22′

The Courts have my home listed under Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., which seems to indicate that the deed was never perfected.

I have one attorney telling me that I should immediately file a motion to deny the relief from stay, and another saying that we should just wait until the hearing, because then the other lender will have to file a motion for relief, and that will buy me time to obtain a modification with them.

I’m concerned that the Trustee will sieze the home and liquidate for the benefit of my creditors. Any ideas here?
bt, on September 25, 2009 at 9:41 am said:

QUIET TITLE ACTION- does anyone have an example of a quiet title lawsuit…i have to go it on my own pro se and wanted some cases/complaints to reference. There is nothing when you google quiet title
Foreclosure Fraud, on September 25, 2009 at 9:35 am said:

TW, on September 25th, 2009 at 6:39 am Said:

“**HELP A FRIEND**
I think it goes without saying that we are (at the very least) extremely fortunate to have found the LivingLies site, I know I am! With that being said I wanted to let everyone know that I have been trying my best to help spread the word and ask that everyone take a moment each week to reach out to others who may be suffering as well and do not yet know of their rights. Here’s what I decided to do;

A while back I created accounts on several major online news sources (SF Chronicle, LA Times, Wash Post, Dallas Morning News, NY Times, and just about all major FL online outlets as well) and began searching and posting comments on articles related to housing, mortgage, foreclosure, bailout, mortgage mod, etc.

It only takes a few minutes each week to do but you never know how many individuals and families you may end up helping. Thanks and may GOD Bless you and your families!

All the best – TW”

TW

I agree with you 110%. I too have been posting comments on the “main stream” news sources regarding the housing, mortgage, foreclosure, bailout, mortgage mod, etc.

If we all take a few minutes everyday to do this it will help spread the message!

I recently created a Twitter account strictly to post Foreclosure updates from across the web. I have it set up to pull in and post the most relevant info as it occurs relating to this crises. If anyone is interested in following they can do so at

http://twitter.com/4closureFraud

It is not for profit or an advertisement for a product or an endorsement of a “foreclosure solution”.

It is strictly a source for info related to defending our homes against these pretender lenders.

4closureFraud
Abby in CA, on September 24, 2009 at 11:57 pm said:

Lisa
I think 95 percent of the people facing foreclosure do not know they have any recourse at all.

I also read today that many who are working and have good credit are chosing to let the over appraised home just go into default!! actually the article stateed that upwards of 45% of the foreclosed homes were being let go by those type of folks. Income and really good credit and outstanding credit payment history
Lisa E, on September 24, 2009 at 5:51 pm said:

Hi All of My Fellow “Foreclosees”.

Life has been pretty rough out here in my local Foreclosureland, where I’ve been disgusted & outraged by what is happening to an unsuspecting populace.

I attending a Hearing for Motion for Default in support of some friends who are tenants in a rental home which is in the foreclosure process, something which they did not know about until earlier this month when the mailed Notice of Hearing was received. I am trying to help them assert their rights as tenants, especially under the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act passed in May 2009. And, also, by researching the landlady’s mortgage & loan, and the lack of a Note filed by Plaintiff, I was hoping that they would try to defend the case. No luck there. Even with a unnamed, indispensable party (the second mortgage holder found in county official records), I couldn’t convince anyone to defend.

The hearing covered about 30 foreclosure cases in about, oh, say, 15 mins or so. Only one homeowner showed up.

Judge: “Amtrust Bank vs Bay”
Attorney: “Judge, All parties were served. All paperwork is in order. No Answer filed.”
Judge: stamp-stamp

Judge: “Amtrust Bank vs Hernandez”
Attorney: “Judge, All parties were served. All paperwork is in order. No Answer filed.”
Judge: stamp-stamp

etc, etc, etc.

VERY disheartening!

I would say that most of these files probably had no Notes, not one single shred of evidence that the Plaintiff had the right to foreclose!

Another 30 homes bite the dust!

Second, a coworker has been having trouble with her home in Ohio, where the servicer has been refusing her payments after one bounced check back in Oct. 2008, quickly remedied with a new check, which was the first of all subsequent refused payments. I was doing some research to try to help her, found her home had been auctioned off (bought by her Plaintiff) on 8/11/09! Went to her county’s court record site and found the case (where service of the original complaint to her was supposedly completed?) which had been filed in Jan. ’09, and Summary Judgement obtained March ’09. We were both sick with shock!

Ah, fun times, fun times.

What kind of a country is this? Where it’s just another day’s work for the judiciary with their freaking “stamp-stamp Motion Granted”?

I think next week, I’ll fax a copy of the Kansas Supreme Court Ruling to the attention of each judge in my local Civil Court.

Carry on, all! And, good luck to each of us.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
L.Fitzgerald, on September 24, 2009 at 1:30 pm said:

To Luis and Alina ,

Thank you both for your contribution .

About the relieve …. I use a dry metal stylus , and carefully traced my own digital signature ..
You can feel the relieve and it feels authentic …

Maybe a microscope could reveal the trick….but the main idea of my letter is to help many trusting innocent people who could be fooled by these home stealing gangsters.

The important message here is to spread information to the folks out there in this Mortgage war … any document can be counterfeited .

Don’t trust any document your foreclosing Lender submits…

Thank you again for your ideas… we all appreciate it.
LF
Alina, on September 24, 2009 at 12:15 pm said:

WELLS FARGO

On one my paralegal list serves, a paralegal in Minnesota advised that in Minnesota Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo Mortgage are in the practice of NOT honoring validly executed DPOA (Durable Power of Attorney). He has complained to the Attorney General’s Office. He also spoke to an attorney who confirms that in fact Wells Fargo is doing this illegal act.
Luis, on September 24, 2009 at 11:41 am said:

Also, an original document most likely is going to show, on the side contrary to the signatures or anything handwritten, a relieve following the writing. Most of the times you can feel this with your fingers.

Yes, somebody could retrace the signatures on the copy, but then you could really tell this was done. When looking at the signature with a magnifying lens, you should see the ink from the printer underneath the ink used to retrace the signature.
Alina, on September 24, 2009 at 11:21 am said:

L. Fitzgerald,

You do not need Photo shop or any other fancy software program. You simply need Adobe and a color scanner/printer/copier. I produce tens of thousands of documents in litigation cases and always convert the originals (native format) to pdfs (if the original document is in color, it is produced in color).

I e-sign all my correspondence and convert to pdf. The full version of Adobe comes a converter so you do not need to scan the document, simply click on the icon for converting. I just insert my e-sig where I would normally sign the document. My e-sig is in blue just as if I were to actually sign the document.

If you do not have Adobe, here is a website where you can upload a pdf document and convert it to Word and vice versa:
http://www.pdfonline.com/pdf2word/

However, there is one distinct difference, when you print a converted color document, the colors do not exactly match the originals. The blue is slightly off. It’s more grayish. This is the color of the signatures on my note that they claim is the original. I recognized the color immediately and knew it was not the original.

Try it at home or at your local Office Depot/Office Max. Sign a document in blue, scan it, then print out the scanned color copy.
Sherri Hill, on September 24, 2009 at 10:27 am said:

Hi, I have been a avid reader of this site for well over a year now and have found it to be truly resourceful, a very welcomed
tool of information for the Pro-Se individual, people like you are the ones that keep us all going in the ever powering world of
finances, politics, greed and downright BS. Hats off to Neil, Abby, msoliman, Walter Hackett, Tim McCandless, yes to Lisa!
and everyone else, I must to say Thank You All…… If you could please, I refinanced a first with a bankrupt Delaware Corporation acting under the laws the of State of California, in the County of Orange, who under Chapter 11 protection sold their servicing rights and servicing platform to a newly found servicing LLC, that of which is a Subsidiary of a large Corporate Hedge Fund, and was partially founded by the bankrupt Delaware Corporation. The security for the refinance was foreclosed on by a beneficiary that was not disclosed until a self audit of the documents revealed a letter to the closing agent, an agent purchased by a Foreign Banking Association, federally chartered under the laws of
the State of New York. Although upon discovery I mailed a notice of rescission to everyone in connection with the refi on January 20 2009, the sale purportedly took place with a credit bid from the beneficiary, an Indenture Trustee, (pursuant SEC filings on June 29.2006), that was also the owner and the purchaser of the Agent. Although there are
numerous causes pending, a judgment in an unlawful was awarded to the Indenture trustee, the writ of possession served and the officers returned to enforce it, possession could not be turned over, because they failed to show. Any Suggestions?.
Luis, on September 24, 2009 at 10:05 am said:

I meant L Fitzgerald instead of Liz. That was a typo.
Luis, on September 24, 2009 at 10:01 am said:

Liz,

I’m in Florida also and I was able to vacate a default the plaintiff obtained because of “failure” to respond.

The lis pendis that I was served said that I had 30 days to answer, and the one filed in the court said I had 20 days ( I had my doubts that this was a typo). I did respond after the 20 days and before the 30 days only to find out the plaintiff had obtained a default. . After I showed the judge the 2 documents he agreed with my motion to vacate.
L.Fitzgerald, on September 24, 2009 at 9:48 am said:

To Ric ,

Your case has similar issues as my case . You might pick up something from my experience .

Currently I am trying to Vacate a Final Judgment. I was ProSe then and the Florida Default Law Group used their usual tricks of not sending me notice of the Final Judgment Hearing where I would have presented evidence to to stop the foreclosure .

I can’t believe that the Courts let the Plaintiff have the duty to notice the defendants of such a important hearing .

That’s like ordering the foxes to inform the Farmer…when they plan to raid the hen house.

Anyway back to the Original Note ….In my case the Plaintiff’s has supposedly the original note …….but that’s also debatable.

I have experimented with a Photo shop program …color pencil ..that can take a black photo copy of your signature …fix it up and then paint it blue . Then this exact blue copy of your signature can be printed on any document … ..If criminals can print counterfeit 100 dollar bills in a top notch printer ….The Florida Default Law Group can have contracts with companies that fix up their foreclosure document’s …

The blue ink doesn’t mean a thing….

In our Public Property Records …. shows that my original 2003 mortgage loan lien is as clean as new. There are no Assignments, no transfers , and no documents showing a chain of Title …..connecting my original lien to the Plaintiff’s claim..

” No Ticket No Laundry ” In the Public Records ..these criminals can’t fool you . Its there or its not.

Remember every document that the FDLG submits can be fabricated by experts.

If these criminals can steal your house almost free ….they can pay these counterfeiters a few hundreds …for a

$ 250,000.00 free house ….what a windfall for the Criminal organization….

Good Luck
LF
msoliman, on September 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm said:

Dear Mr. Soliman:

Thank you for contacting me regarding housing market reforms and foreclosure prevention legislation. I recognize how important this issue is, and would like to share with you what Congress and the Obama Administration have done to help.

Like you, I am very concerned about this severe economic crisis, which has been caused in part by the declining housing market. As you may know, I supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343) to help ease the flow of credit and stabilize financial markets.

As part of President Obama’s efforts to reduce foreclosures, the Administration is using $75 billion of economic rescue funds to implement a mortgage modification program. Specifically, the modification program would require that mortgages in cases where refinancing is more cost effective than foreclosure be modified to make monthly payments more affordable.

Additionally, President Obama is implementing a systematic program through the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance loans into more affordable interest rates. This program targets homeowners who have lost equity due to the housing market decline, yet have not defaulted on their payments. I am hopeful that these programs will fulfill the President’s promise to help American homeowners.

Please know that I will keep your comments and suggestions in mind should further legislation to address our country’s housing crisis come before the Senate.

Mr. Soliman, once again thank you for writing. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com
bt, on September 23, 2009 at 11:55 am said:

great article on the prediction and timeline of the securitization and subprime market imploding.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/articles/entry/1309/
Abby in CA, on September 23, 2009 at 10:57 am said:

hilary g–thank you so much for posting the link to Ellen Brown’s articles.

Everybody should go and read at her site. She has many more outstanding articles and they are free.

Loaded with understandable information
Joe, on September 23, 2009 at 5:47 am said:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/22/MBIA_Insurance_Sues_IndyMac.htm

MBIA Insurance Sues IndyMac

ShareThis
LOS ANGELES (CN) – MBIA Insurance Corp. says IndyMac Bank knowingly loaned millions of dollars to borrowers who could not afford to repay the loans, leaving the stock insurance company to pay out more than $487 million on its guarantees with an expected $566 million more to come, MBIA claims in Superior Court. MBIA says IndyMac “abandoned any reasonable and prudent underwriting standards” in an “effort to expand its market share during the mortgage lending boom,” according to the complaint.
MBIA also says IndyMac encouraged its workers to inflate borrowers’ incomes on loan applications to get them loans for which they wouldn’t have qualified.
MBIA says the thousands of mortgage loans in default or foreclosure “would not have occurred if IndyMac had followed the loan-origination practices that it represented to investors it was following.”
Also named as defendants in the newest lawsuit are Credit Suisse Securities; UBS Securities; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Michael Perry; A. Scott Keys; Jill Jacobson; and Kevin Callan.
IndyMac Bank was originally known as Countrywide Mortgage Investment, formed to buy and collaterize loans from Countrywide that were too large to sell to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. and the Federal National Mortgage Association.
IndyMac split from Countrywide in 1997, but continued to maintain ties with Countryide, the lawsuit states.
IndyMac Bank originated pools of mortgage loans that were sold to trusts it created from at least 2001 to 2007, the lawsuit states. The trusts in turn securitized the underlying mortgage loans and issued residential mortgage-backed securities, which were then sold to public investors.
MBIA provided financial guaranty insurance in the form of guarantees of the trust obligations to make principal and interest payments on the loans.
In May, 20 banks and financial services companies sued MBIA with allegations that it fraudulently restructured itself to strip it of $5 billion in cash and securities and to start a new insurance business to duck its obligations to the banks.
MBIA is represented by William Urquhart with Quinn Emanuel.
hilary g, on September 23, 2009 at 12:28 am said:

read this
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mers.php
Lisa E., on September 22, 2009 at 3:12 am said:

Rik,

Thank you for your update. Sounds like you were poised and professional in your hearing. YAY!

Marcus’ post to you is absolutely on target.

When they do produce that note, check it CAREFULLY as the one FDLG produced in my case is………. um……… creatively altered………….. in several subtle ways from the copy they submitted with the original complaint.

Start NOW reading everything under the Tactical Considerations, Recent Pleadings, FAQ, etc (left side bar on this webpage) and start crafting your answer.

Remember, note or not, the Plaintiff in your case is probably NOT the entity who is out the money on your promissory note. It’s NOT easy to understand how or why this is for us as laymen & it’s even harder to write legal filings that try to convey that point in our cases. Write it out step by step so YOU understand.

Is there truly an outstanding obligation to your Plaintiff? Did Plaintiff ever put up any money to fund your loan? If they did, is there the possibility that they were already paid in full by: investors, insurance, credit default swaps, government bail-outs? If they were paid in full, does that extinguish your debt to them? Is there another party who could attempt to collect on this debt? Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…. (These points are valid regardless of whether FDLG produces the note or not).

Maybe you imparted a bit of new knowledge to your Judge which may trickle down to help the homeowners of his many other foreclosure cases!

Enlightening the judiciary is a huge part of our task here.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

***P.S. Obligatory Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney and have only a vague idea of what I’m talking about!
TW, on September 21, 2009 at 8:09 pm said:

Fellow readers:

I am trying to develop a very narrow focusing question for my research paper and wanted to find out if anyone out there may be able to help with some ideas.

Please email me at: twebster321@hotmail.com – I greatly appreciate it. In the subject line put Research Paper.

I was thinking along the lines of due process, mers or banking & financial regulation. CHEERS!!!
Marcus, on September 21, 2009 at 8:26 am said:

Rik,
“Florida Default Law Group” are a bunch of liars. They have no ethics. They will do almost anything to win. It is despicable.
Never trust anything they say. I go to the courthouse to check my case. Often they will file papers without notifying you.
It is quiet possible that they have the original note. So if you base you’re entire case on the note and mortgage, they will produce the note at the last minute. You won’t have the time to amend your motion.

Be always on the guard.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Rik, on September 21, 2009 at 8:10 am said:

Hi All,

The hearing went…well ok. The judge denied my motion to dismiss, but ordered the plaintiff to file the original note within 10 days, and gave me 20 days to respond to the original complaint.

I will wait to actually see and get a copy of both sides of the note to formulate my response. The Judge was very understanding and was very interested in what I had to say.

Although FDLG put on the record that they had filed the original note, the person on the telephone said that they filed a copy. I think that may be against the law. The judge searched through the file and could not find the note and asked where it was. Any comments?

The saga continues.
Don, on September 21, 2009 at 6:17 am said:

What would it mean if your MIN # is stated to be Inactive?
Luis, on September 21, 2009 at 4:07 am said:

Lisa,

Is the MERS-Servicer ID page supposed to give you a history?

I went there before (4/24/2009) and it did show who was the previous mortgage company, but it did not show the mortgage company that I used to refinance. It did show the company trying to foreclose.

I went there again, and now it still shows the previous mortgage company, but it does not show the company trying to foreclose.

Now it shows a new name and I have no idea who it is. I know that the company trying to foreclose “assigned” the mortgage to another company, but that is not the company that shows up here.
Ed, on September 21, 2009 at 4:02 am said:

Lisa,
I looked up my loan info on the MERS website.

I got this

“No MINs can be located that match the search criteria entered.”

They are clearly on my deed of trust

So I am wondering if they no longer have the info or what is going on.
Lisa E., on September 21, 2009 at 3:25 am said:

RIK!

Please read this order that orginated in YOUR county.

Administrative Order No. 2008-081 PA/PI-CIR in Pasco and Pinellas counties, Florida.

http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/AOSAndRules/aos/aos2008/2008-081.htm

GOOD LUCK & let us know how it goes!
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E., on September 21, 2009 at 3:19 am said:

Hi All,

I found some highly interesting information on the MERS Identification Number look-up tool on the MERS website. The servicer listed for my loan is:
1) not the same entity to whom I have been paying my mortgage
2) is not the same entity who is claimed to be my servicer throughout my Plaintiff’s foreclosure paperwork
3) is most likely the entity bringing the foreclosure action
4) is probably the entity who has been making advance principle, interest and escrow payments to the trust on my loan.

Here’s the website to look up a MIN number on any loan that has smudges of fingerprints of MER’s nafarious involvement.

https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/

It would be interesting to read of any look-ups that reveal likewise conflicting information, so please post if something odd shows up.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Rik, on September 20, 2009 at 5:59 pm said:

Ok, so 9.15 tomorrow morning….my first hearing with Judge Allen at the 6th Circuit Court in Pinellas County. Florida Default Law Group called the hearing to discuss my initial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

I beleive that they will be basing thier part of the hearing on thier Amended comlaint, which was filed after my Motion to Dismiss, and almost 2 months aftern the initial complaint. Both violations of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. I have filed a motion to strike the amended complaint.

FDLG filed what they say is the “Original Note” but I checked the ile and there is no note. TFDLG is attending the hearing “Telephonically”…. not sure how they are going to show me the note over the phone to prove they own it….I am attending in person, in the judges chambers.

I have organised all of my paperwork sequentially, I have both sides of the arguement, and I believe that I have a good arguement against thier initial complaint.

Any pointers or advice? I spoke with the Judges assistant, and asked if any other subjects will be discussed and was assured that only the initial motion is on the table. Will FLDG be able to bring up elements/motions or notices that followed on from my motion? With any luck it wil be cut and dry, but you never know.

Thanks everyone for your help and guidance over the last few months.
Foreclosure Fraud, on September 20, 2009 at 11:22 am said:

Hello All,

Here is a detailed Paper I stumbled upon regarding MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, that I thought I would share by Christopher Peterson. Click on the download link to view pdf file.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1469749

4closureFraud
Follow me on Twitter for updates
Abby in CA, on September 19, 2009 at 4:31 pm said:

QWRs–does the lender have the right to ignore the QWR sent to them after the loan has been sold to another bank? The original lender also did some servicing of the loan, but they claim they do not have to respond to the QWR because the loan was sold.

Additional question–does the bank which did the last servicing also have the right to ignore the QWR because the house was foreclosed upon?
Dan Edstrom, on September 19, 2009 at 10:49 am said:

Nice point Marcus, thank you! That argument really helps me, I hadn’t considered it.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Marcus, on September 19, 2009 at 10:31 am said:

“1. If they do not answer my rescission claim yet try to foreclose on my home, would that constitute a wrongful foreclosure?”__Jason

Jason,
Georgia is a non-judicial state.
After your rescission, any attempt to collect will be a violation of Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and probably Georgia debt collection law also. Send a cease and desist letter to the attorney and the bank. The attorney could loose his/her license for trying to collect on a rescinded debt.
You may have to take them to federal court.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Dan Edstrom, on September 18, 2009 at 12:08 pm said:

BT,
It is hearsay. Just because they say it doesn’t make it true. Follow the alleged title chains. Find the SEC filings. Find out how they allege they received it. Get proof of the assignments and proof of consideration. This is all done through discovery.

This is why its important to get a lawyer. There is so much procedure that needs to be done!

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
floridadefenseteam, on September 18, 2009 at 11:51 am said:

BT,
Ask to see the note through discovery.Check if its the original – it would be signed in blue ink, and be stamped with something that says pay to the order of, or contain a separate paper called an allonge. Many of these notes are fabricated as well, investigate everything.
bt, on September 18, 2009 at 11:16 am said:

HOW do you get past this as a pro se. The judge in my foreclsure case Said ” I have read a few articles about secutization, but the attorney is standing here telling me his client is owner of the loan and they own the note and the were lenders on the Note when you borrowed the money and you admit to singing the note.”

HOW DO YOU GET PAST THAT AND CHANGE A JUDGES BELIEF THAT THIS ATTORNEY MIGHT BE LIEING OR MISGUIDED?
bt, on September 18, 2009 at 11:12 am said:

Anyone have a quiet title filing example to use?
Jason in GA, on September 17, 2009 at 9:46 pm said:

Dear Mr. Garfield,

Or any knowledgable persons.

I recently sent a QWR to CitiMortgage via “certified mail”. They acknowledged receipt of the qwr, but 60 days went by and they never provided a resolution or any of the requested documents or accounting. Next i had a mortgage audit performed with the documents i did have, and the result was several violations including material TILA violations. After requesting their resolution to my QWR for a second time with no response, I sent them an official Rescission letter via “certified mail”. Two weeks later, they responded to my second QWR request claiming that they had already sent correspondence about this matter. They even made fake copies of previous response letters which were back dated to the 60 day resolution period required by TILA. These past due fabricated letters were inadequate at best and did not even include the closing documents,note, or any answers the many questions from my QWR. So, in other words they are attempting to cover their buts for not complying with TILA. I have not made a mortgage payment in 90 days, and they are now threatening to foreclose. At this point, I have two questions.

1. If they do not answer my rescission claim yet try to foreclose on my home, would that constitute a wrongful foreclosure?

2. If I decided to sue for not compliying with TILA in a timely manner, would it just be their word against mine?
foreclosure, on September 16, 2009 at 4:46 am said:

Hi,

The local buyers are willing to make some very generous concessions. Such as if you are renting your property out to someone else, you don’t need to ensure that they vacate the property before you sell it. The deal is to buy the property even if there are no vacancies!
Dan Edstrom, on September 15, 2009 at 1:50 pm said:

I have already stated I believe there are many parties in interest (as I have learned from Neil who has stated this many times before).

The “pledge” from the seller (master servicer in my case) to the depositor and on to the Trust and/or Trustee eventually makes it to the investors who are “holders of certificates” … This find shows that they are fully aware of this (even while declaring that the Trustee (or Trust) has an alleged “perfected security interest” …

Supplemental Prospectus – Rule 424 (b)(5)
(From http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRa.z46u.htm#cdvr)

The trustee will have a perfected security interest for the benefit of the certificateholders in the assets in the reserve fund, unless the assets are owned by the related trust. However, to the extent that the
depositor, any affiliate of the depositor or any other entity has an interest in any reserve fund, in the event of the bankruptcy, receivership or insolvency
of that entity, there could be delays in withdrawals from the reserve fund and the corresponding payments to the certificateholders. These delays could
adversely affect the yield to investors on the related certificates.

My take:
Could it be any broader?

Other parties who may have an interest along with the Trustees alleged “perfected security interest”:

FSB provides the warehouse lending facility (Ally Bank FKA GMAC Bank in my case)

Lending facility provided to GMAC-ResCap

GMAC-ResCap provides this lending facility to GMAC-RFC (the master servicer, seller, sponsor in my case)

GMAC-RFC and MLN (originator) have an agreement (5 yrs before my loan closing) for GMAC-RFC to extend this warehouse lending credit facility to MLN (which means the had prior knowledge of EVERYTHING and all the fees paid and that the originator was not the lender (and probably the master servicer / sponsor / seller was not the lender either)

Press Release 8/28/2000 (my closing was 9/7/2005):
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-28-2000/0001299754&EDATE=

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on September 14, 2009 at 6:26 pm said:

This exchange between two employees at S&P, who were considering slapping their stamp of approval on a pool of seemingly shoddy Wall Street assets, speaks for itself:

“Official #1: Btw (by the way) that deal is ridiculous.

Official #2: I know right…model def (definitely) does not capture half the risk.

Official #1: We should not be rating it.

Official #2: We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.”
Abby in CA, on September 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm said:

Go Here to Read About How Wall Streeters have been caught with damnin emails:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/the-most-damning-internal_n_286420.html

Also WSJ reports UBS employes calling their products ‘vomit’.

Excerpt!!
Mathew Tannin (pictured, in handcuffs) and Ralph Cioffi, two ex-hedge fund managers at Bear Stearns, were charged with fraud for misrepresenting the condition of two Bear hedge funds they managed. Here’s one damning email discussing the funds’ exposure to high-risk debt securities: “The subprime market is pretty damn ugly…If we believe the [CDO report is] ANYWHERE CLOSE to accurate I think we should close the funds now. The reason for this is that if [the CDO report] is correct then the entire subprime market is toast.”
Abby in CA, on September 14, 2009 at 2:55 pm said:

Read all the latest on financial calls for reform at Huffington Post today!! Maybe we are no alone here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/financial-crisis
Abby in CA, on September 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm said:

Jesse Jackson in California (Antioch, SF Bay Area)
speaking this Thursday!!

Jesse Jackson speaking on ‘Save our Homes-Restructure Loans-Don’t Foreclose’
5-8PM
Thursday
Antioch Church Family at 55 E. 18th St.
Antioch, CA
for details call Roger Henry at 925-978-6642
Abby in CA, on September 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm said:

Stay tuned. Coalition members have come up with this name. More on the organization soon.

Coalition of American Homeowners Holding Banks Accountable (CAHHBA)

This is group which plans to go to DC to testify and push for more help for homeowners.

We are getting swallowed into the quagmire of Health Care, the 9/12s group, the Tea Parties etc.

We need visibility ana action on behalf of homeowners dealing with foreclosure.
erlinda, on September 14, 2009 at 8:47 am said:

Lisa, that is Japanese, not Chinese. My son lives in Japan and was able to track this website down for you:

http://www.kenjinfx.jp/low.html

What that Japanese text is apparently trying to say is that something, probably your contract, is subject to “Kenjin FX Verification”　(堅靭FXの検証).

Kenjin FX is that website above, and is some kind of program, system or service from a company based in Japan that can analyze market trends related to real estate and housing and automate buying and selling.
Crazy, on September 14, 2009 at 1:15 am said:

Its japanese language, I dont know the what is says.
Dan Edstrom, on September 13, 2009 at 7:14 pm said:

Finally looked them up to see what they were.

Uniform Residential Loan Application (Form 1003)

Uniform Underwriting and Transmittal Summary (Form 1008)

For an example of Form 1008:
– http://www.oberware.com/documents/mwn1008.pdf

Form 1003:
– http://www.oberware.com/documents/mwncalc.pdf

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on September 13, 2009 at 2:33 pm said:

Maybe it is not Chinese or it is one of the 13 subgroups.
deontos, on September 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm said:

Alina,

I will admit to the eeriness of Nostradamus Prognostications and correlations
made for many generations since his own birth and death.

I will however dismiss eeriness for ACTION any day. And I hope the incredible cooperative efforts and energy I have seen on this website will prevail against the ILL TIDE of history we now find ourselves swept up in.

Livinglies and its myriad contributors gives me GREAT HOPE. Even if my fight or yours ultimately fails; the collective efforts and individual contributions will TURN the TIDE.
deontos, on September 13, 2009 at 1:41 pm said:

Google translate from Chinese: (still a bit of gibberish)

FXの検tough card Ritz BldgューMay 12, 2009 【オリナジルBonus pay! 】 Annual edition of a fully automated売buyソフ& Suites検card Ritz Bldgュー05/13】【Special Code to pay an annual edition of a fully automated売buyソフ& Suites検card Ritz Bldg】【Bonus pay an annual edition of a fully automated売buyソフ& Suites検card Ritz Bldgュpay】【Special Code
Abby in CA, on September 13, 2009 at 7:55 am said:

Lisa
try to cut n paste that into a free online Chinese to English translator and see waht it comes up with.
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on September 13, 2009 at 3:08 am said:

Be crafty in identifying your enforcement of specific claims. For example

1. The FTC covers deceptive business practices
2. The OTS and FDIC have authority over predatory lending.
3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored programs offering GSE or lender participants coverage under mainstream underwriting guidelines.

And as for securitization – think of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a single reference at all times when building arguments and formulating ideas. Now where the GSE will insure the asset the loan can be held at the originating bank.

The same format was intended for subprime classes of loans with one exception. The loans must be SOLD to the party issuing the insurance and that’s the trust.

The trust is a product of a private placement memorandum to accredited investors and must take ownership of some interest in the debt which is the cash flow. It’s the cash flow that gets “passed through” and carved up for investors.

My horse to the finish line and arguments are yet to be challenged successfully and what we continue to submit for our clients the following:

If the loan was never transferred physically it is at least pledged and most of the arguments I see here pertain to direct lending. The FTC did away with the “Holder in Due Course provisions long ago. But the FTC is specific in how it details the criterion specific to unlawful business combination’s and deceptive business dealings. Likewise is the SEC authority reins over servicers.

So for now take a look at a few more concepts-

1) Opaque and secret financing arrangements 1122 AB
2) De recognition FAS 140-3 FAS 5
3) The need to classify assets as impaired.FAS114
4) Contemplate why a trust is showing only a less than 1% delinquency rate
5) Know what “event” constitutes a “Fair Market Value” under GAAP necessary for properly transferring assets

MSoliman
http://www.borrowerhotline.com

.
VG Diaz, on September 12, 2009 at 7:00 pm said:

Lisa,

For what I can see, it could mean many different things. It is called Legalese! LOL
Allan Hennessey, on September 12, 2009 at 2:42 pm said:

Lisa… that is pretty funny… LOL
Dan Edstrom, on September 12, 2009 at 2:32 pm said:

Seems like Chinese to me.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Lisa E., on September 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm said:

Hi All,

I’m really struggling here.

Could someone help me understand the following paragraph of my P&S Agreement?

堅靭FXの検証・レビュー　2009年5月12日【オリジナル特典付！】年度版完全自動売買ソフト検証・レビュー　05/13【特典付】年度版完全自動売買ソフト検証・レビ【特典付】年度版完全自動売買ソフト検証・レビュ【特典付】

Thank you so very much!
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on September 12, 2009 at 11:22 am said:

Don’t make this hard. Forget the note and who’s who’s here. If the loan is yet to transfer its subject to classification as an FDIC Bank asset. The bank must force the client (lender) to purchase the asset back and off the line. The only way they this will get done is in a trustee sale.

If I am right the borrower never had a chance for a meaningful workout. More important here is the fact the registrant is selling a “Bad” asset to the trust which is not called for in the indenture.

If they show the asset current due to the payments they have forwarded to the trustee through the master servicer, you have an SEC fraudulent transfer that violates rule 1122AB and GAAP requirements specific to control.

What a mess and its all at the borrowers expense.

msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
usedkarguy, on September 12, 2009 at 9:22 am said:

DON, I think this is a jackpot for a loan like mine where recording in County Records shows Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, foreclosed on by HSBC as Trustee for but they never had possession of the note to begin with. Another issue ignored by the court.
Alina, on September 12, 2009 at 8:47 am said:

Abby,

Indemnity agreements are very common as part of any type of corporate agreements. There is nothing nefarious as far as that is concerned. It’s part and parcel of corporate law. It’s always CYA.

Deontos,
Here is one of Nostradamus’ quatrains I just recently heard in a documentary:

Many die so that no one will know
the true owners of
fields and houses
And the weeds will appear
in the city streets
rising higher than the knees.

I had to rewind and replay this several times. Then I checked to see when the documentary was recorded – 2002. This was before the real estate implosion.

Kind of creepy – Never paid much attention to all these doomsday prophecies but this one hit home.

I have not confirmed this quatrain but the fact that it’s in a documentary filmed and recorded in 2002 makes you wonder.
Don, on September 12, 2009 at 2:13 am said:

. The Securities Act of 1933 – TITLE 15 – CHAPTER 2A – SUBCHAPTER III – Sec. 77ccc Definitions (7) The term “indenture” means any mortgage, deed of trust, trust or other indenture, or similar instrument or agreement (including any supplement or amendment to any of the foregoing), under which securities are outstanding or are to be issued, whether or not any property, real or personal, is, or is to be, pledged, mortgaged, assigned, or conveyed thereunder; Sec. 77nnn. (b) Evidence of recording of indenture – If the indenture to be qualified is or is to be secured by the mortgage or pledge of property, the obligor upon the indenture securities shall furnish to the indenture trustee – (1) promptly after the execution and delivery of the indenture, an opinion of counsel (who may be of counsel for such obligor) either stating that in the opinion of such counsel the indenture has been properly recorded and filed so as to make effective the lien intended to be created thereby, and reciting the details of such action, or stating that in the opinion of such counsel no such action is necessary to make such lien effective; and (2) at least annually after the execution and delivery of the indenture, an opinion of counsel (who may be of counsel for such obligor) either stating that in the opinion of such counsel such action has been taken with respect to the recording, filing, re-recording, and refiling of the indenture as is necessary to maintain the lien of such indenture, and reciting the details of such action, or stating that in the opinion of such counsel no such action is necessary to maintain such lien.

This is still in effect after all these years.
Abby in CA, on September 11, 2009 at 9:52 pm said:

question-
has anybody else in Discovery responses found that
the securities trustee or any of the other bankie players have Indemnity agreements or Indemnity insurance with each other. Supposedly, that is the case and it is in case we sue them…..it protects them all.

Let me know.
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 6:49 pm said:

Usedkarguy said:

‘Dan, I’m talking about the servicer or nominee trustee “acting as an unauthorized third party” getting involved in the foreclosure process and “practicing law on behalf of the (real parties in interest) trust.” I’m not talking about the posts herein referenced.’

Nice one! That is awesome. I love hearing new stuff. I will have to look into that one.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy, on September 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm said:

Dan, I’m talking about the servicer or nominee trustee “acting as an unauthorized third party” getting involved in the foreclosure process and “practicing law on behalf of the (real parties in interest) trust.” I’m not talking about the posts herein referenced.
usedkarguy, on September 11, 2009 at 5:32 pm said:

I would bet if you listed the names of the participants in all of these trusts, it comes down to around 15 major players:
1)Wells Fargo
2) U.S. Bank
3) Deutsche Bank
4) Countrywide
5), Citibank (Citigroup Global Markets)
6) J.P. Morgan Chase (bought Bear Stearns, a major counterparty like Lehman)
7) HSBC Bank
8)Bank of New York (Mellon Bank)
9)LaSalle Bank
10) (MERS) as nominee (I’ll ya later)
11) GMAC Mortgage
12) Washington Mutual (now Bof A)
13)Associated Bank
14) M&I Marshall and Ilsley
15) National City

These are the TOP 15 foreclosing entities in the State of Wisconsin for first half of 2008 (source: Community Bankers of Wisconsin)
Do these names look familiar, everybody? When you compare notes, you’ll find all the same players involved in all these different MBS deals. Smell like rotting fish to you?
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm said:

usedkarguy,
Not sure what you are talking about.

If its me – I am giving my opinions and what I am working on for my case. I am not going pro se – I will be giving this information to my attorney. It will be up to him to decide what we can use and what we can’t.

This is a blog for homeowners to share their opinions.

I don’t think anybody anywhere on this blog is practicing law. If they are, they need a disclaimer that says they are (I would assume they would be attorneys).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy, on September 11, 2009 at 5:12 pm said:

Dan Edstrom, had another attorney mention to me something about “3rd party unauthorized practice of law”. check it out
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm said:

New Century – flowing line from Wilmington
GMAC owns Wilmington

New Century backed 33% by BofA

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on September 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm said:

Dan

New Century BKR11 case number in Delaware is
07-10416-kjc

Pacer has it all–over 4000 creditors!!
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 3:45 pm said:

If anyone has New Century and GMAC (or a GMAC subsidiary such as RFC):

New Century bankruptcy filing (in 2007):

Inter alia:

Company/Parent: Residential Funding Corporation / General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), the financial services subsidiary of General Motors Corp.

Nature of claim: repurchase obligation

Where does the repurchase obligation come from? Search the SEC filings and possibly look at the bankruptcy to see if they listed more details.

Did you say

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Deontos, on September 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm said:

Former chief of Beneficial found dead in Rhode Island
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Finn M.W. Caspersen, the wealthy scion of an old-money family who built a financial empire as head of Beneficial Corp. and was a major philanthropist and political donor, was found dead Monday in a Rhode Island seaside community where he owned a summer home, officials said last night. He was 67.

Police in Westerly, R.I., discovered Caspersen’s body Labor Day afternoon after receiving a call requesting they check on his “well being,” police Capt. Edward St. Clair said. Law enforcement officials declined to say last night how Caspersen died or where the body was found, but said the incident is being investigated by the Westerly police and the Rhode Island Medical Examiner’s Office.
Abby in CA, on September 11, 2009 at 1:06 pm said:

Dan-

New Century was never part of GMAC.

You can go an view their BKR 11 filings in Pacer.
Delaware.

They were never bought. They declared BKR11 on April 2, 2007.

Here is history

New Century Financial Corporation was founded in 1995 by a trio of former managers at Option One Mortgage, including former CEO Brad Morrice and is headquartered in Irvine, California. New Century Financial Corporation was a real estate investment trust that originated mortgage loans in the United States through its operating subsidiaries, New Century Mortgage Corporation and Home123 Corporation.

History from Wikipedia
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 12:32 pm said:

Abby,
New Century is (or was?) owned by GMAC or a GMAC subsidiary. I don’t know if that helps. Confirm with Maher.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on September 11, 2009 at 12:27 pm said:

Dan
in my case originator was Home123 (subsidiary of NCM -new century), then within 12 days of loan closing they secretly (at least to me) sold my loan with 4500 others to Chase. (no recordings, only MLSA).

I only see stamped on one of the recorded documents a ‘By Chase Home Finance, LLC as Attorney in Fact’.
This is stamped on the subsitution of trustee filed long after the NOD, NOS.
Abby in CA, on September 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm said:

Maher

RE: Your lengthy blog post where you mention my name, “Abby”

I only provide a definition of what Federal Savings Bank was to somebody who asked.

I have nothing to do with posting anything about GMAC or FIERRA. You stated ‘I mentioned FIERRA for example…..’

Sorry, but that was not Abby.
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm said:

Abby,
To clarify, my trustee is US Bank NA.

I say Wells Fargo is the trustee because they claim “Attorney in Fact” for US Bank and because they are the custodian and possibly the Trustee’s nominee.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm said:

Abby,
Does your servicer claim “Power of Attorney” or “Attorney in Fact” for your Trustee?

My servicer is not my original servicer. The originator was the servicer, then they declared bankruptcy and the new servicer took over servicing.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on September 11, 2009 at 10:56 am said:

Dan
excellant discussion on your situation.

I would caution others to read carefully the PSA for their situation.

Mine is NOT the same as yours.

My servicer is NOT my trustee and in fact
my Servicer is Chase and the trustee for securities is
a second big bank U.S. Bank.

I believe each PSA for the various entities is different
Great work!!
Dan Edstrom, on September 11, 2009 at 10:17 am said:

Lisa,
Some tidbits. This is what is happening (or I believe happening) with my loan/securitization.

The Custodian in my case is the same company as the sub-servicer.

Somewhere in my SEC filings it says something like the loan documents will go to the Trustee or the Nominee for the Trustee who may be the custodian.

So the custodian has the bank accts used to pay hold the pmt that will be paid out to the investors and they hold the loan documents (and who knows what else). They also are acting as the sub-servicer.

The sub-servicer claims that they have power of attorney for the Trustee. I always looked at that as they can do certain things. However, based on the fact that they are foreclosing for the trustee and answering for them and allegedly have power of attorney, they are the Trustees nominee. THE SERVICER IS THE TRUSTEE. If you have any document claiming that your servicer has power of attorney for the trustee, it is my contention that the servicer is the trustee.

The trustee has a fiduciary duty to the borrower as well as to the trust.

The sub-servicer is making my payments for me (see the pooling and servicing agreement) but they are NOT reporting to the master servicer that the loan is delinquent (until presumably sometime AFTER the notice of default – or lawsuit if non-judicial).

The trustee KNOWS the loan is delinquent even though the sub-servicer is not reporting it (because they are one and the same company).

The trustee is failing in their duty to properly report this to the investors. This also means the trustee KNOWS that the “lender” has received payment.

Neil has stated elsewhere on this site that the Trustee does not have any direct knowledge of anything – only what they are told. This should be in your SEC filings.

I see securities violations. Know add this to the receivership argument Maher is making and you have RICO (my opinion).

Fraud for financial gain (the servicer/trustee/custodian) is attempting to do everything possible to take the house. This are breaching their fiduciary responsibility.

Or, if they are NOT the trustee (or the trustees nominee), then they do not have the power to foreclose. What powers were given to the servicer by the Trustee? Full power, partial power or no power?

Because the master servicer (seller) did not really transfer the asset to the depositor, the master servicer is really a party in interest (a main party in interest but I don’t consider them the REAL party in interest). But they pledged to the depositor. The trust and/or trustee are not the real party in interest (just a party in interest). If you can find this in the prospectus (filed by the depositor or more likely the trust?) you can show that they did NOT bring the party who claims they own the debt (joinder).

They separated all of these entities for a reason. But know you may find that one of them is in charge of most of it (if not all).

servicer = custodian (proof is in the SEC filings)

servicer = trustee (proof is the power of attorney and the foreclosure filing)

trustee is successor master servicer (proof is in the SEC filings)

server = master servicer = trustee (no proof, just speculation)

By the way, my sub-servicer, custodian and apparently trustee is Wells Fargo Bank.

I wouldn’t be surprised if RFC (GMAC subsidiary) handed over the master servicing to Wells Fargo Bank.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Lisa E., on September 11, 2009 at 9:26 am said:

MSoliman,

Your post to me below sent me back to my Pooling and Servicing Agreement (all 329 pages). I appreciate your suggestions that I review this “prospectus” for the provisions for default under this convoluted securities agreement.

Again, I admit to you my inability to grasp the concepts contained in your posts, including but not limited to the incredibly complex P&S Agreement. I have it here in front of me and plan to spend a lovely afternoon attempting to comprehend the sections on defaulted loans. First, I’m trying to figure out who all these freaking players are.

So far I’m at:
i. Purchaser: J.P. Morgan Acquisition Corp
ii. Seller: J.P. Morgan Acquisition Corp
iii. Depositor: J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation
iv. Trustee (Trustee for Plaintiff): U.S. Bank National Association
v. Master Servicer and Securities Administrator: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
vi. Custodians: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A
vii. Servicer: JPMorgan
viii. Certificate Holders: Persons The meaning provided in the definition of “Holder”

I do disagree with your assessment that Plaintiff as a “holder or not a holder in due course doesn’t have a damn thing to do with what’s standing in the way of the settlement” (as you put it). According to Florida State Law (and I would venture a guess that most other states provide some protection against unsupported claims of standing), a person/entity must prove their right to enforce a Promissory Note.

A securities prospectus hopefully won’t supersede state law………..but who knows in this securitized-mortgage loan debacle! It’s a brand new world out here!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Bryan, on September 10, 2009 at 4:49 pm said:

Thanks Alina,

Yes, the construction attorney I had for 1 1/2 year took my money and didn’t do anything productive.

Today, I received a letter from the Federal Reserve Bank (30 days overdue) and they sided 100% with the bank, and I think they just put their name on the same letter the bank sent my attorney two years ago, the words are structured the same way… The federal reserve in my situation is as crooked as the bank… errrrrrrrr

Good luck everyone
Lisa E., on September 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm said:

Rik,

Email me with the exact name of your Plaintiff in your foreclosure suit and I’ll try to help you find the SEC filing.

I found mine after MANY hours of searching. Some have had to file a request with the SEC under the Freedom of Information Act (fairly easy to do via email) but it’s much more complicated and takes a long time to get any response. The SEC informed me that several of these Pooling & Servicing filings were done in a way that the information was not accessable by the public without requesting under the FOIA. I found them very helpful when I called, clueless, with questions galore.

I’m also up against FDLG. I would venture to guess most of the filings on our cases are exactly the same, word for word.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Abby in CA, on September 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm said:

U.S. Bank, N.A.

Some of these numbers will knock your socks off!!

. U.S. Bank has one of the largest corporate trust businesses in the country with offices in 31 U.S. cities. The pooling and servicing agreement will be administered from U.S. Bank’s corporate trust office located at 209 South LaSalle Street, Suite 300, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
U.S. Bank has provided corporate trust services since 1924. As of December 31, 2005, U.S. Bank was acting as trustee with respect to 54,019 issuances of securities with an aggregate outstanding principal balance of over $1.5 trillion. This portfolio includes corporate and municipal bonds, mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.
On December 30, 2005, U.S. Bank purchased the corporate trust and structured finance trust services businesses of Wachovia Corporation. Following the closing of the acquisition, the Wachovia affiliate named as fiduciary or agent, as applicable, under each client agreement will continue in that role until U.S. Bank succeeds to that role in accordance with the terms of the governing instrument or agreement and applicable law.
As of December 31, 2005, U.S. Bank (and its affiliate U.S. Bank Trust National Association) was acting as trustee on 343 issuances of sub-prime mortgage-backed securities with an outstanding aggregate principal balance of approximately $90,186,200,000.
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on September 10, 2009 at 1:08 pm said:

Abby in CA, on September 10th, 2009 at 12:02 pm Said:

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury. What is concerning here is a catch 22. Or damn if you do and damn if you don’t. There is an attorney and others out there calling me a fraud and here is something for their wrongful public sponsored tortuous interference meant to confuse others.
Factual information.The FDIC direct or under the OTS is the supervision of insured member Thrifts who take deposits. GMAC Bank as a de-novo was established on Aug. 22, 2001. The bank is a federal savings bank that is regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The bank in 2001 offered no operating history, and as a de-novo institution GMAC Bank grew to operate within its business plan parameters filed with the OTS, in order to offer a fully- integrated banking solution to its client customer base.

GMAC Residential Holding established the bank in order to take advantage of banking powers, such as obtaining cost- effective deposit funding. If the sponsor and registrant under the SEC are in fact using the thrift for funding arrangements (as a warehouse bank) they must answer to regulatory requirements for funding assets that do not fit the asset class limitations for risk.

You mentioned FIERRA for example which outlawed (subject to risk weighted capital requirements) the business of funding high risk assets or “sub prime” loans. However, if originations are sold as we are told – then all is well.

No legal nuclear devices and loan sonic soy sauce here counsel! But who then is doing the collections and telling us we cannot have a “meaningful workout?” FAS 140-3 FIN 46(R) 1122AB all determine the inability for a Transferor to control the assets they sold. Under a repurchase agreement these “slick as cat S#!%” wheeler and dealers seek to avoid the repurchase agreements (buy back provisions) under a default or transfer of the asset, a subsequent act, at the time of default. They manipulate the conditions for having sold the asset claiming the servicer is working for the investor. They are the seller and they are the investor. If the loan is sold and is beyond 60 days the trust can liquidate your loan for pennies or even charge it off if your action has merit and a threat of receivership. Therefore, they mock a phony modification offer after up to a year with accrued interest being amortized over six months at a higher payment. The FDIC claims they sold the loan. FAS 140-2 say’s they cannot offer anything (loan Mod’s) if the asset was in fact sold.

The SEC say’s they must report the asset delinquent if used to pay investors (master Servicer) and the loan is 60 days delinquent if they have not sold it. If they did not sell the asset they must capitalize for the loan which they did not. And after 60 days they lose insurance. Fraud or the magnitude of deception BLOWS AWAY ENRON! It is something not seen in recent history.

So look back and find the piece some genius wrote about my “Garbage and crap”. Then look over the 250 files I worked and see the assignments going to the trust about two weeks prior to the Notice of sale. That makes the timing of a trustee sale just about 45 to 50 days you see. (Make him stop! Please Mr. Garfield . . . Make him stop!)

ACCORDING TO FASB A TRUSTEE SALE IS ALL THEY HAVE TO MEET GAAP CRITERION FOR A TRUE MARKET SALE. THAT CONSIDERED WHEN TRANSFERRING THE ASSET OR SELLING THE LOAN BACK TO A LESS THAN ARMS PARTNER – THE TRUST. If correct that means any offer to modify the loan under TARP or C.ccp 2323.5 is a scam.

Remember “Troubled Assets” is a FDIC exclusive term specific to classified assets (problem loans) under a Thrift balance sheet.This level of deception is getting too creepy to believe (if you know what I mean). At the time Fitch assigned an individual rating of ‘B/C’ and a support rating of ’5′ to GMAC Bank, a subsidiary of GMAC Residential Holding Corp., a subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc., which in turn is a wholly- owned subsidiary .WOW The bank is now defunct! GMAC (unsecured ratings of ‘A-/F2′ by Fitch) is the captive wholly-owned finance subsidiary of General Motors Corp. (GM) (rated ‘A-/F2′ by Fitch), the largest automotive manufacturing firm in the world. GMAC Bank as a de-novo banking operation was actually established on Aug. 22, 2001. The bank is a federal savings bank that is regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. GMAC Residential Holding, one of the largest mortgage banking companies in the U.S. The bank has begun investing in a portfolio of prime home equity loans that were originated by its affiliate mortgage company, but underwritten by GMAC Bank.
The bank’s balance sheet was capitalized with common equity totaling approximately $165 million. The balance sheet will of course become more leveraged as it builds assets, but Fitch anticipates that the bank will always remain well within regulatory capital guidelines for a well-capitalized banking institution. Fitch also takes comfort from the fact the bank has no intention to house securitization related residual assets or capitalized mortgage servicing rights on its balance sheet, further reducing potential credit risk. Wow – unbelievable!
Written in honor of my friends in Sacramento and New York!

MSoliman / msoliman@borrowerhotline.com / admin@borrowerhotline.com
Dan Edstrom, on September 10, 2009 at 1:00 pm said:

usedkarguy,
You are partially correct (my opinion). They only sold the obligation to pay, not the note. The note is sold from the depositor to the sponser for tax purposes, but for accounting purposes, they used secured financing. This means they pledged it to the sponser! That means everyone downstream from the depositor received a pledge. That also means no paper changed hands – which is probably why (again in my opinion) they don’t have the original – the Trust and/or Trustee and/or custodian does not have it as they do not own it. They have an interest, but they are not the owner. Here is how my warped mind looks at it:

If I promise to sell my house to usedkarguy in 3 years and he in turn sells the “pledge” to abby who sells her pledge to Lisa who sells her pledge to Neil, what happens if I want to tear my house down and build a large swimming pool for my 100 cats (if I am this crazy I must have a house full of cats)? Who can give me permission? Can I decide on my own? Can Neil say it is OK? Can Lisa? NO – they must all give their permission!

Joinder – they are all parties in interest. Who is the REAL party in interest in the above example? I have no idea but I would say it is all of them

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy, on September 10, 2009 at 12:59 pm said:

Rik, Wells Fargo? what year? Wells is going to be all those people I liseted above EXCEPT for TRUSTEE, UNDERWRITER, COUNTERPARTY. All those other parties are Wells Fargo Home Mortage, Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp., Wells Fargo Bank, etc. etc. Take a look in SEC info for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp, 1999, formerly Norwest Asset Securities corp. Try this link: http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=1011663sset Securities Corp.
Rik, on September 10, 2009 at 12:40 pm said:

Thank you UsedKarGuy and Lisa. It appears I have some more research to do.

The Foreclosure is already in progress, and I have done first discovery without gaining a lot of information. the Florida Default Law Group denied everything (almost) as being proprietary or confidential. I am filing a motion to compel soon.

The initial filing does not have a lot of information for research purposes, but I will persevere!!

Thanks again.
usedkarguy, on September 10, 2009 at 12:28 pm said:

Dan, the loan is originated by the originator and sold to the depositor. the loan is sold from the depositor to the sponsor (anonymous, Maher, correct me if I’m wrong). the sponsor sells to the “securities administrator” and then they sell the bundle to the securities underwriter. the securities underwriter obtains the insurance/CDS from the counterparties and then they get endorsed to the trustee, and the trustee hands them back to the Custodian. once the loans are passed through the Securities underwriter, the proceeds have been re-directed to the trust, the paper is returned to the custodian. The servicer, master servicer, and special servicer are the “collectors” of the proceeds (or make the payments when you don’t) or the property. and I think the master servicer distributes the cash to the investors/bond/certificate holders. or is it the trust that is the accounting platform that distributes proceeds from servicer? not positive. special servicer handles the default collections.

Rik, you won’t find your loan til you find out the name of the trust that holds it. it’s called a “deal”. once you have that, you look up that “deal” and search filings. sometimes you have to check “owner relationships” and check that trust for your loan. it takes a while. but you have to know the name of the trust first. I couldn’t get that info until they filed the forclosure. once I did, it showed the 35% insurance, lock date, close date, zip code, and references to title policy and other identifiers used to indicate your loan. if you have the right trust, it will also show your FICO at origination, single or multi-family dwelling, etc.
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on September 10, 2009 at 12:24 pm said:

Lisa – Start here:

What the following tells us are three things.
1) Bk is the best bet for bringing a case against the lender.
2) The prospectus does in fact provide for the settlement you seek’
3) If not provided by the lender its merely due to recourse and repurchase commitments. (So holder or not a holder in due course has not a damn thing to do with what’s standing in your way of a settlement.

Read Below:

Debt Service Reduction: With respect to any Mortgage Loan, a reduction in the scheduled Monthly Payment for such Mortgage Loan by a court of competent
jurisdiction in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, except such a reduction constituting a Deficient Valuation or any reduction that results in a permanent forgiveness of principal.

Deficient Valuation: With respect to any Mortgage Loan, a valuation by a court of competent jurisdiction of the Mortgaged Property in an amount less than the then outstanding indebtedness under the Mortgage Loan, or any reduction in the amount of principal to be paid in connection with any scheduled Monthly Payment that constitutes a permanent forgiveness of principal, which valuation or reduction results from a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code.

msoliman
msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Lisa E., on September 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm said:

Dan,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me below.

I found my Pooling and Servicing Agreement, all 350+ pages to be have more twists than a tornado. I tried to map out who does what, but ended up in the vaudville-like routine, “Who’s on First?”!

To Rik below, try calling the SEC to see if they can help. Knowing your Plaintiff’s name (which probably differs from Wells Fargo, right) will help!

Good Luck!
Lisa
Abby in CA, on September 10, 2009 at 12:02 pm said:

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury, is the primary regulator of federal savings associations (sometimes referred to as federal thrifts). Federal savings associations include both federal savings banks and federal savings and loans. The OTS is also responsible for supervising savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) and some state-chartered institutions. The OTS was established by Congress as a bureau of the Department of the Treasury on August 9, 1989 as part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. OTS does not receive appropriations from the U.S. Congress to fund its operations; instead, the entire budget of the agency is paid by assessments on the institutions it regulates. On June 17, 2009 President Obama announced that he would be asking Congress to merge the Office of Thrift Supervision into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates the largest banks.[1]

OTS is unique among the federal bank regulatory agencies in that it supervises holding companies as well as thrift institutions. This results in OTS providing consolidated supervision for such well-known firms as General Electric (GE), AIG, Inc., Ameriprise Financial, American Express, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch. OTS’s consolidated supervision program for GE, AIG Inc., and Ameriprise has been recognized as “equivalent” by the European Union – allowing these firms to operate their financial businesses in the EU without forming an EU holding company and submitting to supervision in the EU.

The OTS has regional offices in Atlanta, Dallas, Jersey City, San Francisco, and Chicago.

From WikiPedia
Abby in CA, on September 10, 2009 at 11:59 am said:

SPV
special-purpose vehicle definition – finance
A subsidiary or an affiliated business that conducts a specific activity that is crucial to the parent’s business. The SPV is designed to protect the parent corporation from the accounting, tax, or regulatory consequences of the SPV’s activities. Often, SPVs are used for financial transactions, such as keeping debt or risky business ventures away from the parent company. Also called a special-purpose entity.
Abby in CA, on September 10, 2009 at 11:56 am said:

Federal Savings Bank (FSB)
savings bank, chartered and supervised by the Office of Thrift Supervision. Federal savings banks, designated by the letters FSB or FA in an institution’s name, were authorized by a 1978 amendment to the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933. Federal savings banks can put up to 10% of assets in commercial, business, or agricultural loans, and can be chartered as mutual or stockholder-owned institutions.
Rik, on September 10, 2009 at 11:49 am said:

Hi All,

Hoping for some assitance in researching my Mortgage and SEC filings. Perhaps I am just being dumb, but so far no good.

Anyone have any pointers on how to find my mortgage? The original documents say Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and the addresses listed as Illonois and Minnesota.

So far, I have not been able to find any references to my name or mortgage account number.

Thank you in advance for any help ya’lll can provide.

Rik
Dan Edstrom, on September 10, 2009 at 11:36 am said:

I have been told that some of what I said in my posting is incorrect:

The SPE/SPV is not the trust. I don’t get this one – I think it might be the “depositor” who received the mortgages from the “seller” (master servicer) and who created the trust.

Somewhere in the mix is a Federal Savings Bank (I haven’t figured out where). They are somehow involved in this also (they provided the money? they list the asset on their balance sheet?). Are they a party in interest? If so, how?

The trust is the obligor and is obligated to make payments to the investors (or is it the SPE/SPV that is the obligor and is obligated to make the payments?). These payments are for the security and are different from the payments made by debtors (loan payments). The pmts by the obligor are guaranteed and very much like a dividend (if not the same).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy, on September 10, 2009 at 9:47 am said:

Okay Neil, point taken. My angst is showing through after the treatment received in the local court. But the truth of the matter is that the judges in our state aren’t looking at the issues presented. I will get a motion to reconsider going after meeting with counsel. I just don’t think this judge is going to be pliable. this lawyer I talked to is very qualified, and he has other angles. but most of the arguments presented have been ignored.
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on September 10, 2009 at 9:14 am said:

Funny -look at my comments entered the same time under “attorneys”.

msoliman
borrowerhotline.com
livinglies, on September 10, 2009 at 8:59 am said:

usedkarguy et al: Let’s keep the politics off this blog. I’ll let this one pass. You entitled to your opinion and to express it but this blog is not a place for debate of policy. I would add that there is plenty of blame to go around and that this mess and the ones before it have their origins in actions taken by the FASB and SEC back in the 1960′s. My mission is to focus on remedies using the judicial branch of government because the other branches don’t or won’t “get it.” That is what this blog is about. Please stick to the standards I have set — no name calling, character assassination, political debate. Argument over strategies of course, and new ideas and forms for motions also are welcome.
Dan Edstrom, on September 10, 2009 at 8:41 am said:

Lisa (and everyone),
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney – this is what I am looking at in my case and in my opinion it probably applies to most loans that were securitized. You need a very good lawyer!

The warehouse lender had no intention of taking the security instrument and passing it on to the Trust and/or Trustee. All they wanted was the obligation to pay. They left the security instrument with the originator to save money – they didn’t need it, only your principal and interest pmts. They did this intentionally. When you were served with a Notice of Default (or sued in judicial states), who was defined as the creditor? That was who had your debt. Who had the security instrument? Was an assignment done AFTER the Notice of Default or after you were sued? The assignment was done from the entity that owns the security instrument. This was no accident. I did not really understand that until this last week (even though I heard it from Neil over and over). It was split when your loan was put in the pool (or before) and somebody attempted to bring them back together with the assignment that was done after your Notice of Default (or lawsuit). This doesn’t mean you don’t owe the money, just that the debt should not be secured by the house (because you cannot split the obligation to pay from the security instrument). You may not owe the money for other reasons as posted on this site and elsewhere (the note was paid in full at or very soon after closing, etc). Check to make sure the originator did not declare bankruptcy. If so, the assignment is invalid.

When “the lender” comes to court, they must bring all of the parties in interest (joinder). The servicer shows up and usually claims to bring along the trustee (although I am pretty sure the actual trustee has no idea you are being foreclosed on – and they probably don’t care anyway). Who else needs to join them? How about these:

– the warehouse lender (AKA lender, sponser, master servicer, seller, REMIC administrator)
– the depositor (AKA an affiliate of the seller, the entity that creates the trust)
– the trust (AKA SPE/SPV, issuer, bankrupt-remote entity, REMIC?)
– the trustee (AKA trustee for the trust, successor master servicer, paying agent, owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity for the benefit of holders of certificates)
– the trustees nominee (who may be the custodian – in my case this is the current servicer – who is not the originator)
– the investors who hold certificates

Why are they all parties in interest? Who is the real party in interest?

– this is what the warehouse lender (seller) and the depositor said in an SEC filing (the supplemental prospectus):

The transfer of the mortgage loans from the seller to the depositor is intended by the parties to be and has been documented as a SALE; however, the seller will treat the transfer of the mortgage loans as a SECURED FINANCING FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES …

(so they did NOT sell your mortgage loan like you thought! – or at least they didn’t sell mine. THIS MEANS THEY STILL OWN THE NOTE, NOT THE TRUST OR THE TRUSTEE!)

- the depositor received a “pledge” for the mortgages and they in turn “transferred” (pledged again? sold their pledge? or what?) the mortgages to the trust and/or to the Trustee

(so they are intrinsically linked to the chain of assignments.)

-the trust is a REMIC (conduit) and cannot own assets (or so I have heard). I have not heard why they cannot own assets – it must be because it is a REMIC (?). Is this why they transfer the mortgages to the Trustee?

The following statement shows that all of these parties are parties in interest:

[the trustee is] owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity for the benefit of holders of certificates

(so the Trustee is the OWNER on BEHALF of the issuing entity [the trust] for the BENEFIT of holders of certificates)

so they are all parties in interest (the Trustee, the Trust and the holders of certificates)

Who is the real party in interest? I have no idea. They created such a jumbled mess that it is my opinion they are ALL joined together as the real parties in interest.

When and if they offered you a forbearance or loan modification, who had the authority? Who is allowed to offer this to you? The servicer? No way (they just collect pmts). The warehouse lender? No way (they list it as an asset but pledged it to somebody else). The depositor? No way (they received a pledge but pledged the pledge to somebody else). The trust? No way (they received a pledged pledge and cannot own assets anyway). The trustee? No way (they received a pledged pledged pledge). The certificate holders? No way (they received a pledged pledged pledged pledge – in otherwords, a big pile of crap). On top of that none of them received an assignment of the security instrument.

There is just no way that anyone can modify the terms of your loan unless ALL THE PARTIES IN INTEREST get together and agree. They are all parties and have a say and it is such an entangled mess that nobody can do anything (even foreclose!) unless ALL PARTIES COME TOGETHER AND ARE IN AGREEMENT.

Together they are ALL the REAL parties in interest (well, maybe not all. They can do a loan mod without the servicer, but the servicer cannot do a loan mod without all of the others). Well, maybe this is more confusing because the servicer claims power of attorney for the Trustee.

Neil said the warehouse lender is going for broke in insurance betting on your failure to make pmts (so the house will be foreclosed). If this is true, there is NO WAY the warehouse lender will join as a party to foreclose on you (I don’t know if it matters as it is a fairly good bet the others won’t join either).

If you have not read the SEC filings regarding your loan you are missing out!

So the servicer is the one with the least interest in your property (if they have any interest at all) but the one making the biggest claim!

Other parties in interest:

Any of the above parties may have handed off their duties to others (the Trustee is the successor master servicer, the Trustee may give the mortgages to its Nominee who may be the custodian, etc) such that you have no idea who is really handling any of these affairs. That is another reason why it is important to ask for the proper discovery documents so you can find out who is doing what.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Alina, on September 10, 2009 at 8:05 am said:

Bryan,

This is good news for you, although as you said it’s bittersweet.

I don’t know if you have considered this but have you spoken with a construction law attorney. I have been following your posts and, correct me if I’m wrong, but your case stems from construction fraud.

I had worked with a construction law attorney in Florida some years ago. I handled only a couple of his cases and am not well versed in this area of law but I believe this may be your best avenue of defense.

Wish you your doggies all the best.
VG Diaz, on September 10, 2009 at 7:52 am said:

Has any one experience the following with Indymac Bank, FSB?
I was served with a foreclosure action as Indymac Bank FSB as the Plaintiff, which I filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter which was granted and giving the Plaintiff 20 days leave to amend complaint.

Now the amended complaint no longer has Indymac Bank FSB as the Plaintiff, it is OneWest Bank FSB alleging that OneWest Bank purchase all Indymac’s assets and attached publications as exhibits.

Are publications official documents? the amended complaint is not even dated or even has a certificate of service on it.

I’d like to get some input and ideas on how to overcome this new challenge.
msoliman, on September 10, 2009 at 7:43 am said:

Mortgages: Advertising –
Bank of America Mortgage Overview

AD appearing on the internet:

When you apply for a mortgage with Bank of America, you’ll get expert advice and a mortgage that fits your needs. See mortgage options today from the Bank you Trust…www.bankofamerica.com/loans

How can the FTC allow this crap to resurface again!

admin@borrowerhotline.com
msoliman, on September 10, 2009 at 6:58 am said:

Move now with a court-order TRO or injunctive releif (which is nothing more than a prohibition against an act or condition which is sometimes granted, in a petition to the court for an injunction. [(The use of judicial (court) authority to handle a problem, and is not a judgment for money.)]

Waht doe Ken Lay, Martha Stewart and and TYCO have to do with this? FIGURE IT OUT FRIENDS!

Whether the relief will be granted is usually argued by both sides in a hearing rather than in a full-scale trial, although sometimes it is part of a lawsuit for damages and/or contract performance.

Somthing is up as these sales everywhere are being held up . . . for a reason. Trustee is not a trustee but a recovery firm .

Who directed them to hold up the sale. Now the beneficiary argument comes into play. Is this to further the proper recording of a vacant assignment. To protect the investors collateral ? Who is the investor?

We are reviewing all notices and recovery disclosures and U will not believe what we have found. Will it save your home? Nope! Sorry charlie!

Will it further the investigation into decpetive business practices by the pretenders ? OH YEAH!!!!

Is this a basis for injunctive or TRO ? Alor’s Qui! D’accord?

Want a good tip? Don’t play with matches!
Who can help ? Estranger De Legion Francais [Maybe]!

…Seriously. Fight back!

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Bryan, on September 10, 2009 at 4:37 am said:

The auction for yesterday was cancelled for two months…Now, I have time for more rejections from attorney’s…and my doggies can still run on my five acres and poop freely.

I guess this is a bitter-sweet…
Crazy, on September 10, 2009 at 2:24 am said:

Lisa E

Im no attorney either and im only giving you my opinion being that no one else has. It sounds more like an answer than that of an opp. From what I gather, and your state laws may be different, but I would include a ton of case law, and statutes supporting your opp. For example.
1. On or about 00/00/00 defendant executed a mortgage in favor of (A). However US Bank, plaintiff in the foregoing litigatiion is alleging that the disputed mortgage contract is between defendant and plaintiff.
This allegation proves to be false.
2. FRCP 17a requires that any plaintiff invoking the jurisdiction of the court have standing to do such. Plaintiff has not met the burdon of standing, and has not met the burdon of a real party in interest. Standing is a threshold matter in federal court, the issue of standing can not be waived, it must be raised. Cont…..

Sorry if it sounds wierd but I have no clue what you are facing, you might want to keep the phrases Mortgage and Note seperate. The mortgage is not a debt instrument, it only secures the repayment of the Note. So in theory, if the Note is sold, the Mortgage follows. However, if the Mortgage is transfered absent the debt, some courts have found the transfer to be void. Now with dealing with MERS, they act as a nominee. I have seen some cases where a Countrywide employee signs on behalf of both entities, and when questioned by the courts, they told the courts they worked part time for MERS. Sounds funny but its true and theres nothing illegal about it. I would also pack this document with tons of case law proving your point, this is key to proving that other courts are viewing the situation differently than what the bank is presenting. you might want to squeeze in a seperate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, especially if you are challenging standing issues.
usedkarguy, on September 9, 2009 at 10:55 am said:

Just got off the phone with an attorney upstate. He’s batting around, oh, zero for 200. That’s right. No Wins in this state. He made it very clear, the judges work for the Government, the Government works for the Banks. Period. Regardless of the issues presented in court (especially by a pro-se plaintiff) you will not win. Politics is the driving force behind this disaster. And I’ll say it again: this was planned long ago. So my next step?? Find someone who cares: The Federal Bureau of Investigation/Mortgage Fraud Task Force. I’ll be meeting with them next Tuesday. I’ll let you know what transpires.
Lisa E., on September 9, 2009 at 9:50 am said:

Hello Everyone!

I’m still trying to figure out how to add a request for Sanctions to my Motion to Compel, so that’s sitting on the back burner while I do further research.

In the meantime, instead of kicking back and relaxing, as suggested by Marcus, I’m about to file an Affidavit in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I’ve used lots of resources, added a small measure of creativity, mixed in a long pour from my bottle of time, and voila…here it is for anyone to copy and paste and utilize as needed.

REMEMBER, I am no attorney! (Yeah, after reading the following it will be abundantly clear that this disclaimer is self-evident!)

This is still in the final working stages, so forgive all grammatically errors and feel free to pipe up with suggestions!

GOOD LUCK TO ALL!
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

Comes now the defendant, ____________, Pro Se, being duly sworn depose, say and files this Affidavit in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and in support of thereof would state at follows:
1. On the face of the Complaint, Defendant entered into a mortgage with US Bank National Association, which is a nationally charted bank, regulated by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury.
2. Defendant did not enter into any transaction with Plaintiff.
3. There are genuine issues of material fact and the Plaintiff is not entitled to the entry of a Summary Judgment of Foreclosure as a matter of law.
4. Plaintiff has not shown it had ownership of the Note or Assignment of Mortgage on or before February 17, 2009, the date which Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed.
5. The Plaintiff has failed to provide proof that it is the owner of the Mortgage Note.
6. Plaintiff asserts that it has shown itself to be the “holder” because it is allegedly in possession of the alleged Mortgage note allegedly payable to a third party who is not the Plaintiff who claims to be the bearer. The “holder” with respect to a negotiable instrument, means the person in possession if the instrument is payable to bearer or in the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified parson is in possession. FL Stat. § 617.201(20) (2005).
7. The Plaintiff has failed to provide a true and correct copy of the Mortgage Note assigned to Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff asserts that a true copy of the indorsed Mortgage Note was attached to the Complaint, and asserts that another copy was attached to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The two copies overtly differ from one another. Per F.S. 673.3021 (1) the term “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if: (a) The instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity and (4) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered.
9. Defendant is without knowledge of the authenticity of the two distinctly different Mortgage Notes submitted by Plaintiff including the indorsement and the signators contained therein.
10. Plaintiff has not provided proof to the court that it can provide adequate protection to this defendant required under FL Stat § 673.3091.
11. Defendant is without knowledge of the authenticity of the Mortgage Assignment including the competence of the signators contained therein.
12. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss signed and dated by Plaintiff’s attorney on May 9, 2009 states “A copy of the unrecorded assignment of mortgage is attached as Exhibit “B”. The alleged copy of Assignment of Mortgage was executed and delivered on May 21, 2009, which would complicate it’s attachment to the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss signed by Plaintiff’s attorney on May 9, 2009.
13. Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to fulfill it’s burden of establishing the validity and authority of the signators on both its alleged copy of the Assignment of Mortgage and its alleged copy of the Mortgage Note and on all Affidavits submitted by Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to attach any unaltered documents or competent affidavits which support its pleadings and assertions to be a holder in due course. Per F.S. 673.3081(1) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. Defendant is denying all signatures on all Affidavits, Assignments and Notes, including but not limited to: Lisa Cullaro, signor as a Florida Attorney as Affiant for Affidavit As To Reasonable Attorney’s Fees (Doc# 21); Whitney K Cook, Assistant Secretary of Chase Home Finance LLC as Affiant for Affidavit As To Amount Due and Owing (Doc# 24) and also as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated As Nominee For DHI Mortgage Company LTD (MERS), signor on the alleged unrecorded Assignment of Mortgage attached to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc# 29); Latresa D. Payne, notary public state of Ohio, who attests in her capacity as a notary public to personally knowing affiant Whitney K. Cook in Plaintiff’s Afffidavit As To Amounts Due and Owing (Doc # 24). Kathy Harmon, Assistant Secretary for DHI Mortgage Company, LTD as signer on the indorsement stamp on the alleged “true copy” of the indorsed Mortgage Note attached to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc # 29); Christina Trowbridge, Vice President of MERS as signor on the alleged unrecorded Assignment of Mortgage attached to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc# 29); Jennifer M. Jacoby, notary public, state of Ohio, who attests in her capacity as a notary public to personally knowing affiants on the alleged unrecorded Assignment of Mortgage attached to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc# 29).; Beth Cottrell, Assistant Secretary of Chase Home Finance LLC as Affiant for Plaintiff’s second Affidavit As To Amount Due and Owing (Filing not yet entered onto the Docket as of the September 9, 2009); Wenona S. Church, notary public state of Ohio, who attests in her capacity as a notary public to personally knowing affiant Beth Cottrell in Plaintiff’s second Afffidavit As To Amounts Due and Owing (Filing not yet entered onto the Docket as of the September 9, 2009).
14. The Plaintiff has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, by sworn Affidavit, from an officer of the securitized trust as to why Plaintiff would accept on May 21, 2009 an assignment from MERS, as alleged “nominee for DHI Mortgage” allegedly the original lender, on an alleged nonperforming loan on which Plaintiff had initiated this foreclosure action three months prior on February 17, 2009.
15. Plaintiff has failed to provide satisfactory explanation, and/or three year employment history of Affiant Whitney K. Cook, who has signed sworn affidavits as Assistant Secretary of MERS on February 25, 2009 (Exhibit A) and also as Assistant Secretary of Chase Home Finance, LLC on May 21, 2009 (Exhibit B).
16. Plaintiff has failed to provide satisfactory explanation as to why the mortgage servicer Chase Home Finance LLC, who Plaintiff asserts “is responsible for the collection of this loan transaction and pursuit of any delinquency in payments” is included as the apparent addition of a third party and/or addition or substitution of new Plaintiff in this action. The alleged unrecorded Assignment of Mortgage attached to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc# 29) has Plaintiff’s name asterisked and footnoted “As-Attorney-In-Fact-For” (Exhibit C).
17. Plaintiff has failed to provide satisfactory explanation as to why the mortgage servicer, Chase Home Finance LLC’s address 3415 Vision Drive, Department G-7, Columbus, OH 43219-6009 is also the address for U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee for J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S2 as per Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc# 29).
18. Plaintiff has failed to provide satisfactory explanation as to why MERS, an entity whose address per Plaintiff’s counsel (see Exhibit ____) is 12357 Riata Trace Pkwy, Siute C150. Austin, TX 78727, has officers personally appearing and producing notorized assignments of Mortgages in the state of Ohio, County of Franklin.
19. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing how JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. , the stamped recipient of the indorsed Mortgage Note become to be the party to whom the original lender, DHI Mortgage allegedly indorsed the Mortgage Note, and then subsequently how that alleged indorsed Note came into the possession of Plaintiff as an alleged “holder”.
20. The Plaintiff has not complied with Defendant’s discovery requests despite numerous good faith efforts by Defendant to communicate with Plaintiff’s counsel. On March 27, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time in response to Defendant’s request for production of documents.
21. To date Plaintiff has produced none of the requested documents, objected to six of the thirteen admissions, failed to respond to Defendant’s requested interrogatories, provided incomplete and evasive answer (which Plaintiff did not serve upon the Court) to the Debt Validation Letter, and failed to respond to Defendant’s submitted Qualified Written Request.
22. Plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee for J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S2, is not the real party in interest in this case and is not shown to be authorized to bring this foreclosure action.
23. Plaintiff has not shown the court the entire chain of title of the note and the entire chain of title of the mortgage assignment. Defendant does not ask for this documentation without just cause as Plaintiff itself has submitted into evidence two flawed Mortgage Notes, one flawed Mortgage Assignment and multiple flawed Affidavits by incompetent Affiants . These documents submitted by Plaintiff are the only evidence in support of it’s assertions that Plaintiff is a holder in due course. Accordingly, Defendant is in jeopardy, to wit: the true holder(s) in due course and/or third parties could come forward claiming an unsatisfied interest in the Mortgage Note and may or may not be subject to Defendant’s various affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
24. The documents submitted to the Court by Plaintiff show one party as an alleged holder of the Mortgage Note and another party as the holder of the Mortgage. These facts, attested to as true by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s affiants, in and of themselves are just cause for dismissal with prejudice of this entire Action.
25. Plaintiff’s Complaint must now stand alone on the merits of COUNT I, as Plaintiff stated in its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, it will be voluntarily dismissing Count II of the complaint. Plaintiff Lacks Standing as a party of interest as Plaintiff has not shown it did own the note and mortgage at the time it instituted this foreclosure action. Plaintiff has still not shown that it owns the note and mortgage assignment, having submitted to the Court documents of dubious authenticity. Additionally, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any reliable evidence showing its right as a party of interest.
26. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment fails to resolve genuine issues of material fact & Defendant hereby respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion.

The foregoing issues of fact require this Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for final summary judgment in its entirety.

Wherefore, Defendant, ______________, Pro SE, requests that this Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in it’s entirety and such other relief that may be appropriate
usedkarguy, on September 9, 2009 at 7:34 am said:

Marcus, I agree that it is not the doing of one man or one party. The point I am making is that the empty suit that is “Obama” is helping to take us further into oblivion. I think you are sensing I don’t like Mr. O because of the color of his skin. That is not the case. I don’t like Mr. O because he is an anarchist. I don’t like Mr. O because he talked his way into the White House by spewing platitudes and promises he had no intention of fulfilling. And, yes, PEOPLE ARE STUPID. They will listen and fall prey to the words of someone who has not accomplished anything in his life (community activist?, make that anarchist!) and now he sits in the Oval Office of what was the most powerful country in the world. I didn’t make this a “black/white” thing, the media and the electorate did. Too many people thought his “blackness” made him a qualified candidate, not his background. But let’s get back on point. The “Home Affordable” plan, the preceding plan (can’t remember the name), none of this is working. Mr. O failed to address the real problem here: the BANKS did this to people. The BANKS had the rules changed to their advantage. If someone sidesteps the core problem and then throws a bunch of meaningless words and programs out there that have no effect, is he really helping? NO. That’s all. I will apologize to you, Marcus,if you have been offended, because I LIKE YOU! I don’t “know” you, but I’ve read your work, I’ve read your comments, and you are giving of yourself to help others. Just like so many others who visit, share, contribute, and advise. So don’t be hatin’ me bro!
Kalona S B, on September 8, 2009 at 9:02 pm said:

Marcus let him vent. He has a right to his thoughts just as the rest of us. And with some of what we have been through, his vent is expected. We don’t have to agree or disagree.

Under the reality of the situation and the amounts of good people who lost their home, anger in all directions is a normal reaction and it is the anger that may just get through another day and one more battle.

So now where did u say we can find a cup of that ono kool aid? lol
Marcus, on September 8, 2009 at 8:40 pm said:

usedkarguy,
Your vile statements are inappropriate in this forum. Little respect for others of different opinions. That’s the American way. If you want to know what real socialism is, travel around the world a little bit. I doubt that you are interested in any honest intellectual discourse. Ideologues don’t need intellect. They just drink the KoolAid handed to them by their talking heads.

The problem were facing is systematic; it is not the doing of one man or one party.

marcus,
erlinda, on September 8, 2009 at 8:14 pm said:

userkarguy,

amen. i m with you. the problem with our system is that the incompetent court didn’t even read the case especially when you are representing yourself as Pro Se. in my case, the court allowed my lender to lift the automatic stay even though the document lender submitted were fraudulent. i have an incompetent lawyer whom i hired, that came to the court late, he did not bring anything except himself and try to argue the case nonsense. finally the judge gave the decision to my lender to foreclosed. i fired my lawyer and i represent myself as pro se in the bankruptcy. . i filed motion to relief from judgment, judge denied it reason the property was not listed on my schedule A. next i filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the court made an error in granting the (RS) relief from stay because the property was not on my schedule A, why then the court granted (RS) to the lender if that certain property is not on my schedule A?. It should have been dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. again my Motion for Reconsideration denied- reason the court assumed that the property was listed in my schedule A, thats why the court granted the (RS). to the lender. now , this morning, i filed a notice of appeal in the bankruptcy appellant court , which is on the ninth circuit in ca, challenging the court about their decision. i applied federal rule 60 (b). then filed lis pendins in the county where my property located stay pending on my appeal in court of appeal of ninth circuit. it supposed to foreclosed today but the property was not listed for sale today in the court. i know now that the foreclosure is too high to imagine because the very court itself are so careless to handed down the decision without even reviewing the case. the law clerk in the court are so incompetent that they believed whatever the lender file in the court should be taken as is. these stupid judge just make a decision losing everything you worked hard for for just merely 10 minutes and boom you lose the very asset you have. i am very confident about my case. when the court denied my Motion for Reconsideration- they said the words ” court assumed” where did you find a decision from the court saying that their decision based on their “ASSUMPTION”. i really don’t get it. i will lose my property because of the word” ASSUMED”. but the more the court made a boboo, then it is for my advantage. so you guys who lose in pursuing your case because the court made a mistake challenge the court with FEderal Civil Rule 60 ( b) please familiarize this rule, but be careful, when you do your appeal, you have only ten days after the order was enter in the docket. my weekend was spent preparing my briefing. would you imagine i used 1200 of papers for this appeal, but its worth it. i have it in EMERGENCY MOTION. IF IT WILL TAKE ME GOING T SU[REME COURT, I WILL DO IT. what i want to accomplish is ‘ JUSTICE FOR EVERYONE” BECAUSE OUR COURT ARE LAZY TO EVEN RVIEW FORECLOSURE CASES. I WILL NOT REST UNTIL THIS CASE WILL PROSPER. btw, i am now preparing a draft for the adversary actions against the lender. i have my loan docs forinsic so it really help. keep fighting don’t give up.
usedkarguy, on September 8, 2009 at 7:14 pm said:

It was a short time after the Presidential election that I made a statement on this blog about OBAMA being a Chicago Machine Politician, and was not really a “President Who Gets It”. He was just a radical socialist.. I said he was on his way to Socializing the entire country. You poo-pood me. I was excoriated by a select few here on the website (Neil included) for being, well, crass and “off topic”. Well, I am here to ask ALL OF YOU a question: “CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW???” A guy called me today from a venture capital firm that I don’t care to disclose, but the point he made was that what we are experiencing now WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT! This goes way, way back to Clinton, Gramm, and all of these elitist politicians who are working to drive this country into a ditch, and then populate it with a poverty stricken group of dependents who will cower to the government as they dish out the crumbs of prosperity. I am firmly convinced that this country has been taken over by CRIMINALS. The crisis we live through today was supposed to be Al Gore’s crisis. HE was supposed to be in the White House when all this shit hit the fan. That’s why they hated Bush so much. Bush got in the way of their (Congress and the Bankers’) grand plan to destroy the economy of this country and turn us all into homeless serfs! There! I said it! If you are wondering why the Judge in your local courtroom won’t hear the issues of standing, wire fraud, fraudulent documentation, predatory lending, predatory servicing, tax evasion, fraudulent conveyance, Ponzi Schemes, etc. etc, is because the Judges ARE the Government! This is where the rubber meets the road, Pal! And it isn’t going to stop anytime soon. And the lawyers who take the retainers and fail to accomplish anything inside or outside the courtroom, well, they, too, are in the loop. The OBAMARAMA that you are experiencing throughout the country is something that the people of Illinois and Chicago in particular have been enduring for almost 30 years. It just took a little while to find and transplant the Great Black Hope from 63rd and Cottage Grove to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For all you people who voted for this asshole in the White House: CONGRATULATIONS! Now, a disclaimer. I don’t think the Republicans are any better (except maybe Mitt Romney, the Huckster, and, oh yeah, RON PAUL). They are all in the same hot tub with the Banks, the Drug Companies, and the Oil Companies. Now THERE’S A TRIFECTA! I am not giving up the fight. Don’t misunderstand. I AM MUCH MORE ANGRY (AND MORE DRIVEN) NOW THAT I HAVE COME TO THIS REALIZATION. Abby, you got the right Idea. The hell with a “coalition”. Let us all get in our cars and drive to Washington D.C and hang out on the Capitol steps for a few days. When the politicians arrive to walk in and continue to do “business as usual” and pacify the banks, Wall Street, and everyone else who pads their pockets, let them know that we are here, and WE ARE WATCHING! I’m telling you, all of you, this isn’t going to be won in the courtroom. It’s going to be won IN THE STREETS! Now I’m going back to my drink!
Kalona S B, on September 8, 2009 at 1:49 pm said:

Kevin I e-mailed 2 x. But no word back.
kalona808@aol.com

thanks
Kalona S B, on September 8, 2009 at 1:47 pm said:

Bryan

So sorry u have to go through this garbage. And ur pups too. So sickening! But I like that u are willing to stand up right to the auction. Let people know the truth. They can live with it. Most likely they will try and throw u out of the auction BUT hell hang out in the parking lot with ur three babies.

Glad ur still fighting! I wouldn’t move off the porperty. Stay and video tape it if they try and move u. Show the world how ugly this BS it is!!!!!

Those of us here do know. The pain, stress, cost, time and illness this whole experience has cost us will never compare to a dollar of the hell we have been through.

KICK ASS!!!
Bryan, on September 8, 2009 at 6:08 am said:

Well, tomorrow is the day M&I Marshall and Isley Bank auctions off my property (“illegally”), and after a 3 year battle, I still never got any help.

I guess now I will need to sue the bank for wrongful foreclosure sell.

I will be at the auction, screaming and passing out flyers to all the people who bid on my property, telling them the property is invovled with multiple law suits, and now, fire investigation, and who ever bids on my property will become a suspect.

For all you new readers and victims.., I have never been late or ever missed a payment to M&I Marshall and Isley Bank, and they are illegally auctioning off my 5 acres tomorrow.

It has been two weeks since the fire, and my doggies and I have been living in and out of a hotel and my car. My three doggies are more spoiled now than ever. Though, they do miss running free on the five acres, and are now forced to walk slow on a leash. I can’t take all three of them on a leash at the same time so I am doing more walking than ever before.

Take Care…
Kevin C., on September 7, 2009 at 10:49 pm said:

Kalona S B,

Please do email me. I do know of attorney that can help and does get it. kcollma@h%tmail.com

He is local in honolulu. I am on big island.

Thanks
Kevin
Lisa E., on September 7, 2009 at 7:43 pm said:

Specific to Florida, but holds helpful information for any Pro Se Litigant going for an appeal of a Final Order/Summary Judgment.

http://prose.flabarappellate.org/chapter.asp?chapter=1

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ Gmail . com
Abby in CA, on September 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm said:

NIMS-another barrier as to why mods can’t be made by some banks.

Anyone else heard of NIMS (Net Interest Margin Securities)? I found that the PSA of Chase (multiple Chase entiies) contains NIMS.

Basically, NIMS are what the bank-o-ramas do with excess interest which builds up and does not need to go to the investors!! That would be interest, like from our monthly mortgage payments!!

FROM FDIC.gov
New Structured Finance Products: Net Interest Margin Securities (NIMS)
Many new structured products are introduced in the capital markets every year, but many either do not succeed or take years to gain acceptance in the market. There are a variety of reasons for this, such as lack of credit enhancements, poor transparency, or difficulty in modeling cash flows. This section discusses net interest margin securities (NIMS), which were introduced in the mid-1990s but did not gain wide market acceptance until recently.

NIMS are structured finance products collateralized by the residual cash flows from one or more securitizations (underlying deals). They may be structured within a securitization, but more frequently they are structured as a separate issuance after the inception of the underlying securitization.12 NIMS are a popular option for subprime residential mortgage securitizations because they allow the issuer to securitize the excess spread, which is the difference between the income on the underlying pooled assets and the financing cost, as well as prepayment penalties. If not securitized, the excess spread would remain on the issuers’ balance sheet as a form of credit enhancement used primarily to absorb credit losses on the senior tranches of the deal.

NIMS are either sold in the secondary market, which provides regulatory capital relief to the issuer, or maintained on the issuer’s balance sheets. The recent growth in NIMS issuances is the result of growth in the subprime mortgage market, new structures, and attractive yields that have increased investor demand. Although issuance statistics on NIMS are not widely published, S&P experienced significant growth in its rated NIMS deals. According to S&P, the par value of rated NIMS in 2003 increased more than sevenfold to $3.4 billion, and growth in 2004 was more than fourfold to $14.97 billion.
Linda, on September 7, 2009 at 11:21 am said:

Ian, I had the exact same thoughts–how could we not? Of course as the baby boomers have reached an expendable age–take their savings, their pensions, their houses and what’s left? KABOOM, Hmmm!!! Anybody else connecting the dots with the flu vaccinations to older folks–the shots have some suspicious ingredients in them, I’ve heard.
Ian, on September 7, 2009 at 10:33 am said:

Am I paranoid? NYTimes front page 9/6 (yesterday) regarding securitization of life insurance policies bought at a discount from par, bundled, and sold to investors worldwide. THE TRUSTS HOLDING THE INSURANCE POLICIES MAKE MORE MONEY IF THE INSURED DIES EARLIER THAN EXPECTED. Anyone wager a guess as to the ‘end of life’ and ‘elder care’ and ‘healthcare rationing’ debates raging over the current healthcare debate? After following the “subprime mortgage crisis” and the “foreclosure crisis” for several years now, I wouldn’t really be surprised if someone figured out how to make the insured persons’ lives end earlier. How would cds work in this situation- anyone read this article?
Kalona S B, on September 6, 2009 at 3:43 pm said:

MAHALO Marcus.
That was good advise and I printed it out. I won’t lie I am really scared. But I will do what I can to hang on.
I need to try and get a stay long enough for me to get a chance to track down all the info and present witnesses as well. Something my sorry excuse of an attorney didn’t bother to do.

I felt like a fool in front of all those attorneys. My attorney actually sat on their side of the court room while he made his lame excuses to be dismissed. But I tried to remind myself that the worst at this point is I lose it all compared to him losing it all for me.

I wish so much I could find an attorney here that has a clue on these issues to have a fair fighting grounds. The law firms I am up against that GMAC, WAMU, BRYCO, ALLIANCE are well stacked with resources.
Certainly a David VS Golliath scenario.

On the bright side I was able to live my dream of helping others for over 20 yrs. That’s one thing they can’t take away. It’s painful to think the dream is near over. But ehhh even if just one more time, is one more time I get to make a difference. I believe I have done well enough the program can go on beyond me. We have excellent volunteers and great supporters.

It’s not over yet. I certainly want to thank all of u from the heart and this site for the massive knowledge and support u have shared with each other and me.

I will continue to read every comment. I still wish I could find that one person who gave us all a great sample letter to send out for discovery and to get ALL the original documents.

I learned recently that although Alliance was one of the places that claim bankrupt, they are back in business.
And have the nerve to offer me a new loan. Disgusting!
So many of them are back in business with a slightly different name but as close to the one they had.

Well for now a few hours I need to put all this stress out of my head and go do something I love and that’s spending time with my sweet 4 legged babies.

Aloha all…Have a good Sunday!
Abby in CA, on September 6, 2009 at 3:13 pm said:

Robert–seems like that is attorney ‘negligence’…I think you should contact your AZ State Bar …look online for it.
file a complaint
Abby in CA, on September 6, 2009 at 3:12 pm said:

Robert
sorry to learn this. You might have had a better result if you represented yourself!! even with mistakes, you might have succeeded.

I am not a lawyer. You might want to consider filing an appeal…but not sure of implications that you dismissed. Wondering, since you dismissed in state court (did you??) if you can file fraud case in federal court now.

In some instances, the sheriff has told me, that he has
seen people move back into their homes post eviction from foreclosure.
Marcus, on September 6, 2009 at 2:58 pm said:

Why is it so difficult to find good descend attorneys?
Something must be taking place at law schools.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
robert, on September 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm said:

I’ve got bad news and some good news.
Good News: I hired a local Phx, Az attorney who understands securities and the Produce the Note defense even though she had never attended a seminar or handled a similar case.
Bad News: She waited almost two months then sent the lenders letters only 2 weeks before the scheduled foreclosures asking that they STAY the foreclosure while they looked for the NOTE.
More Bad News: Then she waited until more than an hour AFTER the foreclosure auction to actually file the complaint and Temporary Restraining order. So I lost both properties. The Wells Fargo attorney said to have me make an offer to buy it back (which I did) and they would consider it, but we never heard from them again.
More good news: The Wells Fargo attorney told the judge that it is TRUE, they are having trouble finding the Original Notes, and in my case they know exactly where it is.
But for some reason he didn’t bring it to the TRO hearing, nor did he offer to provide it the following week.
More Bab news: when the Wells Fargo attorney told the judge he could get the original note the judge automatically took that statement as FACT, and never made him prove it and told us we should maybe
re-think our lawsuit since I might have to pay their attorney fee’s if we lose. So based on my attorneys poor performance and the judges remarks, I had to file a voluntary Dismissal.
More good news: My attorney refunded all my money. But I would rather of saved my properties.

STILL LOOKING FOR A GOOD ATTORNEY……
Abby in CA, on September 6, 2009 at 2:16 pm said:

Marcus–re new life insurance scheme
If person dies earlier–somebody else will profit more!!

Sounds like this is ripe for wall street to hire hit men or
make a deal with the health insurers. Since the health insurers will be, if not already, havnig computer systems making life/death/treatment decisions (based on pooling of med history and prognosis of millions of people in giant data warehouses)—-it will fall right into place with loan originators typing in fake income data to make the underwriting of the mortgage loans happen!!

OR–wall street guys could make deals with big pharma—kill us off and profit!!

f
Marcus, on September 6, 2009 at 1:57 pm said:

“I’m trying to figure out what would be a good deal and what kinds of things to pay extra attention to when they make an offer. I should say IF they make an offer.”__Kalona

I would make sure the deal contain the following:
1) The monthly payment (including PITI) not bigger than 25% of my monthly pay.
2) Full amortization over 15 years.
3) Release from potential liability of any claim from anybody in the future. You don’t want real holder to comeback after you down the road.
Marcus, on September 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm said:

Now they want to securitize life insurance. I guess old habits die hard.
———————————————————————–
Wall Street Pursues Profit in Bundles of Life Insurance

By JENNY ANDERSON
Published: September 5, 2009

After the mortgage business imploded last year, Wall Street investment banks began
searching for another big idea to make money. They think they may have found one.
The bankers plan to buy “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return — though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.

Either way, Wall Street would profit by pocketing sizable fees for creating the bonds, reselling them and subsequently trading them. But some who have studied life settlements warn that insurers might have to raise premiums in the short term if they end up having to pay out more death claims than they had anticipated.

The idea is still in the planning stages. But already “our phones have been ringing off the hook with inquiries,” says Kathleen Tillwitz, a senior vice president at DBRS, which gives risk ratings to investments and is reviewing nine proposals for life-insurance securitizations from private investors and financial firms, including Credit Suisse.

“We’re hoping to get a herd stampeding after the first offering,” said one investment banker not authorized to speak to the news media.

In the aftermath of the financial meltdown, exotic investments dreamed up by Wall Street got much of the blame. It was not just subprime mortgage securities but an array of products — credit-default swaps, structured investment vehicles, collateralized debt obligations — that proved far riskier than anticipated.

The debacle gave financial wizardry a bad name generally, but not on Wall Street. Even as Washington debates increased financial regulation, bankers are scurrying to concoct new products.

Full Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06insurance.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Kalona S B, on September 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm said:

MAHALO Marcus

another good piece of advise. I was wondering what kinds of tricks they may have. I understand them not wanting to lose their insurance, I’m trying to figure out what would be a good deal and what kinds of things to pay extra attention to when they make an offer. I should say IF they make an offer.
Marcus, on September 5, 2009 at 11:42 am said:

I received an offer from PMI to modify my loan. I responded with debt verification letter. I haven’t heard from them since.

They are trying to avoid paying the insurance claim on your mortgage. If you decide to work with them, you should proceed very carefully. Once you sign on the dotted line you may loose many of your defenses.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Kalona S B, on September 5, 2009 at 11:15 am said:

MAHALO Again!

Thanks!

Printed as a further guidline.

I have to try and make this effort.

Here’s another q. THE PMI wrote me and said they would re do my loan for free. Is there anything I should use exta caustion of or be extra aware in this part?

MAHALO
Kalona S B, on September 5, 2009 at 11:14 am said:

MAHALO Again!

Printed as a further guidline.

I have to try and make this effort.

Here’s another q. THE PMI wrote me and said they would re do my loan for free. Is there anything I should use exta caustion of or be extra aware of in this part?
Marcus, on September 5, 2009 at 10:52 am said:

Kalona,
In Florida the plaintiff has 30 days to answer interrogatories. Check your state Rules of Civil Procedure.

What you should do is find the best foreclosure defense lawyer in your county. Go to your county courthouse and search for cases he/she defended and learn from them.
You can do the same at the Federal Court level with PACER.
PACER is even easier to search for parties by names.

Good Luck,
Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Kalona S B, on September 5, 2009 at 10:29 am said:

MAHALO MARCUS!

I have printed out ur guidance. I know ut will be very helpful. Do u also know if each of these items have time periods on them? If not should I put time periods on them?

MAHALO and have a great weekend.

No doubt next I’ll be hanging out in the law library.

I still would love to find that awesome application that guy sent me for getting info and what exactly I was to request. He had he all lined out and all we needed to do was add in the names and state.
Marcus, on September 5, 2009 at 8:21 am said:

Hello S.B,
I have posted sample discoveries at the link below.
www. foreclosureProSe . com/pleadings

I recommend that you do it in piece meal. Discovery is mainly comprised of
1) Interrogatories,
2) Production of Documents,
3) Request for Admission
4) Depositions

Start first with Interrogatories. Fight tooth and nail till you get satisfactory answers before moving to the next discovery phase.
You will soon realize that the stone walling really start at discovery. Be prepared for a trench warfare.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Kalona S B, on September 4, 2009 at 11:41 pm said:

Aloha All

A while back there was a post where a man had given us a discovery example that required we just fill in the info of who we were asking the discovery for all the paper work.

If any one can help me with this please let me know. I need to start rediscovery of my case. I need to know what info I should be seeking out and how to format it.

Also anyone know how I can get an extention of STAY on my home from foreclosure? Id there a form or method to go by?

MAHALO in advance for any help.
Have a great weekend!
msoliman, on September 4, 2009 at 11:14 pm said:

Countrywide was the pillar of the community as for ethics and protocol. The Chairman was revered then and now for underwriting an FHA loan better than anyone. Now he’s under indictment.

You do not get it. If someone brought you a deal that said you get top dollar for any Rolex you can find you would search ebay and scour the papers day and night. If the criteria for verifying the authenticity was so lax that the buyer said send me anything you got…and the price kept going up….get the message. There are a ton of fake watches on the market and what if no one was really checking!

Ethics cause’s you to fade from opportunity when the deal itself crosses the line between right and wrong!

Also, caution- anyone who prescribes the law and offers a defense while seeking to set off nuclear devices, burn someone at the stake, shank, torch lenders or unscramble eggs is just that….a scrambled egg.

msoliman
msoliman@borrowerhotline.com

Ethics are when you stand in the face of a gold rush and say NO I wont deviate from my standards set by the original terms and conditions for delivery.
Alina, on September 4, 2009 at 1:34 pm said:

This is really ridiculous. You would think that with all the degrees these people hold, they would have more horse sense. Here’s a link to a story about how the FHA adopted the Countrywide model and it didn’t work. DUH????

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125202440174685297.html
Kalona S B, on September 3, 2009 at 8:47 pm said:

Aloha All

Well today was a big one for me. My sorry excuse of a lawyer finally won a case. Never won any yet. But today he was able to get out of my case for the mortgage.
So I am fully on my own.

What the heck do I do first? What should and how should I start asking for the documents and depositions I need. I don’t know where to begin.

The clerk said the stay is now lifted. Does that mean they can throw me straight into foreclosure?
David, on September 3, 2009 at 12:43 pm said:

I Need Some Creative Legal Consideration…

Unique situation that I want to capitalize on against our lenders and make doubly sure they cannot escape their common illegal dirty deeds….

Synopsis of our case thus far…

Construction loan – gone bad – TWICE and BOTH times the lenders were/are at fault. I’ve read countless cases of lender liability being thrown out the window because it was a construction loan – (no duty required, etc). However, the first lender was a straightforward arrogant PREDATORY LENDER straight from the start (maybe al Qaeda could use them for target practice or something…?)

We were introduced to the next lender by the builder. They were not as arrogant but committed multiple counts of Fraud and deliberately ignored our warnings that THEIR APPROVED BUILDER was embezzling the funds. I was told BY THEM to be patient and work with them otherwise it could create a “foreclosure” situation – gee how subtle could that be?

Frauds Committed – after having our loan docs audited we found out they inflated our income to 25k per month – we had no-idea and we also signed the 4506 forms – we had nothing to hide but apparently they felt we needed a significant raise (10k MORE per month) – go figure! The lender conspired with the builder to arrange an illegal U&O Permit. This after learning the builder NEVER had the legally required inspections during construction – the house was never inspected – no footer inspections, framing inspections, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, finishing, NOTHING and then the LENDER conspired with the builder to coax a senior position County Code Official to “illegally” sign-off on the forged inspections – AND to obtain the FORGED & FRAUDULENT USE & OCCUPANCY PERMIT… The county official has admitted it thus far… All this because the builder was a YEAR behind schedule (because he was OUT OF MONEY) so the LENDER made some type of “special-deal” with their APPROVED BUILDER that THEY would allow settlement thus converting the construction loan to a standard mortgage “AS LONG AS” the builder agreed to complete the house within 30-days after settlement. My question to them was – who is going to make him finish it – he hasn’t done it yet… and no he never did to date yet…

So after waiting an additional 8-months AFTER SETTLEMENT – we finally moved into the UNFINISHED house that STILL WOULD NOT and WILL NOT PASS CODE. The house has countless issues that were NEVER fixed during construction – the LENDER KNEW this because I sent them DETAILED pictures – raising serious structural concerns etc.

The Lender sold our note and in fact we received documentation of the sale to CountryWide before our FIRST mortgage payment was even due. They sold the note before we even settled. keep in mind we were making Mortgage payments for 8-months after settlement prior to moving into the house – 7 of those payments to CountryWide… SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLAR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS – for a house that was never completed and would not and will NOT pass code today!

So – here’s where I need some serious LEGAL thought on how to proceed. The auditing company exposing the errors in our docs has been working with CountryWide BoA to negotiate our loan – along with many of their other loans. In the meantime, our attorney has sent our builder & original lender the Demand LETTER with the Legal Complaint – and it is a well written demand letter & complaint…

However, in the meantime, BoA has filed foreclosure against us using a DIFFERENT law firm than the law firm the auditing company is negotiating with… sounds like the right hand doesn’t know what happened to their left hand – or maybe they don’t care… but

I want to purse the civil lawsuit against the original lender as is – AND because these idiots have filed foreclosure against us using a different firm – I would like to send the Rescission Letter out and royally put the screws to them from EVERY FREAKING angle possible… but I don’t want to do something that might bite me and cause us to lose everything or cause us to lose an opportunity to bust them open…

They have cost us well over a million to two million dollars – everything we own including our business – I WANT BLOOD and I WANT TO PUT THEM DOWN like the rabid dogs they truly are…

Can anyone suggest anything other than extra Prozac prescriptions… Can we file the rescission letter without interrupting the civil case – though we have NOT FILED the civil case in court – the lender hired an outside law firm specializing in ligation (go figure) – and we should hear something back from them very shortly.

This is a unique situation –they have cost us our business – and everything we own – THEY BROKE THE LAW – CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW in several areas and KNOW IT.

Can anyone make any suggestions or would like to jump on board – LOCK & LOAD and begin launching ICBM’s at a few large lenders…

Thanks – sorry for the length…
Lisa E., on September 3, 2009 at 7:35 am said:

Are you are Pro Se Litigant? Does your court provide the opportunity to do online docket searches?

Here’s an idea how to find, research, and avail yourself of potentially applicable pleadings in other contested foreclosure cases in your locality.

Search for all cases with your plantiff (or any of the top 10 foreclosing banks) and review some of the thousands of dockets. Most (>90%) will be uncontested, but there’s that elusive 5% which will have answers and other pleadings. Write down the case IDs of any case that interests, then go to the courthouse file room, request the files, settle in for some interesting reading.

This method depends fully on your court’s online docket search capabilities. Some Florida counties don’t allow for online docket searching. Some won’t allow search by Plantiff, which effectively nullifies this approach.

You’ll read some great pleadings, answers, affidavits, requests, and foreclosure “stories”! One would think this would be dry-as-dust reading, but I’ve found it gripping, highly educational, and full of applicable legal tactics & pleadings.

Ask the cost per page to have copies printed. My court charges $1/page! Easy to rack up a big bill!

Good Luck to all!
Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Crazy, on August 31, 2009 at 6:19 pm said:

Marcus & Lisa E., No offense intended to any of you posting, just calling it the way I see it.

For you Lisa E. if it will float your boat, you can search my IP address if you wish, if you actually do your research, im not a new poster to this board. But thats not important.

For you Marcus: maybe its time to up the MEDS. what im trying to say is that no matter how good of a case one thinks he or she may have, the reality will eventually catch up to you. For example.

For nearly 3 years, COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC. not Servicing LLP, filed foreclosure. Litigation went back and forth until we filed a FRCP 17A motion to dismiss.

FRCP 17 is pretty broad when one entity such as countrywide invokes the jurisdiction of the court for relief knowing that they were not the real party in interest. The judge, well, he said he was concerned about the RPI and continued the hearing to do a little more research and to allow both parties to submit briefs.

Countrywide came back with a declaration from Fannie Mae (the real party in interest) ratifying the continuation of the litigation. No proof that they own the loan or a default exists, only that it was OK for Countrywide to continue litigation because somewhere along the line Countrywide Home Loans has a sub-servicing agreement with Countrywide Servicing LP. What do you know, the judge allowed the ratification to happen.

Sorry Marcus, this is the short end of a long story, which will again go on for a longer period of time.

To answer your ? about negotiating, we tried to pay the amount to cure our default and Countrywide rejected the payment, that why we have been litigating for such a long period of time.
Ian, on August 31, 2009 at 4:20 pm said:

To anyone who can illuminate me on this topic- when a “lender” files a lost note affadavit, and under SEC filings it is obvious they haven’t filed a 13F? I think, then they haven’t lost the note? Because under SEC and, I believe, IRS guidelines, if they have a lost, missing or destroyed note, they MUST file a 13F (or whatever that form is). I don’t read of this being used as an attack on their (the foreclosing entity) standing and adherence to the law in general.
Alina, on August 31, 2009 at 4:04 pm said:

In looking at her paperwork, she has a great case. She says she did not do anything because she has been trying to work with the bank – Chase. Her loan was originally with WaMu, however, that is not the “pretender lender” on her mortgage. When she realized she was going to have problems – she has a child that needed a lot of medical attention and it was very expensive coupled with the fact that she lost her job – she called WaMu. WaMu told her they no longer held her mortgage and she needed to call Chase. Chase told her they did not have her loan yet and she needed to talk to WaMu. WaMu would send her back to Chase.

Finally, WaMu told her they would not do anything unless she listed her house for sale for 3 months. She put the house on the market – it’s Orlando and the market is deader than dead. After she did that, she was told that they could not help her unless she was 3 months behind. Additionally, it would take several phone calls of being told to call the other bank b4 she was able to speak with anyone. B4 she knew it, they had filed for foreclosure. She kept talking with the bank and supposedly, they are working something out.

I like the idea of Motion to Set Aside the Default. I believe her situation would definitely fall under excusable neglect.

Thanks guys, once again here I go ranting.
floridadefenseteam, on August 31, 2009 at 3:51 pm said:

Alina,
Was service good? If not quash service as your 12(b). Otherwise IMHO file: motion to vacate clerks default, answer and affirmative defenses, and continuance on MSJ, then quickly set hearing on continuance. I think opposing will back off on summary once affirmative defenses are presented. She’ll need counsel or coaching to appear. FYI: A party seeking relief from a clerk’s default must demonstrate excusable neglect in failing to file a responsive pleading, a meritorious defense, and due diligence. Gibson Trust, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 883 So. 2d 379, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Florida courts have a liberal policy of vacating defaults in order to decide cases on their merits.
Tammy, on August 31, 2009 at 3:39 pm said:

Will try again, trying to contact Abby in California, it is telling me that my comment is awaiting moderation, hopefully it will go through this time. I can be reached at tlbporter@gmail.com. I am helping a friend with similar case as yours in Sacramento and would love to chat offline to get your insight. She has just had meeting with judge where lender asked for motion for summary judgment for unlawful detainer. Judge moved case to Sept. 10. She has filed a lawsuit in federal court. We now want to file either a motion to consolidate cases or notice of related cases but not sure which one is most effective.
Abby in CA, on August 31, 2009 at 3:32 pm said:

Alina
I think you can file a counter motion for summary judgment.

Where is she with it? I don’t know Florida law.
But in Calif, non-judicial foreclosure state, I prepared the counter MSJ to their MSJ. This was in UD (eviction action, post foreclosure)

At same time I filed a fraud case and then did motion to consolidate the two cases (UD with Fraud).

So the consolidation overrode the MSJ. Nevertheless I filed the counter msj.
Tammy, on August 31, 2009 at 3:23 pm said:

trying to get in contact with Abby in California. I am also in Sacramento and would love to get with you to discuss a similiar case I am assisting a friend with in Sacramento. I have read the threads and could definitely use your help here locally. I can be reached at tlbporter@gmail.com. Thank you.
Alina, on August 31, 2009 at 3:10 pm said:

I have an urgent question for anyone who can help. I have just learned that my sister is in foreclosure. Not only is she in foreclosure, but she failed to tell me that they have gotten a default. I spoke with her today and she said she received something from the attorney but did not understand what it was. It’s a hearing notice on their MSJ. I checked the docket and a clerk’s default was entered against her.

Can she still file a Motion to Dismiss? Should I wait for them to enter the summary judgment and then file to have the summary judgment vacated? I downloaded the docs the bank filed and, guess what, they filed a lost note affidavit. Not only that, they just filed an assignment 2 weeks ago. I told her that I could strangle her for not telling what was going on. She says that she is trying to work things out with the bank. LOL

Any direction anyone can give me is welcomed. Thanks.
Lisa E., on August 31, 2009 at 2:56 pm said:

Crazy (I wonder if a search of your IP address would show you have several recent postings here under different names),

Marcus makes an important point. I called the servicer of my loan 3-5 times per week for 7 months, faxing/mailing documents & applications & financial statements as often, without ever achieving any “work out” solution. I constantly was told that the documents had not been received or (finally after many months) they were “in review”.

I have some more stories that will speak to the impossibility of what you vehemently recommend & will post a specific example when I have more time.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Gary Hawes, on August 31, 2009 at 12:46 pm said:

Any South Carolina Attorneys
jeff, on August 31, 2009 at 8:07 am said:

I am fighting

A ‘Little Judge’ Who Rejects Foreclosures, Brooklyn Style
Sign in to Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy MICHAEL POWELL
Published: August 30, 2009
The judge waves you into his chambers in the State Supreme Court building in Brooklyn, past the caveat taped to his wall — “Be sure brain in gear before engaging mouth” — and into his inner office, where foreclosure motions are piled high enough to form a minor Alpine chain.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
“I don’t want to put a family on the street unless it’s legitimate,” Justice Arthur M. Schack said.
Every week, the nation’s mightiest banks come to his court seeking to take the homes of New Yorkers who cannot pay their mortgages. And nearly as often, the judge says, they file foreclosure papers speckled with errors.

He plucks out one motion and leafs through: a Deutsche Bank representative signed an affidavit claiming to be the vice president of two different banks. His office was in Kansas City, Mo., but the signature was notarized in Texas. And the bank did not even own the mortgage when it began to foreclose on the homeowner.

The judge’s lips pucker as if he had inhaled a pickle; he rejected this one.

“I’m a little guy in Brooklyn who doesn’t belong to their country clubs, what can I tell you?” he says, adding a shrug for punctuation. “I won’t accept their comedy of errors.”

The judge, Arthur M. Schack, 64, fashions himself a judicial Don Quixote, tilting at the phalanxes of bankers, foreclosure facilitators and lawyers who file motions by the bale. While national debate focuses on bank bailouts and federal aid for homeowners that has been slow in coming, the hard reckonings of the foreclosure crisis are being made in courts like his, and Justice Schack’s sympathies are clear.

He has tossed out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him in the last two years. And his often scathing decisions, peppered with allusions to the Croesus-like wealth of bank presidents, have attracted the respectful attention of judges and lawyers from Florida to Ohio to California. At recent judicial conferences in Chicago and Arizona, several panelists praised his rulings as a possible national model.

His opinions, too, have been greeted by a cry of affront from a bank official or two, who say this judge stands in the way of what is rightfully theirs. HSBC bank appealed a recent ruling, saying he had set a “dangerous precedent” by acting as “both judge and jury,” throwing out cases even when homeowners had not responded to foreclosure motions.

Justice Schack, like a handful of state and federal judges, has taken a magnifying glass to the mortgage industry. In the gilded haste of the past decade, bankers handed out millions of mortgages — with terms good, bad and exotically ugly — then repackaged those loans for sale to investors from Connecticut to Singapore. Sloppiness reigned. So many papers have been lost, signatures misplaced and documents dated inaccurately that it is often not clear which bank owns the mortgage.

Justice Schack’s take is straightforward, and sends a tremor through some bank suites: If a bank cannot prove ownership, it cannot foreclose.

“If you are going to take away someone’s house, everything should be legal and correct,” he said. “I’m a strange guy — I don’t want to put a family on the street unless it’s legitimate.”

Justice Schack has small jowls and big black glasses, a thin mustache and not so many hairs combed across his scalp. He has the impish eyes of the high school social studies teacher he once was, aware that something untoward is probably going on at the back of his classroom.

He is Brooklyn born and bred, with a master’s degree in history and an office loaded with autographed baseballs and photographs of the Brooklyn Dodgers. His written decisions are a free-associative trip through popular, legal and literary culture, with a sideways glance at the business pages.

Confronted with a case in which Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs passed a defaulted mortgage back and forth and lost track of the documents, the judge made reference to the film classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” and the evil banker played by Lionel Barrymore.

“Lenders should not lose sight,” Justice Schack wrote in that 2007 case, “that they are dealing with humanity, not with Mr. Potter’s ‘rabble’ and ‘cattle.’ Multibillion-dollar corporations must follow the same rules in the foreclosure actions as the local banks, savings and loan associations or credit unions, or else they have become the Mr. Potters of the 21st century.”

Last year, he chastised Wells Fargo for filing error-filled papers. “The court,” the judge wrote, “reminds Wells Fargo of Cassius’s advice to Brutus in Act 1, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’: ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’ ”

Then there is a Deutsche Bank case from 2008, the juicy part of which he reads aloud:

“The court wonders if the instant foreclosure action is a corporate ‘Kansas City Shuffle,’ a complex confidence game,” he reads. “In the 2006 film ‘Lucky Number Slevin,’ Mr. Goodkat, a hit man played by Bruce Willis, explains: ‘A Kansas City Shuffle is when everybody looks right, you go left.’ ”

The banks’ reaction? Justice Schack shrugs. “They probably curse at me,” he says, “but no one is interested in some little judge.”

Little drama attends the release of his decisions. Beaten-down homeowners rarely show up to contest foreclosure actions, and the judge scrutinizes the banks’ papers in his chambers. But at legal conferences, judges and lawyers have wondered aloud why more judges do not hold banks to tougher standards.

“To the extent that judges examine these papers, they find exactly the same errors that Judge Schack does,” said Katherine M. Porter, a visiting professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national expert in consumer credit law. “His rulings are hardly revolutionary; it’s unusual only because we so rarely hold large corporations to the rules.”

Banks and the cottage industry of mortgage service companies and foreclosure lawyers also pay rather close attention.

A spokeswoman for OneWest Bank acknowledged that an official, confronted with a ream of foreclosure papers, had mistakenly signed for two different banks — just as the Deutsche Bank official did. Deutsche Bank, which declined to let an attorney speak on the record about any of its cases before Justice Schack, e-mailed a PDF of a three-page pamphlet in which it claimed little responsibility for foreclosures, even though the bank’s name is affixed to tens of thousands of such motions. The bank described itself as simply a trustee for investors.

Justice Schack came to his recent prominence by a circuitous path, having worked for 14 years as public school teacher in Brooklyn. He was a union representative and once walked a picket line with his wife, Dilia, who was a teacher, too. All was well until the fiscal crisis of the 1970s.

“Why’d I go to law school?” he said. “Thank Mayor Abe Beame, who froze teacher salaries.”

He was counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Association in the 1980s and ’90s, when it was on a long winning streak against team owners. “It was the millionaires versus the billionaires,” he says. “After a while, I’m sitting there thinking, ‘He’s making $4 million, he’s making $5 million, and I’m worth about $1.98.’ ”

So he dived into a judicial race. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1998 and to the Supreme Court for Brooklyn and Staten Island in 2003. His wife is a Democratic district leader; their daughter, Elaine, is a lawyer and their son, Douglas, a police officer.

Justice Schack’s duels with the banks started in 2007 as foreclosures spiked sharply. He saw a plague falling on Brooklyn, particularly its working-class black precincts. “Banks had given out loans structured to fail,” he said.

The judge burrowed into property record databases. He found banks without clear title, and a giant foreclosure law firm, Steven J. Baum, representing two sides in a dispute. He noted that Wells Fargo’s chief executive, John G. Stumpf, made more than $11 million in 2007 while the company’s total returns fell 12 percent.

“Maybe,” he advised the bank, “counsel should wonder, like the court, if Mr. Stumpf was unjustly enriched at the expense of W.F.’s stockholders.”

He was, how to say it, mildly appalled.

“I’m a guy from the streets of Brooklyn who happens to become a judge,” he said. “I see a bank giving a $500,000 mortgage on a building worth $300,000 and the interest rate is 20 percent and I ask questions, what can I tell you?”
Marcus, on August 31, 2009 at 5:44 am said:

Crazy,
It seems like you’re not taking your own medicine. You’ve been fighting Countrywide for other 3 years. Were you able to negotiate anything?
You should be aware that it is virtually impossible to get any meaningful workout with those “pretender” lenders. Most homeowners choose to fight by desperation after exhausting all other means.
I am somehow surprise by your statement.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
stumped in stumptown, on August 31, 2009 at 1:44 am said:

so are you saying that rescinding the mortgage or “deed of trust” by allegation of fraudulent conveyance, lack of full disclosure, etc is the main thing to focus on? What about the fact that the trust deed is a unilateral agreement signed only by one party (the borrower)? It is not a bilateral contract. Is any aspect of the mortgage valid? How does the judge know what your intent was?Is he inside your brain? If they can’t validate the original document doesn’t that violate basic consumer protection law?

However, I know I am over my head in some ways with this line of thinking… simply based on the fact that it seems to obvious and convenient.. Still could not the alleged “borrower” simply change the one sided agreement at any point as long as they properly “notice” the other parties? Did we not give power of attorney to the “lender” to appoint a “trustee” in this document “signed” only by us? What makes the trust deed or mortgage valid in the first place without the proper signature of both parties? What would prevent the “borrower” from modifying ANYTHING in that document at any time? Isn’t it perfectly legal to amend it and appoint a new trustee yourself?

One thing that I find noteworthy to ponder is that the whole thing seems incestuous… “judges” and “bankers” are both ultimately servants of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. right?

I know there is truth and then there is “reality”. I just I wish I could figure out where they converged with regards to my friggin house. We all know the mortgage is fraudlent but what does it matter when we are stuck in a merchant court with a judge who works for the corporation of the US and an appointed officer of a bank that is servant of the corporation of the US? They are on one side of the table and we are on the other. Forced to work within their pre defined rules of engagement based on UCC.

So yeah.. what actually works dang it?
Crazy, on August 31, 2009 at 1:07 am said:

Assume for one possible minute that you actually have a chance at defeating the Bank. I have been seeing a trend of people who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments and are trying to find an easy answer to all their problems. My advise, work it out before you get to deep and cant swim out.

I am saying this because I personally have read tons of case law, and how we all like to read a victory that the judge threw out certain cases because the lender lacked standing or the court lacked jurisdiction or the lender did not possess the note, read the appeals of these cases and you will see that even though the lower courts do this, it is the appelate court that is constantly overturning these decisions.

Take from me first hand, I have been fighting Countrywide Home Loans for over 3 years. Every angle I hit them with, they always manage to counter. In this industry, there is no guarantee that you will win, even if your 100% right.

Most judges are not looking at the paperwork, and could care less if there is no note, they are looking at your intent, if you intended to grant a mortgage (which is not the debt instrument), then the mortgage itself is forecloseable. What I am noticing is that a lot of people are getting confused with the Note and Mortgage.

The mortgage itself is a seperate contract that guarantees the payment on the note, and when the note is sold, it follows the note to the new “NOTE HOLDER”. If you decide you want to fight the Bank, I suggest you start by determining whether or not your mortgage is valid. If it is, I suggest that you work out your payments.
msoliman, on August 30, 2009 at 10:28 pm said:

Msoliman@borrowerhotline.com

HUD 1 misstatements, wrongful information, general file mistakes, errors and omissions – it all adds up to real life. $#&% happens! If any one of these things lead you to believe there’s more to the story than you see…now you have a case to build. Otherwise . . . Errors and omissions happens and there is insurance to cover these issues. However, errors and omission designed to cover-up a fraud is something that falls under a Fidelity Bond and D&O and here is where the case must be made.

Fear -Anything that obstructs your vision; despite the facts!

MSoliman
msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Rik, on August 30, 2009 at 9:14 pm said:

Question to MSoliman

Who would more than likely be the perpetrator of the fraud. Wells Fargo or the Title Company (Florida) or another party?

Thanks again,

Rik
Quest, on August 30, 2009 at 5:05 pm said:

Maher

Good stuff on the 1003 & 1008. Dealt with a broker on the loan and now in negotiations with the pretender lender. How can the 1003 & 1008 be tied to the Trustee so that the pretender lender will cooperate?

There are rescission ground based on where & how ithe property was sold and the pretender lender states they were “harmed” as well by the broker in the illegal sale. Can the 1003 & 1008 discovery and arguments be used to pin the fraud on the securitization of the loan? Hope this makes sense.
Rik, on August 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm said:

Thank you for the guidance. It is much appreciated.
msoliman, on August 30, 2009 at 1:56 pm said:

A repurchase financing also typically involves the initial transferor returning the transferred financial asset.

Or, substantially the same asset to the initial transferee when the financing is repaid on a stated date. A repurchase financing is entered into in contemplation of the initial transfer if both transactions are considered together at the execution of the initial transfer. The transfer back must occur in an open market transaction and not under the terms of a repurchase agreement which it is. The OMT is almost always a trustees sale at the end of a foreclosure and that is a violation of FASB 140-3 and demonstrates no willingness to ever see through the offer to provide the borrower meaningful workout.

msoliman
msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
msoliman, on August 30, 2009 at 1:32 pm said:

Make a claim to prove fraud and disallow the lenders right to the security. The obligation is cut in stone and judges wont hear the argument. But the defective document is grounds for arguing fraud in order to obtain a security and the security is void,

msoliman
msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Rik, on August 30, 2009 at 1:28 pm said:

The HUD-1 states that a Loan Discount was paid to First Mortgage (Line 802 – 1.478%). and Another Loan Discount was paid to Wells Fargo (Line 805 – .522%)

The actual role reversals are on the HUD/VA (HUD Form 92900-A / VA Form 26-1802A) on two separate forms.
msoliman, on August 30, 2009 at 1:08 pm said:

Rik

Who are the broker points or SRP paid to on the HUD 1. That is the issue you have with proper disclosures.

msoliman
msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Rik, on August 30, 2009 at 1:05 pm said:

Hi all, and I wish all of you success in your goals here.

I have what I think is a relatively simple question that I posed previously without a response.

In my closing documentation, I have two HUD-1′s. One that states Wells Fargo as the Broker and First Mortgage as the lender, and another that reverses the roles.

I assume that this is illegal or at least questionable? Any guidance or suggestions on how to handle this aspect of my quest?

Rik
msoliman, on August 30, 2009 at 12:54 pm said:

Abby

Understand the original 1003 you sign for the broker is just chicken scratch. It is then cleaned up to satisfy the New Original 1003 for Quality control purposes. That is a fraud in an of itself. It is backdated for TILA as of the time of original signing.

Tim White is a client who lost his home and one year later is getting the house back specifically because of this . He is an American Indian and checked over the box time and again that states American Native.

We found the final 1003 and again its his signature with the wrong ethnicity box checked.The final 1003 is the crime that takes this mess away from mutual responsibility into fraud committed after the fact.

msoliman
molsiman@borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on August 30, 2009 at 11:33 am said:

Maher
good info on 1003 & 1008.

Thank you.
msoliman, on August 30, 2009 at 10:17 am said:

usedkarguy- Thank you.

Why I am attacked by people who read articles and are starved for love and attention I don’t know. Something missing in their lives I guess.

Stay focused people and caution with what you read here. It’s Distraction!

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
usedkarguy, on August 30, 2009 at 8:02 am said:

When I received my discovery, they included a lot of junk, but they also produced the final 1003 that was sent with the final loan package. It shows that the lender did indeed alter this document (account number for the bogus savings account was changed to appear more realistic) and submitted with the final loan package to the FSB. This document, if recovered, would show that the doc is fraudulently signed. My package included an unsigned copy. It was substantially different from the document signed at closing.
THERE’S YER SIGN!
Lisa E., on August 30, 2009 at 6:50 am said:

Truth: I actually had a second paragraph to my post below (which somehow didn’t get posted) which mentioned the drastic drop in property tax revenues and the resulting devastating effect on state and local municipalities. Government services in Florida have already been deeply cut, with further draconian cuts on the horizon.

In Florida, the tax rate has been increased as a way of lessening the severely anemic 2009 tax revenues. With sky high unemployment, coupled with amputated access credit, I don’t see how a large percentage of property owners will be able to pay these tax bills. I guess the tax lien auctions will be a buyers opportunity come early spring 2010.

Additionally, these property tax statements bring home the point to people (like some of my neighbors) who are current in their mortgages and can continue with monthly payments in full, but are fathoms underwater and are seriously questioning the wisdom of paying on a mortgage that is greater than 60% of the home’s current value.

And so continues the far reaching lethal damage incurred by the shrapnel ejected by the securitized-mortgage debacle.

Lisa E (Pro Se, FL)
Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Truth, on August 30, 2009 at 6:48 am said:

I noticed in the article by Mr. Blass that he points out the affordablilty issue, income documentation issues and the “net tangible benefit” test as if its something NEW.

“The sweeping mortgage reform legislation approved recently by the U.S. House of Representatives contains a provision directing the Federal Reserve to adopt regulations requiring mortgage lenders to ensure that borrowers have a “reasonable ability to repay” a first mortgage, and to verify that a mortgage refinance transaction provides “net tangible benefits” to the borrower.”

Unfortunately like many he has been mislead by what I like to call “political grandstanding,” that is politicans and the media trumpeting some new intitiative or change that really already exists it was just ignored and not enforced.

Requirements for income documentation and/or net tangible benefits specifically in refis already existed under TILA prior to this legislation. ITS NOT NEW.
msoliman, on August 30, 2009 at 12:33 am said:

Su: False application information regarding the Borrower’s income! This is not the argument to win a case. What is will be is the effect of the “Final” 1003 and “1008″ Transmittal.

Why does a borrower receive all their “final” closing documents and never the “Final 1003 or copy of the final 1008″ transmittal.

Equitable distribution of culpability governs the initial documents used to close. But the final documents (1003 and 1008) are used to ship the obligation to an investor by the Quality control and risk mitigation departments!

And that you never see. Demand it in production of documents!

MSoliman
MSoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on August 29, 2009 at 9:29 pm said:

OMG–this is so funny….a slide show Primer on SubPrime–you will laugh!!

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-sub-prime-primer/
Abby in CA, on August 29, 2009 at 7:24 pm said:

JEFF
Great post. Thx.

All, irrespective of what the article states about Homeowners (borrowers) lying or mis-stating their incomes for the so called ‘liar loans’…don’t always believe that.

In the case of New Century Mortgage, the investors in New Century stock have sued and gotten multiple Confidential Witnesses (ex employees) who all stated the same thing—they entered a false income into their underwriting system to cause the loan to be approved and that they were under pressure and instructions from higher ups to ‘close those loans’.

They go into great detail about their process and even cite examples (a maid making 22K per MONTH)!!

The underwriters were negligent.

The borrowers were given approved loans that they never would have qualified for if the underwriting had been correct.

Another example was a secretary, also who purportedly made 22K per MONTH (not year) who got into a house that cost 1.2 million.
She was single.

In another case the prospective borrower did provide finanical supporting documents, but the loan processor did not even use them, and again forced it through the underwriting system by typing into the computer that the person made 22K per month in salary.

My guess is that the 22K per MONTH was like the max business rule to shove the loans thru for approval.

Remember what Neil often says, that many of the loans were already pre-sold to the investors and that the lender (pretender) had to only find us victims.

The people that are liars in this mess —well, it is not us borrowers.
ap smith, on August 29, 2009 at 6:11 pm said:

How do I find out if Fannie Mae (they say they are the investor) used my loan to back a bond?
jeff, on August 29, 2009 at 5:45 pm said:

Check this out from the Mortgage Orb site

Understanding Legal Risk
In Loss Mitigation

Vol. 3 | Issue 6 | September 2009
Understanding Legal Risk
In Loss Mitigation

By August Blass

Bankers weren’t exactly singing “Happy Days Are Here Again,” but their relief was palpable after the Senate rejected a measure in May that would have given bankruptcy judges broad discretion to modify home mortgage loans.

The celebration of cramdown’s defeat may be premature, however. Although the Senate vote – 51 to 45 – was definitive, industry analysts agree that the measure will almost certainly resurface if current initiatives to halt the rising foreclosure tide are not successful. And even without the threat of a bankruptcy cramdown order, the pressure on lenders and servicers to modify loans to help borrowers avoid foreclosure is intense, and it is coming from several directions.

Relentless media reports of homeowners losing their homes are producing a continuing drumbeat of negative publicity for an industry whose image has already taken a huge beating from the financial meltdown. Meanwhile, federal homeowner assistance programs are requiring some lenders to offer modifications and providing incentives to encourage all lenders and servicers to do so. “Helping Families Save Their Homes,” the anti-foreclosure act signed into law by President Obama, addresses one perceived obstacle to those efforts: establishing a “safe harbor” protecting servicers who modify loans from suits filed by investors.

Litigation looms
Significantly, the safe harbor targets only suits filed by investors; it does not prevent suits filed by borrowers. And it is the threat of borrower litigation that is likely to create the strongest pressure on lenders and servicers to modify existing loans. Homeowners faced with foreclosure, not surprisingly, are doing all they can to hang onto their homes. Many are taking their battles to the courts, meeting foreclosure notices with counterclaims against their lenders.

In one increasingly common tactic, borrowers are exercising their right of rescission on refinance transactions, citing alleged disclosure violations by lenders as the basis for this claim. Court decisions in these cases have varied but provide some cause for lender concern.

In a 1992 decision, Williams v. Homestake, a district court held that the rescission right established under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) was “automatic” and the relinquishment of the lender’s claim could not be conditioned on the borrower’s return of the loan proceeds. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that decision, holding that while the process outlined in TILA and its implementing regulations make rescission automatic if the lending violations are proven, the courts, in fact, have the power to modify the rescission process in order to ensure equity between the parties.

However, this court went on to say that, in determining whether and how to modify the rescission process, judges should consider “traditional equitable notions, including such factors as the severity of [the bank's] TILA violations and whether [the borrower] has the ability to repay the principal amount.”

To understand why this guidance should make lenders nervous, consider how the rescission process might play out in a bankruptcy proceeding. Typically, the borrower would move to rescind the loan simultaneously with the bankruptcy filing. If the disclosure violation is proven, the bankruptcy judge could determine – and many have – that the rescission extinguishes the creditor’s lien, leaving the mortgage lender with what amounts to an unsecured claim. A bankruptcy judge who follows this path would have considerable leverage to “encourage” lenders to modify loans, even without the cramdown measure.

Fiduciary standard
Potential problems are emerging for lenders outside of the bankruptcy arena. Although the courts in most jurisdictions have been loath to recognize a “duty of care” for lenders – removing a prerequisite for negligence claims against them – this area of the legal landscape may be changing, too, influenced in no small measure by the subprime lending abuses that triggered the financial meltdown.

The sweeping mortgage reform legislation approved recently by the U.S. House of Representatives contains a provision directing the Federal Reserve to adopt regulations requiring mortgage lenders to ensure that borrowers have a “reasonable ability to repay” a first mortgage, and to verify that a mortgage refinance transaction provides “net tangible benefits” to the borrower.

Those standards, presumably, would apply only prospectively, but not necessarily. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently upheld a lower-court decision requiring a lender (Fremont Investment & Loan) to obtain the approval of the state attorney general before initiating foreclosure actions against subprime borrowers. The SJC affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that the targeted loans had features that, in the court’s view, made the loans “presumptively unfair.”

It is possible, and probably more likely than not, that courts and regulators in other states will agree that loans originated without regard for the borrower’s ability to repay them are, by definition, unfair and deceptive.

In another Massachusetts action that is likely to rattle windows far beyond the state, Goldman Sachs Group agreed recently to fund a $50 million loan modification program to settle an investigation into whether the company “may have facilitated the origination by others of ‘unfair’ loans.” This appears to be the first successful action to hold a syndicator responsible for loan violations, but it is unlikely to be the last.

Lenders, servicers, syndicators and investors should be concerned about where this train is heading and the speed at which it is traveling. It is not a question of whether borrowers, state regulators or both will file countersuits to block foreclosures; the only questions remaining are when and where those suits will be filed, in what numbers and what violations they will allege.

The threat of litigation is, by no means, the only reason to modify a loan. But the threat of a successful lawsuit that could cost considerably more than a modification provides strong incentive for lenders and servicers to negotiate with some borrowers rather than fight with them.

All modification requests are not equal; some loan restructurings will be more or less viable than others. Similarly, all litigation threats are not equally potent; some borrowers will have stronger claims than others. With this in mind, lenders and servicers need to be able to distinguish among the suits.

A lender does not want to learn for the first time from a borrower’s complaint or a bankruptcy judge’s rescission ruling that it failed to provide one of the required TILA disclosures. Servicers need to know before a rejected modification triggers a lawsuit or a bankruptcy filing what is in its loan files and what is missing from them. Servicers and lenders want know where, if at all, they are vulnerable to a borrower’s claims and where, if at all, the borrower may be vulnerable.

Risks and red flags
A perfect loan file does not exist. Industry studies have found that 83% of mortgages, on average, contain one or more errors. On a regular basis, audit companies find major and minor violations of lending laws and regulations by lenders, and often enough to be worth noting, there is evidence of fraud by borrowers.

For lenders and servicers looking for borrower weaknesses, stated-income loans are a definite red flag. There’s a reason these are known as “liar loans.” In most cases, the only reason for failing to document a borrower’s income is because it is not high enough to support the loan.

Borrowers may insist, “The devil (or the broker) made me do it.” They may claim they were misled, unconscious, drunk or all of the above. But at the end of the day, borrowers sign the loan application, and they know – or they should know – what is on it. Evidence that the borrower lied will not negate valid claims of lender violations, but it will affect the weight a court is likely to give the arguments on both sides and may strengthen the lender’s or servicer’s hand in pre-bankruptcy/modification negotiations.

Aside from misstating their income, serving knowingly as a “straw” in a sham home purchase transaction or otherwise perpetrating fraud, there are not many things borrowers can do wrong. For lenders, on the other hand, the possibilities for missteps are endless. TILA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and state consumer protection laws create a labyrinth of procedural rules and disclosure requirements over which lenders could potentially stumble.

Some violations are more serious than others, but all offer potential legal fodder for borrowers seeking to block foreclosures and/or demanding modification of their loans.

The most common complaint is that the lender failed to provide one or more of the required disclosures. This could be a serious problem, but only if the claim is true – and it is relatively easy to refute. If the loan file contains a copy of the disclosure and evidence of “constructive receipt,” showing it was delivered, borrowers can claim they lost the disclosure form – which would be unfortunate – but they cannot claim it wasn’t provided, which would be a violation of lending laws.

Unfortunately, disclosure violations are all too common. During the housing boom, when loans and paperwork were flying, loan originators were not always as conscientious as they should have been about providing and documenting the required disclosures, and the disclosures they provided were often inaccurate.

The complexity of some mortgage products made annual percentage rate and monthly payment disclosures particularly prone to error. The mistakes may have been inadvertent, but the disclosure violations they produced will almost certainly provide the basis for litigation.

Where’s the note?
Documentation, or the lack of it, has already become a major problem for lenders pursuing foreclosure actions. Judges in several jurisdictions have delayed or halted foreclosure actions when the servicers were unable to produce the original mortgage note or provide evidence that the originating lender had assigned it. A Web site offering free legal documents for consumers reports that the template most in demand is one asking lenders to produce the original mortgage note.

The New York Times reported recently that a legal aid attorney in Florida is training consumer lawyers nationally in how to litigate these cases, and if that doesn’t make lenders nervous, how about this: In a recent speech, U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, described the inability of lenders to produce the mortgage note on demand as a good thing for borrowers facing a foreclosure action.

Her advice: “I say to the American people, be squatters in your own homes.”

Do you know where your mortgage notes are? Make sure you can answer that question before initiating a foreclosure action and before deciding how to respond to a modification request. If the note isn’t in the file, modifying the loan and producing a new note that you will be able to find is a strategy you might want to consider.

Additional suggestions for coping with the likely surge in modification requests and consumer litigation include the following:

•Expect modification pressure, borrower lawsuits and state anti-foreclosure actions (like those in Massachusetts) to continue for the foreseeable future. Two points here: (1) monitor federal modification and foreclosure prevention programs, the rules and incentives for which are changing regularly; and (2) track litigation trends. Court decisions in one jurisdiction will not set precedents in others, but they may influence the thinking of other judges, highlight arguments borrowers may use and suggest defenses that lenders might use.

•Be proactive. Lenders should review loan files before borrowers request modifications or initiate suits. When identifying violations, correct them, if possible; where appropriate, reach out to borrowers before they come after you.

•Approach modification prospects with an open mind and a long-term perspective. Assess the benefits and costs of modifying a loan against the potential risks (including the threat of litigation) if foreclosure is chosen.

•Practice “safe modifications.” If servicers cannot offer – or are not willing to offer – terms that improve the borrower’s repayment prospects, a modification should not be offered. Redefaults are not in anyone’s best interest, and failed modifications, as much as a failure to halt the foreclosure trend, will bring stronger anti-foreclosure measures, including an almost certain revival of the bankruptcy cramdown bill.
Marcus, on August 29, 2009 at 1:56 pm said:

Former Wells Fargo Subprime Loan Officer: Bank Targeted Black Churches as Part of Predatory Subprime Lending Scheme

Up until two years ago, Elizabeth Jacobson was the top producing loan officer in the subprime division at Wells Fargo. Today she is speaking out against the practices of her former company. Earlier this summer, she filed a sworn affidavit with a federal court in support of the city of Baltimore’s lawsuit against Wells Fargo for pushing high-interest, subprime loans onto African Americans in Baltimore and the Maryland suburbs, leading hundreds into foreclosure.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/28/former_wells_fargo_subprime_loan_officer
Marcus, on August 29, 2009 at 7:49 am said:

“Be very careful here. If the two companies have different names, the asset does not necessarily transfer over automatically. “__Ed

Point well taken Ed. You’re right; the chain of ownership must be proven. Nothing should be assumed.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Linda, on August 29, 2009 at 6:05 am said:

Ed, thanks for additional input–I will certainly be looking into all aspects of this BankUnited situation–BTW, the summons says they ARE holder and owner of mortgage and note. Of the numerous summons my friends have received in Florida, this is the first summons I’ve heard of in Florida that doesn’t say ” lost note”.
Article: Stop Foreclosure Wolves - Page 2 - Loan Modification Forum - LoanSafe.org, on August 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm said:

[...] town! I found him through Neil Garfield's web blog. What would I do without the web!!! Check out Homeowners Livinglies’s Weblog I am so grateful to all who are sharing their [...]
Truth, on August 28, 2009 at 11:44 am said:

Lisa E

Whadya spose is going to happen to local city and county gov’t , state gov’t and school systems when they have to deal with the correspondingly lower tax revenues based on the lower valuations…I mean we are talking about entities that have been used to evering increasing revenue streams for decades now they have to take a 30%-40% haircut…can anyone say anarchy??
Dan Edstrom, on August 28, 2009 at 9:58 am said:

By the way – if it was not listed as an asset in bankruptcy, then this may have been a very serious violation of Federal law.

Thx,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on August 28, 2009 at 9:56 am said:

Linda and Marcus,
Be very careful here. If the two companies have different names, the asset does not necessarily transfer over automatically. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I do believe it seems that in many cases one company will go into bankruptcy (and/or receivership?) and then as if by magic another company appears with a similar name. This “asset” (your loan) would need to have been transferred in a lawful way in order for the “new” company to have rights to it (holder in due course for instance). If the asset was held by a company that went into bankruptcy, then one of two things may have happened – the asset was listed as part of the bankruptcy or the asset was not listed as part of the bankruptcy (and/or receivership?). If it was listed as an asset, the bankrupt company would need the judges permission to sell or transfer the asset. I am not well versed in how assets transfer from one company to another (in and out of bankruptcy), you should consult a lawyer who knows – or do a lot of due diligence.

I believe this is a huge issue that applies to a large number of people. I know it directly applies to me in my case (originator = Mortgage Lenders Network).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Linda, on August 28, 2009 at 9:30 am said:

Marcus re: BankUnited–yes I have received a summons–the summons reads:
BankUnited, as successor in interest to BankUnited, FSB
Marcus, on August 28, 2009 at 7:35 am said:

BankUnited was seized by the FDIC in May 2009. Soon after it was sold to the Ross Group.
FDIC still owns $24 Million of their assets.
Have you received a foreclosure summon?

marcus @ foreclsoureProSe.com
Linda, on August 28, 2009 at 6:42 am said:

Marcus, thanks for reply about BankUnited–hmmm?–so are the loans in the hedge fund? or in receivership? and what to do either way? this just gets better and better.
Marcus, on August 28, 2009 at 4:43 am said:

“Does anyone who has BankUnited loans know where the loans are i.e.–mine is not in MERS, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae–I’m trying to find where the loan has been securitized.”_Linda

I sent four QWR to BankUnited. They never responded. The original bank went to receivership and has been sold to an hedge fund. The court sent a notice of dismissal for lack of prosecution. If they don’t respond to that, the case will be dismissed.
Quiet Title process will be my next step.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe . com
Jeff, on August 27, 2009 at 8:56 pm said:

Can anyone help me formulate my pleadings and briefs by referencing Mortgage Foreclosure relevant Pennsylvania code, RCP, statutes, etc.

An urgent reply would be greatly appreciated.

I GREATLY THANK YOU for your help!
Jeff
Lisa E., on August 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm said:

Well, wad’dya know………just received my Florida property tax statement for 2009.

2007 Assessed Value $319,600
2008 Assessed Value $275,700
2008 Assessed Value $179,205

Cover your ears all! It’s a free fall of national housing values immediately preceding an ear splitting break in the sound barrier, shattering the personal net worth and economic stability of mortgage holding homeowners.
Alina, on August 27, 2009 at 7:56 am said:

You Broke It, You Fix It?
SUBPRIME PLAYERS GET TAX MONEY TO FIX SUBPRIME MESS
By John Dunbar | August 25, 2009 | |
Firms that fed off the subprime lending frenzy that devastated the banking system are lining up to collect more than $21 billion in taxpayer funds meant to help bail out borrowers now in trouble on their loans.
The funds come from the federal government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), begun in February by the Obama administration to coax lenders into modifying mortgages that might otherwise result in foreclosure.
According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of public records, of the 25 top participants in the program, at least
21 were heavily involved in the subprime lending industry. Most specialized in servicing subprime loans, but several
both serviced and originated the loans.
Among those on the list: At least two firms that earlier settled charges of illegal collection practices brought by federal regulators; another was placed under federal supervision before voluntarily surrendering its bank charter;
A subprime subsidiary of top-bailout recipient American International Group Inc. (AIG);
Two former subsidiaries of Merrill Lynch & Co. and one former subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, investment banks
that helped underwrite the subprime boom, and;
A subsidiary of the now-sold, former No. 1 subprime lender in the nation, Countrywide Financial Corp.
Mortgage lenders and servicers have been reluctant to participate in foreclosure prevention programs despite their
role in creating the subprime debacle. Intense pressure from Congress and the White House hasn’t worked either. The stick has not been effective, so the Obama administration is offering a carrot — billions of dollars in incentive payments to lenders and loan servicers to encourage them to participate.
The plan is different from the government’s primary bank bailout scheme, in which taxpayers bought stock in troubled
financial firms. In the foreclosure relief program, there will be no return on investment for taxpayers, at least not
directly.
Backers argue that it is essential to contract with subprime specialists to modify subprime loans, but others have
raised serious questions as to whether paying them to do it with public dollars sends the wrong message — that
mortgage companies (and borrowers) whose actions contributed to the near-collapse of the financial system are
deserving of public funding.
And, more importantly, some question whether loan modification programs — particularly those that involve subprime mortgages — are even effective.
“It’s tough to say whether we will actually get anything in return,” says Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation
studies at the Cato Institute. “One category of borrowers will cure anyhow. One category, even with the modifications,
will probably fail again. You’re probably looking at not more than one third of the borrowers who will go through the
modifications that will ultimately be sustainable.”
A $50 Billion Bailout
The Home Affordable Modification Program will use up to $50 billion in federal bailout funds to help as many as four
million homeowners stay current on their mortgages. Under the plan, participating mortgage companies agree to drop homeowners’ payments to 38 percent of their monthly income. The Treasury Department then matches dollar for dollar a further reduction to 31 percent of monthly income.
Borrowers are enrolled in a three-month trial period. If they keep up their payments, they qualify for a permanent
modification. Once the trial period ends, the servicers can start collecting incentive payments. To date, none have
reached the three-month mark, so no incentives have been paid out.
Servicers receive an upfront $1,000 incentive payment for each eligible modification plus $1,000 each year for three
years if the borrower stays in the program. The borrower may receive a $1,000 payment to be applied toward the
principal for five years.
The program also seeks to reach borrowers before they get into trouble. Lenders qualify for a $1,500 one-time
payment for modifying a loan that is still current while servicers can collect $500.
The Treasury Department did not respond on the record to specific questions from the Center, but spokeswoman Meg
Reilly said in a written statement that more than 270,000 modifications are in effect and more than 430,000 loan
modification offers have been extended to borrowers thus far.
“HAMP provides meaningful incentives to servicers to help overcome the challenges and competing demands they
face in considering and completing loan modifications,” the statement reads in part.
Loan servicers — the companies that calculate what’s owed, collect payments, and handle foreclosures — are key to the success of the program. They must agree to participate before a borrower may qualify. The servicer and the lender may be the same company, but not always.
As of August 12, 44 entities had qualified to collect a maximum of $21.5 billion in incentives, according to data from the Treasury Department. Not all the cash will go to servicers. The total includes the maximum total of payments to loan servicers as well as lenders and borrowers. So the actual total for those companies listed below will be less.
Subprime Memory Lane
The list of the top 10 recipients is like a walk down subprime memory lane. Here are the leading HAMP participants, with the amount of taxpayer-funded incentives they are slated to receive:
1. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, Simi Valley, California — $5.2 billion
2. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank NA, Lewisville, Texas — $2.7 billion
3. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Des Moines, Iowa — $2.4 billion
4. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., Coppell, Texas — $1.3 billion
5. CitiMortgage Inc., O’Fallon, Missouri — $1.1 billion
6. GMAC Mortgage Inc., Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania — $1 billion
7. Bank of America, NA, Charlotte, North Carolina — $804.4 million
8. Litton Loan Servicing LP, Houston, Texas — $774.9 million
9. EMC Mortgage Corp., Lewisville, Texas — $707.4 million
10. HomEq Servicing, North Highlands, California — $674 million
Seven other participants in the foreclosure relief program are also worth noting because of their associations with
subprime mortgage servicing or lending:
Select Portfolio Servicing, Salt Lake City, Utah — $660.6 million
Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., Irving, Texas — $632 million
Ocwen Financial Corp. Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida — $553.4 million
Aurora Loan Services LLC, Littleton, Colorado — $459.6 million
Wilshire Credit Corp. Beaverton, Oregon — $453.1 million
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Santa Ana, California — $131 million
MorEquity Inc., Evansville, Indiana — $23.5 million
Of the 25 top participants in the foreclosure relief program, only four firms — RG Mortgage Corp., PNC Bank, Bayview
Loan Servicing LLC, and Bank of America — did not qualify as servicers or originators specializing in subprime loans,
according to Center research. However, PNC did buy National City Bank, a major subprime lender through its
ownership of First Franklin Corp. (No. 4 on the Center’s subprime 25 list), reportedly with help from government bailout funds last year.
Falling Dominoes
The collapse of the subprime lending market was the catalyst for the financial meltdown nearly a year ago. The risky mortgages were bought by investment banks, packaged into securities, and sold to investors worldwide. Once the loans started going into foreclosure, the dominoes started falling.
While the larger economy appears to be edging back from the brink, the numbers of foreclosures, as well as
foreclosure rates, have kept climbing. According to RealtyTrac data, there were 1.9 million foreclosure filings in the first six months of this year — a nine percent increase from the previous six months and nearly 15 percent above the same period last year. That means in the last six months one in every 84 homes had at least one foreclosure filing.
In the first quarter of 2009, 7.2 percent of mortgages were seriously delinquent, according to a Mortgage Bankers
Association survey, compared with 6.3 percent in the previous quarter and 1.9 percent in the first three months of
2005.
Subprime mortgages are failing at a far higher rate than mortgages in general.
More than 36 percent of adjustable-rate, subprime mortgages were considered seriously delinquent in the first quarter of 2009, compared with 33.8 percent the previous quarter and 5.2 percent in the first quarter of 2005.
Even more worrisome for the mortgage modification program is the abysmal rate of success for loan modifications to date. According to a survey by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, after one year, only 29.5 percent of modified loans were still “current,” or being paid off on time. Thirty-three percent were “severely delinquent” and 17 percent had gone to foreclosure.
The Treasury Department’s Reilly said modifications are only one “one piece of the administration’s broader effort to
bring relief to struggling homeowners and stabilize the housing market.” For example, another program is a $10 billion insurance plan to guard against further declines in home values.
But if the modification plan is not successful and mortgages simply go back into foreclosure, say critics, it could go down in history as a colossal waste of public money that prolonged rather than ended the nation’s still-critical housing crisis. “We’re going to be spending billions without a clear guideline of how many foreclosures we’re actually avoiding,” warns the CATO Institute’s Calabria.
Kat Aaron contributed to this story.
Economic Meltdown – Articles: You Broke It, You Fix It? http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/article…
Linda, on August 27, 2009 at 7:08 am said:

Does anyone who has BankUnited loans know where the loans are i.e.–mine is not in MERS, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae–I’m trying to find where the loan has been securitized. thanks
Ian, on August 26, 2009 at 7:17 pm said:

Regarding Fla. assoc. of realtors request for foreclosure info- I have been working on a ‘Letter to the editor” of my local newspaper, which I will then send to approx. 15 additional papers in 100 mile radius of my home. I will post it on this site for comment prior to submittal. I have already talked to the editor (in person) regarding the length of the letter, most dailies having a 700 word limit. This is next to impossible. In faltl of 08, I had offered office space here in NE Penna. to anyone willing to jump on the “lawyers who get it” platform, with no takers. I am further willing to underwrite by 50% an east coast meeting of perhaps Neil, Soliman, George Babcock, Hackett etc. at a 100 year old NE Penna resort, will do PR releases,etc. Is anyone interested?
msoliman, on August 26, 2009 at 4:25 pm said:

Abby in CA,

Go to FASB web site I guess and SEC published regs under 1122 AB .Read up on a Blue Sky solcited by a registrants private placement memorandum. PPM / Read MERS description for services offered . Also see the FDIC bulletins and also OTS memorandums

MSoliman@borrowerhotline.com
MSoliman
Alina, on August 26, 2009 at 9:39 am said:

I have just received the following email and don’t know if anyone else in Florida has received a similar email. Let me know if you receive this email and what are your thoughts:

The Florida Association of REALTORS ® is asking for your help in understanding the home foreclosure crisis in our state. We are asking a small group of Floridians like you to share your thoughts and experiences with home foreclosure.

Survey Link: http://www.floridafaceofforeclosure.com

Your responses to this survey are very important and will help in understanding the underlying causes of home foreclosure. Your responses may also help guide foreclosure policy decisions in the future.

This is a short survey and should take no more than fifteen minutes to complete. Please click on the link above to go to the survey website (or copy and paste the survey link into your Internet browser).

Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and all of your responses will be held in the strictest of confidence. No personally identifiable information will be associated with your responses in any reports of this data without your permission. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at info@FloridaFaceOfForeclosure.com.

I appreciate your time and consideration in completing the survey. Thank you for participating in this study! It is only through the help of responsible Floridians like you that we can begin to work on a solution to Florida’s foreclosure problem.

Many thanks,

John M. Sebree
Vice President – Public Policy
Florida Association of REALTORS®
Alina, on August 26, 2009 at 7:37 am said:

Lisa,

My PSA was an 8k filing as well.
Marcus, on August 26, 2009 at 4:32 am said:

“I’m researching how to file a RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.”__Lisa

Lisa, file a affidavit opposing MSJ.
You can find a sample here:
http://www.foreclosureprose.com/pleadings/

Marcus,
Lisa E., on August 26, 2009 at 3:08 am said:

Hello all!

For those of you who have found the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for your case, would you please inform me as to the type of filing it is? Mine is an 8K filing. I’m trying to help a friend locate his and we are hitting a brick wall!

To update on my case:
6/3: Plaintiff filed Motion for Summary Judgment & Hearing to Include Attorney’s Fees and Taxes

6/16 I filed a Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I asked to be given 60 days, where the clock would start ticking upon receipt of ALL of my requested discovery so that I would have the necessary information to respond appropriately.

Then all activity pretty much stopped on my case.

I’m preparing to file MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS INCLUDING AN AWARD OF EXPENSES AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR ITS FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED, AS WELL AS FAILURE TO FILE PROPER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES.

I’m researching how to file a RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

At this time, I guess my tactic is to move very slowly, awaiting further legislative and judicial solutions to the ever-growing foreclosure crisis as I try to keep ball in Plaintiff’s court.

GOOD LUCK TO ALL!

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ G mail . com (trying to avoid spam, remove all spaces to email)
bryan, on August 26, 2009 at 2:33 am said:

UPDATE:

You think I was scared about going to the hearings, it is far more scary now because my house burned down to the ground, I have begged for help for three years from everyone, and now I am facing the scariest moments of my life. I am posting this from a hotel. When the cops asked me: did you burn down your house…NO. do you know who burned down your house…NO Who do you think burned down your house…The contractor… I sure hope and pray they find out soon, because I’m more scared now than ever, I lost my glasses in the fire so I can’t see to type, and I can’t even read what I am typing.

I will keep you posted soon. Good luck everyone.
Abby in CA, on August 25, 2009 at 3:35 pm said:

The Federal Reserve has been ordered to reveal the names of companies that received emergency loans during the financial crisis, after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Bloomberg News.

Go to Huffington Post to read the actual court document of the ruling!
Abby in CA, on August 25, 2009 at 1:19 pm said:

M.Soliman-what is the source of your most recent posting. I have read this verbatim someplace else on the internet.

Cannot remember where and want to re-check it.
Thx
msoliman, on August 25, 2009 at 1:12 pm said:

Accounting professionals know under the federal accounting standards board who addresses these matters that the securities platform which your client delivers into was motivated by an economic participation in loans originations and transfer.

Delivery by a seller under the terms of the trust indenture are subject to extensive representations by a registrant and to mean all related parties acting in combination for the benefit of the reporting parties to the investment, typically as a subsidiary or wholly owned entity.

Pay close attention here as you have a paramount responsibility and must remain accountable for transparency with regards to the subsequent events surrounding the subject loan and the majority of the loans you claim are held in trust.

Our accounting and wall street analysts have concluded the critical factors affecting the trust platform and delivery methods mirror one another from trust to trust and loan or asset to asset. Your reliance on cds insurance specifically allows member FDIC banks to cut the normal $800 million capital for every $10 billion of corporate loans on their books to just $160 million, meaning banks with cds insurance can loan up to five times more on the same capital.

Strict compliance is mandated for a credit default swap (cds) is a swap contract in which the buyer of the cds makes a series of payments to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if a credit instrument — typically a bond or loan — goes into default (fails to pay). Less commonly, the credit event that triggers the payoff can be a company undergoing restructuring, bankruptcy or even just having its credit rating downgraded.

Cds contracts have been compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receive a sum of money if one of the events specified in the contract occurs.

There are a number of differences between cds and insurance. The buyer of a cds does not need to own the underlying security or other form of credit exposure; in fact the buyer does not even have to suffer a loss from the default [recipient name] august 18, 2009 page 2 in contrast, to purchase insurance, the insured is generally expected to have an such as owning a debt obligation; a sticky situation and using a trustee sale to establish an omt is an sec fraud and subject to criminal consideration.

The collateralized debt obligation, or cdo. The recipe: buy home loans, blend them, then slice up the result into different securities (reflecting different levels of risk) to sell to investors. Many such securities carry aaa or “investment grade” ratings despite subprime mortgages being in the mix. From there, things get really complex–cdos created from other cdos, synthetic cdos crafted from credit-default swaps, none of which had experienced a down market. “the problem is that cdos were untested. There was not much history to suggest cdos would behave the same way as aaa corporate bonds,” says richard bookstaber, a hedge-fund manager and author of a demon of our own design, who views market palpitations as a predictable by-product of complex financial products like cdos. (for the author’s take on the subprime disaster, go to time.com/bookstaber.

Now that the foundation is shaking, there are scant buyers for the lower-grade issues built on top of the pooled mortgages, and the values of those cdos have plummeted. Losses in the subprime market drove bear stearns to declare two of its hedge funds, once topping $1.5 billion, all but worthless, and banks as far afield as germany and france have frozen funds or received bailouts because of exposure to u.s. Mortgages.

The looming disaster

For real estate, next year could be even worse if interest rates don’t fall. In 2008, some $680 billion worth of adjustable-rate mortgages are due to reset, according to bank of america. That’s $165 billion more than this year, and of those loans that are likely to carry higher rates, nearly three-quarters are subprime. Since many adjustable mortgages change rates after two or three years, the loans due for reset would have been written in 2005 and 2006, the years underwriting standards were bent the most. “it’s clear that the performance of loans will be worse,” says mark adelson, recently departed head of structured finance research at nomura securities, “but it’s not yet clear how much worse.”

One way to think about it is to consider how much more homeowners will have to pay to keep their mortgages current. According to an analysis by first american corelogic, a firm that tracks real estate and home loans, a typical subprime first mortgage that was originated in 2004 to 2006 will face a monthly increase of $407, and a typical teaser-rate loan, the type often sold to people based on their ability to pay the introductory rate and not the reset, will see monthly payments jump by $1,512.

And the rules in question are really important ones, not just idiosyncratic servicing rules that could probably be waived in a crisis by the trustee with the consent of the rating agencies.

First, REMICs (go here if you have no idea what a REMIC is). REMIC election involves the tax treatment of principal and interest payments and is much too complex to summarize here. The basic issue is that it creates a trust that owns the underlying pool of loans. The trust issues two classes of securities, regular interests and a residual interest. Interest income is taxable (as ordinary income) to the holders of regular interests. Gain/loss for tax purposes is also taken by the residual holder.

The trust itself is not taxed; it’s just a pass-through entity. That prevents a “double taxation” from arising, in which the trust would have to pay taxes on interest income and then the regular class holders would also pay taxes.

One of the qualifying requirements of REMIC status is that the underlying pool of loans is “fixed.” REMICs do not acquire new loans after their pools are established; they do not account for any loans on a “held for sale” basis and they do not sell any loans. (Putbacks for breach are an exception, and always transact at par, not at market value.)

If at any time the trust starts taking actions that can be interpreted as “actively managing” the underlying pool, the REMIC status is in jeopardy (the trust might have to start paying taxes, which would make the whole deal uneconomical).

So while the legislation and IRS rules authorizing and dealing with REMICs are not really about defining default servicing practices, they have affected default servicing practices (loss mitigation) because they have defined a kind of transaction that might look like active management of the pool but really isn’t: modifications (or other workouts) for defaulted or about-to-default loans. In essence, the REMIC law creates an exception for these loss-mit practices, so that servicers can use them without endangering the REMIC status of the trust. This is how what might seem like unrelated issues—how to best service a mortgage loan, how trust entities are or are not taxed by the IRS—get related.

The issue is further complicated by the off-balance-sheet nature of these trusts. (They don’t have to be off-balance sheet, but most of them are.)

To be accounted for off the issuer’s balance sheet, the trust must be “qualifying” under the SFAS 140 rules. The “Q status” is similar to the REMIC status: the pool must be “static” or fixed or not actively managed or, in the charming industry parlance, “brain dead.” If it is determined that a pool is being actively managed, it “loses its Q” and gets forced onto the issuer’s balance sheet. SFAS 140, like the tax code, isn’t designed to be about good mortgage servicing practices, but it, like the tax code, has to include some definitions of acceptable “managing” of individual loans that are exceptions to the “brain dead pool” rule.

msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Alina, on August 25, 2009 at 10:16 am said:

Now here’s a story that’s making the banks tremble:

Aug 25, 2009, 1:00 p.m. EST
Wall Street suffers heartburn over court order to Fed
Names of credit recipients should be released, federal judge says
Explore related topics
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Wall Street analysts reacted with concern Tuesday after a federal judge said the Federal Reserve should release names of financial institutions that have participated in the central bank’s emergency funding program over the past two years.
“If this decision stands…you will see the Mother of All Runs to the Door,” wrote Stephen Stanley, economist at RBS, in a note to clients.
Banks will rush to exit from all of the Fed credit programs, Stanley said. Banks that cannot leave quickly will be “in big trouble” with immediate downward pressure on their share price, Stanley said.
In response to the looming financial market crisis in early 2007, the Fed lowered the standards on the quality of collateral it would accept for loans from banks. It allowed other financial institutions to have access to its emergency liquidity and established several new programs to funnel credit to banks.
The idea was to give banks badly needed funds to weather the crisis. The Fed does not publish any information on the new loans other than in aggregate form.
Bloomberg News L.P requested the names of the institutions that were participating in the Fed programs, the type of collateral that they were giving to the Fed, and the “haircut” the Fed was demanding on the credit, under the Freedom of Information Act. When the Fed denied the request, Bloomberg filed suit.
In a ruling Monday, federal judge Loretta Preska agreed with Bloomberg and said the Fed should release the names of the participants in its innovative credit programs. Preska also ordered the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to search its files for relevant information.
The regional Fed banks consider themselves private corporations not subject to the FOIA law.
The Fed has consistently argued that releasing the bank’s names might harm the institutions. In her 47-page ruling, Preska said that the information couldn’t be withheld simply because it might be negative.
The next step in the case is whether the Fed decides to appeal.
A spokesman for the central bank would say only that the ruling was under review.
Greg Robb is a senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.
Abby in CA, on August 25, 2009 at 2:49 am said:

Under the microscope
Mortgage Solutions | 24 Aug 2009 | 09:00

Craig Alexander

New methods are being developed which could improve the transparency of RMBS and coax the securitisation market back to life, says Craig Alexander
ADVERTISEMENT
In the UK mortgage market, we have felt all too keenly the effects of the recent turmoil in global markets, which have caused a massive failure in confidence in the market for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs), making these once liquid assets illiquid, to the extent of causing a clot – albeit temporarily.

To give some background to the scale of the market, in Q1 2009 there were €604.8 billion worth of outstanding securitisations where the country of collateral was the UK. To put that into perspective, that represents €101 for every man, woman and child on the planet.

The problem with RMBS in the UK is not nearly as severe as that in the US, where unregulated predatory mortgage lending ran rife in the years preceding the credit crunch, and arrears and repossession levels are far higher as a result. Nevertheless, the RMBS market has been tainted globally, and the question now is what can be done to improve the confidence of investors in these markets?

Ratings agencies will continue to play a vital role in the valuation of securitisations, despite being accused of failing to correctly assess the risk profile of RMBS in the past. It could be said that this generates a stalemate: the ratings agencies will not accept their part in the mess; the investors will not trust the ratings given. So the clot remains and no mount of chest-beating will remove it.

There are moves afoot within the industry to offer more transparency to all parties in the chain, both from the European Securitisation Forum and from smaller organisations created specifically for this process. Many have suggested root and- branch reform of the entire process – from origination, through issuance and trading via redemption to eventual maturity. But not only would such action require levels of coordination that would be almost impossible in the global markets that we operate in, but it would also be unnecessary.

The way forward is for mortgage originators and issuers to take the lead in introducing transparency and understanding. They must open their books to give investors and the wider market community sufficient knowledge of the content of the bonds and importantly their underlying assets. The ratings agencies must then disclose in detail the methods they use for rating each bond.

Research is currently underway to produce not only the first model based on European Securitisation Forum standard data but also proprietary technology to provide better data or every member of the value chain.

The new methods being developed now are predicated on the ratings agencies continuing to play a part in the rating and initial valuation of RMBS.

What changes is that the part played by ratings agencies becomes passive, rather than active. Enhanced data production and management provided by an independent analytics organisation forms the larger part, enabling investors and others in the value chain to operate more active management of their investment.

By providing a cuboid picture of the risk represented by each asset – both stressed, shocked and unstressed – investors can understand in more depth the content of their investment and more intelligently trade the various tranches of the security.

Furthermore, using the technologies currently under research, methods are being developed that will enable areas of like-risk to be calculated in a more verifiable and scientific way. And in a bid for greater transparency, the implementation of these tests with members of the value-chain will be entirely open-book.

‘Open book’ means that each and every element of the model development and validation process will be open to observation by members of the value chain and that as part of the delivery mechanism the analytics organisation will ensure the client can replicate the process before signing off on delivery.

This represents a step-change in the methods deployed in the past: no organisation has proposed being as open as this before, typically protecting “intellectual property” under the veil of proprietary technology.

Whether greater transparency and understanding of RMBS and their underlying assets will be enough to stimulate investor interest and herald a return of securitisation as a means of mortgage funding remains to be seen. However, a scientific approach to cutting through the smoke and mirrors that characterised the former market has to be a step in the right direction.

Craig Alexander is a consultant at Menelaus Consulting

Categories: Industry Tags: Economics
Marcus, on August 24, 2009 at 5:36 pm said:

If PMI is contacting you, that probably means that your loan is about to be charged off and the “holder” is trying to cash in on the mortgage insurance. PMI is trying to avoid paying by working with you to bring the loan current. They are considered debt collectors. Send them a debt validation letter.
Be careful what you wish for. Once the loan is modified you may not be able to come with the same defenses again. They will make sure their dots are in order.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on August 24, 2009 at 4:24 pm said:

SB–then go for it!! Try…ask lots of questions.
I finally did read something about PMI insurance shifting gears and doing loan mods!!!

I’d sure talk to them asap!!
Kalona S B, on August 24, 2009 at 2:26 pm said:

Abby

They claim because they are the insurance for my home they do not charge anything to work with CHASE and get the home remod. Hmmmm?

I tried working directly with JPMorgan but they won’t talk to me because although my attorney won’t do anything, the fact is until the judge releases him, on record I have an attorney. Problem is he has no pulse and lacks any legal quality to even have a license. Oh well.
Abby in CA, on August 24, 2009 at 2:02 pm said:

SB
I am having trouble finding out anything about them on the web. See below.

Next, have you tried to contact and work with your lender on the mod? That may be better than another party. The other party may charge you money for their service. Not sure what this PMI Mortgage would do.

Work with your lender first.

Read all you can on LL about mods.

Otherwise:
I’d call this HUD office and verify they are legit to do mods…PMI Mortgage

Kansas City Regional Office
400 State Avenue
Room 200
Kansas City, KS 66101-2406

Phone: (913) 551-5644
Email: Customer Service
Fax: (913) 551-5469
TTY: (913) 551-6972

Jurisdiction: State of Kansas and Western half of Missouri

Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday

NEXT call the Better Business Bureau–
BBB of Greater Kansas City
8080 Ward Parkway, Suite 401
Kansas City, MO 64114

Phone 816-421-7800
Fax 816-472-5442

Office Hours
Monday-Friday 8:30AM to 4:30PM
(Inquiry Lines Open Monday-Friday 9AM to 4PM)
Kalona S B, on August 24, 2009 at 1:36 pm said:

Abby

Would u by any chance be able to share awareness info re PMI? I have a letter from PMI saying they may be willing to help me remodify my loan. How does this stuff work? Is there some tips on how to be careful and what to look out for?
They are called PMI Mortgage Services Co. Home prevention program from Overland Park KS

Thanks Mahalo
Abby in CA, on August 24, 2009 at 1:36 pm said:

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2009/08/a-complaint-by-any-other-name%e2%80%a6/

Mandelman Matters— A VERY EYE OPENING READ–BUT WHAT WE KNEW ALL ALONG!!
Abby in CA, on August 24, 2009 at 11:54 am said:

Deja Vu: Investment Banks Recycling Mortgages
by The Associated Press

text sizeAAAAugust 24, 2009
Wall Street may have discovered a way out from under the bad debt and risky mortgages that have clogged the financial markets. The would-be solution probably sounds familiar: It’s a lot like what got banks in trouble in the first place.

In recent months investment banks have been repackaging old mortgage securities and offering to sell them as new products, a plan that’s nearly identical to the complicated investment packages at the heart of the market’s collapse.

“There is a little bit of deja vu in this,” said Arizona State University economics professor Herbert Kaufman.

But Kaufman said the strategy could help solve one of the lingering problems of the financial meltdown: What to do about hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages that are still choking the system and making bankers reluctant to make new loans.

These are holdovers from the housing bubble, when home prices soared, banks bought risky mortgages, bundled them with solid mortgages and sold them all as top-rated bonds. With investors eager to buy these bonds, lenders came up with increasingly risky mortgages, sometimes for people who could not afford them. It didn’t matter because, in the end, the bonds would all get AAA ratings.

When the housing market tanked, figuring out how much those bonds were worth became nearly impossible. The banks and insurance companies that owned them knew there were still some good mortgages, so they don’t want to sell everything at fire-sale prices. But buyers knew there were many worthless loans, too, so they didn’t want to pay full price for the remnants of a real estate bubble.

In recent months, banks have been tiptoeing toward a possible solution, one in which the really good bonds get bundled with some not-quite-so-good bonds. Banks sweeten the deal for investors and, voila, the newly repackaged bonds receive AAA ratings, a stamp of approval that means they’re the safest investment you can buy.

“You’ve now taken what was an A-rated security and made it eligible for AAA treatment,” said Richard Reilly, a partner with White & Case in New York.

As for the bottom-of-the-barrel bonds that are left over, those are getting sold off for pennies on the dollar to investors and hedge funds willing to take big risk for the chance of a big reward.

Kaufman said he’s optimistic about the recent string of deals because, unlike during the real estate boom, investors in these new bonds know what they’re buying.

“We’re back to financial engineering, absolutely,” he said. “But I think it’s being done at least differently than it was before the meltdown.”

The sweetener at the heart of the deal is a guarantee: Investors who buy into the really risky pool agree to also take some of the risk away from those who buy into the safer pool. The safe investors get paid first. The risk-taking investors lose money first.

That’s how the safe stack of bonds gets it AAA rating, which is crucial to the deal. That rating lets banks sell to pension funds, insurance companies and other investors that are required to hold only top-rated investments.

“There’s no voodoo going on here. It’s just math,” said Sue Allon, chief executive of Allonhill, which helps investors analyze such hard-to-price investments.

Financial gurus call it a “resecuritization of real estate mortgage investment conduits.” On Wall Street, it goes by the acronym Re-Remic (it rhymes with epidemic).

“It actually makes a lot of fundamental sense,” said Brian Bowes, the head of mortgage trading at Hexagon Securities in New York. “It’s taking a bond that doesn’t necessarily have a natural buyer and creating two bonds that might have a natural buyer for each.”

The risk is, if the housing market slips even more, even the AAA-rated investments may not prove safe. The deal also relies on the rating agencies, which misread the risk at the heart of the subprime mortgage crisis, to get it right.

And then there’s the uncertainty about the value of the underlying investments, which FBR Capital Markets analyst Gabe Poggi called “totally combustible.” Poggi likes the deals because they appear to have breathed some life into the market, but he said it only works if everyone knows exactly what they’re buying.

The Obama administration is also working on a plan to get banks buying and selling risky bonds. But the public-private partnership announced this spring is still in the works and has yet to help investors figure out what those bonds are worth. By creating Re-Remics, banks can help start the process themselves.

The concept has been around for years, but it has become increasingly popular lately as a way for banks to sell off bonds backed by commercial properties such as malls and office buildings. Analysts say they’ve seen a few dozen deals aimed at repackaging debt held over from the mortgage boom. Investment banks have also dabbled in turning collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, into Re-Remics.

That’s where Allon gets nervous.

“I think that’s trouble,” she said.

CDOs are already complicated. Repackaging them makes it harder to figure out what the investment is worth. The more obscure the concept, she said, the more likely the deal has gotten too creative.

Wall Street has a tendency to push the boundaries of good ideas, Bowes said. But he said banks are still smarting from the market implosion and are unlikely to rush into new, risky ventures.

“A lot of the market innovations, they all started out with this fundamentally good concept and they often tend to deteriorate over time, or just evolve into more and more risky versions of the same concept,” Bowes said. “This time around, the likelihood is, it will take a lot longer for that to happen.”
Joe, on August 24, 2009 at 10:49 am said:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/real_estate/20090823_On_the_House__New_tactic_to_forestall_foreclosure.html

On the House: New tactic to forestall foreclosure
By Al Heavens

Inquirer Real Estate Columnist

One way to avert foreclosure is through loan modification, an interest-rate cut that makes a mortgage more affordable for the borrower.

Sounds easier than it is.

Wilma Ervin of Delaware County filled out a ton of paperwork, waited four months, and was denied a loan modification. She was told to try again, using recent financial data. She is.

Krystyna Buonchristiano of the Northeast was approved, then denied. Now, she’s been told she’s approved again.

Nicholas Illich of Mayfair was denied because his income was too high, then rejected again because it was too low. He’s in limbo.

The government is trying to inject sanity into this process, offering carrots to mortgage servicers, who handle 81 percent of U.S. home loans.

But one problem is that loans often are bundled as securities and bought by investors, meaning that a single mortgage may be owned by several people or institutions.

Loan servicers say the permission of every investor in a mortgage must be sought before it can be modified, because the return on the investment could be altered.

That argument has been turned on lenders lately – foreclosures challenged via demands that servicers identify the investors in question.

Last month, an Atlantic County judge dismissed a foreclosure action by Deutsche Bank AG because the lender declined to identify the owner of the promissory note.

Vincent G. Tecchio of Red Bank followed this ruling, and rulings in other states, with great interest. In the late 1990s, Tecchio, a chiropractor, was disabled and could not practice. He lost his house in 2000.

“I hooked up with some people who suggested that for a better understanding of the process, I needed to spend time in a law library.”

Which he did. What Tecchio concluded is that a mortgage simply secures the promissory note, which is owned not by the servicer, but by the investors.

Meaning, Tecchio says, that unless the servicer produces the promissory note in court, the servicer has no legal standing.

“We are guaranteed the right to face our accuser in court,” Tecchio said. “If the accuser is not there, then foreclosure cannot proceed.” Using this argument, Tecchio tried in 2005 to have his foreclosure order vacated. The judge refused.

In states with judicial foreclosure processes, “this has become a pretty popular tactic for foreclosure-prevention attorneys, and not without some merit,” said RealtyTrac Inc. chief economist Rick Sharga.

Chain-of-ownership documentation often lags and sometimes is full of errors and omissions, making it unclear who has what rights, Sharga said.

Demanding proof of ownership – and, therefore, the legal standing needed to file a foreclosure claim – may slow the process for a while and in a few cases stop it.

However, the tactic also has led lawyers representing lenders to do far more due diligence, Sharga said. So “if the question is whether identifying the investor will somehow embarrass or shame the investor into not foreclosing,” he said, “the answer is, ‘Not a chance.’ “
Kevin C., on August 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm said:

Aloha Kalona,

I live on the big island and am fighting. I do have an attorney over here who gets it. shoot me email with your number I can call you to discuss. If your sales date is more then 30 days away it would be much better. However if closer then 30 days still have good chance to get it stopped. my email is kcollma@hotmaildotcom
Abby in CA, on August 23, 2009 at 3:21 pm said:

SB

AGAIN–not giving legal advice. see an attorney.

A Chpt 13 bkr would allow you to make payments on a plan……and perhaps you can file an adversary complaint in that court against JP Morgan Chase (they bought WAMU). I’m fairly sure your papers were provided to Chase.

And perhaps the bkr judge/trustee could force a mod on JP Morgan Chase.

You need to discuss with BKR attorney.
Kalona S B, on August 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm said:

Thanks Abby

Haven’t gone the Bankrupt way yet. Wanted to try and fight it first. Most of my bills are paid down.

I was the one of the million that got the scam where there was no truth in lending and lies among lies had my head spinning. Almost all the companies passed my loan around like a poison bomb. Shortly after one by one they went bankrupt. GMAC won a MSJ against me for attorney fees and cost…Would have been nice to see that BS. They are trying to get 48 k. UNLESS I can prove they had no right to foreclose in the first place! Cost me 10k to stop the foreclosure because in Hawaii they don’t have to give u warning or a court date to start foreclosure.

Last WAMU had it and claimed they turned it over to FDIC. FDIC says they THINK JPMorgan has it. Contacted JPMorgan who won’t talk to me because I have an attorney. The jusge won’t talk to me because I have an attorney and the FDIC won’t talk to me either.

I don’t know how much damage has been done. But my guess is at this point it’s unreal amounts of money and my home. I just got a letter from some PMI telling me my house is listed as worth many more thousand then it is. They want that money too.

Like I said don’t know who the scammers are anymore. I lost too much trust which makes it hard to even know is there a real place or person out there that can really help.
don’t know what else to say for now.
Abby in CA, on August 23, 2009 at 2:37 pm said:

SB-cannot remember your situaion.
I’m not giving legal advice.

Have you considered filing a bankruptcy?

For a chapter 7 the attorney’s fees are not too bad.

or pro se can do it….I previously provided the BKR website for Hawaii. They usually post a booklet for pro se filing of BKR.

That would put a stay on foreclosure-immediate—but will only last a few more months…maybe you could continue to seek an attorney.

Any attorneys want to give advice what else SB could file?
Kalona S B, on August 23, 2009 at 2:22 pm said:

been to legal aid, been to plenty so called fed programs. Played the game and made some payments NONE of which went to the mortgage, just to the collecter. Lots of lies. To the point I don’t believe anyone saying what they mean or meaning what they say. It’s all about the $$$$
Kalona S B, on August 23, 2009 at 2:19 pm said:

I have 10 days left to go to court and be on my own. My attorney the punk will be resigning. No biggies he has done plenty harm and nothing at all after. No doubt the judge will accept his removal and I already sent the letter in to have him removed because I am getting nothing from him/

I went as far as the Board of Conveyance. Got ALL the papers. 100 worth. What do I do when I get in there?
What do I ask the judge? How should I apply for a stay? A longer time to do the research? Not sure what or how to present what.

Any one have a step by step suggestions? I am so crazy scared I’m near numb. Hawaii hasn’t hada single win for fow home owners that I know of. I have no where to go and the only plans I have is really none. I paid off my car and it may be where I sleep in it. Trying to make sure I have as much set up with that as I can. I have a place I can shower and change clothes which is good. I don’t want to bruden my friends and live with anyone knowing how I feel. Don’t want to be anyones downer.

Any help would be great. Please tell me what to do next.
MAHALO
Almost Pau in Hawaii….just another number.
Abby in CA, on August 23, 2009 at 1:29 pm said:

Dear Angry & NTI

there was another post a few days ago about a program called RECAP (reverse of PACER).

You first have to download Mozilla Firefox then download RECAP.

In the Mozilla browser then login to PACER and you can…..go find that other post!!

FREE
angry&not taking it, on August 23, 2009 at 12:44 pm said:

re; recap plug-in
seems i got charged $2.00 for docs i never saw or never accessed through pacer… hahaha yea go figure…
you get nothing free from or through our gov unless your ripping others off!
Kalona S B, on August 23, 2009 at 12:14 am said:

Great job Abby!!!!!!!
Expose them all! I hope Bryan follows through with this.

I had a tough time getting to sign on tonight to tell u MAHALO. Was thinking maybe the feds closed the site down. I have become non trusting at all. Just seen so much corruption I am almost too numb to respond at times.
Abby in CA, on August 22, 2009 at 10:07 am said:

Bryan-go to the top

Shaun Donovan-Secretary of HUD in DC

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455
Abby in CA, on August 22, 2009 at 9:58 am said:

Bryan

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm?&webListAction=search&searchstate=AZ

Here is a good list of all HUD approved counseling agencies and a description of what each does.
For AZ
Abby in CA, on August 22, 2009 at 9:51 am said:

Bryan
That Genesis is ONLY an approved counseling agency by HUD. It is a non-profit 501(c)(3)

Here is HUD website.

I’d complain to HUD and fax them the letters.

http://www.hud.gov/

The website for Genesis is pathetic–almost un-professional.

Keep pushing Bryan. Don’t give up.
Bryan, on August 21, 2009 at 10:11 pm said:

Okay, You guys will not believe this at all. I was upset because Genesis “in Fact” arbitrially said they can’t help me. The referreal they gave me was “in Fact” for a non refundable $300.00 gain in a one hour consultation fee. I sent Genesis a letter after they pre-judged me and did not even wait for me to send in my application before they denied me. First you will read my letter, and then you will read Genesis response to my letter…

My letter:
To Whom At Genesis ~

Thanks for the referral, but instead of aiding an attorney to gain a $300.00 consultation fee (which is what your referral is asking) and to only tell me they can’t help me, why can’t you find someone who can help me pro bono? I do qualify for your services but you chose not to help me.

I have spent thousands of dollars in Arizona’s consultation fees only to hear the answer “Sorry we can’t help you,” you need a real estate attorney. When I call the real estate attorney they say I need a construction attorney, when I call a construction attorney they say I need a commercial litigator. Frankly, I don’t think anyone in Arizona is qualified to help me because all of you pass the buck. The attorney general’s office, and all of its affiliates have sent me to Southern Arizona Legal Aid who only helps Mexicans. Their web site says they help with predatory lending, fraud and foreclosure. I was the only white person in the office and I got less than 3 minutes time. Every Mexican before me got at least 45 minutes.

I am also confused, because another victim who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona has basically the same situation as me. Same bank same fraudulent documents, same threats of illegal foreclosure, and she was referred to an attorney. She talked to her attorney about my situation which again, is almost the same as hers, that attorney called me, and said for me to get in touch with your program and have you refer me to him.

Now, you are telling me, it is okay to refer others with similar to exact situations as me, but arbitrially pick me out of the crowd. Your letter to me has proven you are no different than Southern Arizona Legal Aid and all of the Governmental Agency’s and State Actors in Arizona, including congresswoman gabriel giffard’s office, all in which have denied me and deprived me of Due Process. SHAME ON YOU.

Genesis response to my letter:

Sir,

Your anger is inappropriate and misdirected. It further seems that your anger is generated from the fact that we cannot help you, you are not getting what you want. I have been forth right and candid, not leading you on, of which is what you need. Yet, you are not getting what you want, therefore you get angry. Yet you want “free” help. This is your problem not ours and we hope the best for you in your search for help. With your current attitude and approach you may find it difficult that anyone will want to help you whether you pay them or not. No one is required or has to work with you and by your words below I can see why. Maybe if you check your attitude at the door you will get the help you need.

No further communication is need as it will only waste your time as well as ours.

Thank you,
Tim Hensley

Genesis Housing Services

Executive Director
480.306.5161

I have been nice to everyone for three years and only got screwed. The way I truely feel is “HOW DARE GENESIS SEND ME FALSE HOPE WITH THE IDEA THAT OUR GOVERMENT PAID THEM TO HELP ME, AND BEFORE I SEND IN MY APPLICATION THEY DENY ME. I Have every right to be angry.

Believe it or not.., I get worse letters when I am nice. This letter from Genesis is mild, compare to some responses.

One of the several times I went to our Arizona Attorney General’s Office, I actually got yelled at. She also said it’s my problem not theirs…Then she simply walked away, ignoring me.

It’s also painful and embarrassing, to go to Southern Arizona Legal Aid and the minute you say the words Predatory Lending they escort you out and through the back door.

It did not bother me to send my letter to Genesis because they already chose not to help me before I even filled out the application that I never sent in. Therefore Genesis’s response doesn’t bother me either… It just supports the fact that Arizona lacks concern for anyone but themselves. And it supports the fact that Genesis was aiding the attorney to gain $300.00 for a false consultation gain.

And if you rememeber recently, I went to an attorney who kept my files for three weeks, she sent me a bill for $250.00 within four days of my consultation…even though, it was never even mentioned. She sent me a letter saying she doesn’t have time to help me, but still wants her $250.00.

OMG –

Good Luck everyone. I do wish you all the best…
Kalona S B, on August 21, 2009 at 8:20 pm said:

Byran

I am so very sorry u have had to go through so much undeserved BS! I wish so much I had some answers that would work.

I know u have given incredible effort to beating this scam and a system that refuses to give u even reasonable assitance.

Have u ever tried to go to ur local media? I know it’s a real long shot. But it may be worth the calls. It only takes one right person to hear ur story. Sometimes the media may be the only chance of a voice and a chance to get some answers. I know it’s a real long shot but maybe worth the effort. The worse may be ur right where ur at.

My end comes in Sept. At this point I am not making any appointments for future stuff because I just don’t know what will be left. I got a letter from PMI today telling me JPMorgan is claiming my home and that I owe blah blah. It’s exhausting. At the moment I feel like I am in a no win. I’m sure u must be feeling the same way. So sorry about that.

I wish I had a clue what to say to shed even the slightest hope. I still hope u find a way to win!
Alina, on August 21, 2009 at 7:56 am said:

RECAP

I received this email this morning regarding RECAP:

NOTICE FOR CM/ECF FILERS

The court would like to make CM/ECF filers aware of certain security concerns relating to a software application or “plug-in” called RECAP, which was designed by a group from Princeton University to enable the sharing of court documents on the Internet. Once a user loads RECAP, documents that he or she subsequently accesses via PACER are automatically sent to a public Internet repository. Other RECAP/PACER users are then able to see whether documents are available from the Internet repository. RECAP captures District and Bankruptcy Court documents, but has not yet incorporated Appellate Court functionality. At this time, RECAP does not appear to provide users with access to restricted or sealed documents. Please be aware that RECAP is “open-source” software, which can be freely obtained by anyone with Internet access and modified for benign or malicious purposes, such as facilitating unauthorized access to restricted or sealed documents. Accordingly, CM/ECF filers are reminded to be diligent about their computer security practices to ensure that documents are not inadvertently shared or compromised.

The court and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will continue to analyze the implications of RECAP or related-software and advise you of any ongoing or further concerns.

NOTICE FOR PACER FEE-EXEMPT USERS

The court would like to remind fee-exempt PACER users of the terms of the exemption and of potential issues associated with a new software application called RECAP. It was designed by a group from Princeton University to enable the sharing of court documents on the Internet. Once a user loads RECAP, documents that he or she subsequently accesses via PACER are automatically sent to a public Internet repository. Other RECAP/PACER users are then able to see whether documents are available from the Internet repository.

A fee exemption applies only for limited purposes. Any transfer of data obtained as the result of a fee exemption is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the court. Therefore, fee exempt PACER users must refrain from the use of RECAP.

The prohibition on transfer of information received without fee is not intended to bar a quote or reference to information received as a result of a fee exemption in a scholarly or other similar work.
GrammyG, on August 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm said:

Bryan,
I just wanted to let you know that I truly understand where your coming from. I have been posting here for the past year plus.
So many things that you say, we have been thru also. We’re in the end ,screwed, blued and tattooed. I’m closing for the day and would share more but it’s late and I’m tired and we go to court on 09/01 and will be told to leave our home. Just don’t know how long we have in which to move but, I have been down the same road as you. It’s the $5000.00 that we gave an attorney that’s killing me. There is no one you can trust…No One.
Bryan, on August 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm said:

Okay,

Regarding me.

After 3 full years of trying to find help. I keep getting sent to these three companies. And each time, I am referred back to these companies I get rejected without even getting to say anything. These jerks all reject me without even hearing a part of my situation.

Even the e-mail Neil Garfield sent me telling me to contact a group he referred has never responded to me, either.

ACORN AND GENESIS sucks.
They won’t help or talk to me at all.

Southern Arizona Legal Aid sucks.
They won’t help me or talk to me at all.

Without even filling out or submitting the forms, that Genesis sent to me, yesterday, I received this from Genesis today…This is his letter to me.

“Mr. Ramsey,

After review of your questions and situation it is evident that you need a real estate attorney to help you. Here is an attorney that you may want to call, Bill Kozub at 480-624-2777. From your information, the referral attorney we have does not appear suitable for your situation, therefore, we are unable to make the referral from us to him.

Thank you,Tim Hensley

Genesis Housing Services

Executive Director

480.306.5161

Now, for those of you who keep up with me, if you rememeber, there is another reader in here from Arizona with the exact situation as me…She got refferred to an attorney (pro Bono). She even helped me so that I would also. And her attorney called me and told me he would help me but Genesis must referr me to him first.

Today, may have broke me emotionally into giving up.

After 3 years of trying to find help, I think I’m done.

Sitting at the attorney general’s office next to a man who filed a complaint against his neighbor for taking his mail out of his mail box. This man got all the attention in the world. I was denied even a conversation with anyone in the office. The man and I followed each other to Southern Arizona Legal Aid. He got a 45 minute interview, and they took his case Pro Bono. I got 3 minutes of an interview, and then kicked out. The bank fraudulently gave out my loan money, I am not at default, I never got a house built, and they are foreclosing on me. And someone who had his mail taken one time, gets help from everyone.

As I mentioned before, Which Neil Garfield never answered my ONE question, what kind of an attorney do I need? Today, I am told (as you read above) I need a real estate attorney. But when I call them, they say I need a construction attorney, then they say I need a commerical litigating attorney.

This cirlce has made me dizzy. After three years of trying to get help — I now have only three weeks left before they auction off my property… illegally.

I want to say thanks to all of you who did help me with advise… I wished it would have worked.

tc and good luck
Joe, on August 20, 2009 at 9:17 am said:

Aug 20 2009, 10:39 am by Daniel Indiviglio

Countrywide’s Court Loss Complicates Mortgage Modifications
There have been numerous reports about how poorly the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program has been doing. I’ve written a few posts about servicers having trouble cooperating or not wanting to. Another enormous wrench has just been thrown into its gears: now even when banks want to make modifications they might not be able to. A federal court has ruled this week that Countrywide, formerly the largest mortgage company but now owned by Bank of America, cannot hide behind the foreclose prevention legislation if mortgage-backed securities (MBS) investors try to prevent the modification. This is pretty significant news, since so many troubled mortgages are part of MBS.

By now most readers probably know what MBS are. After all, President Bush explained them during a prime time press conference last fall. Many of the currently underwater mortgages were packaged as securities and purchased by investors. Generally, the legal documents associated with those securities do not allow banks to alter the terms of the mortgages without the consent of the investors’ who hold the MBS. Countrywide thought that this year’s foreclosure prevention legislation allowed them to modify mortgages anyway despite what investors might think. The recent court ruling indicates otherwise.

Here’s some detail about the ruling, via Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times:

Bank of America, which took over servicing of the investors’ loans when it bought Countrywide in 2008, is defending the case. It argued that the matter belonged in federal court and that any contractual obligations to repurchase modified loans were trumped by the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Under that law, servicing companies that agree to modify loans receive some protection from liability arising from the loan changes.

Judge Holwell ruled that the immunity granted under the legislation did not prevent Countrywide’s investors from trying to enforce their rights under the mortgage securities contracts. The investors must prove that Countrywide’s pooling and servicing agreement covering their loans does indeed require it to repurchase mortgages the bank modifies, the judge said, ruling that the case belongs in state court.

Shirley Norton, a spokeswoman for Bank of America, said it was reviewing the order and considering its options. “The court did not rule that the safe harbor is inapplicable,” Ms. Norton said, merely that it did not fall under federal jurisdiction.

That may be true, but it certainly looks like a win for investors. They also like their chances:

“This is a first step in a decision by a federal judge that says even after the servicers’ safe harbor was enacted and even after all the wrangling in Congress, we are still going to allow people to enforce their contract rights when it is appropriate,” said Owen L. Cyrulnik, counsel at Grais & Ellsworth in New York, which is representing investors in the suit against Countrywide.
Investors sued Countrywide because they did not want to be forced to take losses associated with drastically reducing interest rates or principal on these mortgages to avoid foreclosures. Some might argue that these modifications would have made investors better off, as massive foreclosures in this real estate market might produce greater losses than modification efforts. Investors must have disagreed, however.

Given the vast number of mortgages that are part of MBS, this ruling may fatally wound Washington’s hopes for preventing millions of foreclosures if it stands.
Marcus, on August 19, 2009 at 7:17 pm said:

Rules for tenants in foreclosed homes

WASHINGTON – Aug. 19, 2009 – On May 20, 2009, the “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009,” P.L. 111-22, was signed into law. Title VII of the law, the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act,” included provisions to protect to tenants faced with eviction if their rented property goes through foreclosure. The provisions took effect May 20, 2009, and expire on Dec. 30, 2012.

The tenant protection provisions apply for any foreclosure on a “federally-related mortgage loan,” or on any dwelling or residential real property. Under the provisions, “any immediate successor in interest” in a foreclosed property – including a bank that takes title to a house after foreclosure – assumes it subject to the rights of any bona fide tenant and certain notice requirements.

Under this law, tenants must receive notice at least 90 days before eviction. Additionally, tenants must be able to stay in the residence until the end of their lease, with two exceptions: (1) where the property is sold after foreclosure to a purchaser who will occupy the property as their primary residence, and, (2) where there is no lease (or where the lease is terminable at will under state law). However, even when these exceptions apply, tenants must still receive 90 days’ notice before they may be evicted.

The legal protections apply only to “bona fide” tenants – meaning that the lessee is not the mortgagor or a child, spouse or parent of the mortgagor; the lease is the product of an arm’s-length transaction; and the rent is not substantially less than fair market rent (unless a government subsidy). Also, it does not affect the termination requirements of any federal- or state-subsidized tenancy, or of any stricter state law that provides longer notice requirements or other additional tenant protections.

The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) advised national banks to adopt policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the new tenant protection provisions; and it will evaluate bank compliance.
Abby in CA, on August 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm said:

WOMAN’s House Auctioned Mistakenly by WAMU–evicted—-

This is one case in Miami–it was the mistake on the part of the clerk!!

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Womans-House-Mistakenly-Auctioned-by-Bank-53583357.html

I’ve just heard of another similar situation in California, but do not know if it was the result of a clerk’s mistake.
GrammyG, on August 19, 2009 at 9:32 am said:

This is for Michael Allison.
Are you a client of Tim’s as I am? Would like to talk to you regarding him. This is my personal email maryfran50@yah..com.
Alina, on August 19, 2009 at 9:28 am said:

usedkarguy,

My recent invoice states that SPS incurred over $4k in legal expenses last month. But then they are defending a federal suit

need to request their itemized attorney fees!!!
usedkarguy, on August 19, 2009 at 8:32 am said:

I have received a statement that Plaintiffs’ (HSBC/Wells Fargo) legal expenses are over $23,000 thus far. All because some pro-se litigant decided to stand up and fight! We are 6 months into this since the filing of foreclosure in February 09. I don’t know if they are bilking their customer or working really, really hard.
Abby in CA, on August 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm said:

Marcus–thank you thank you on that Firefox tip for PACER. This is great!!
A Better Life Soon, on August 16, 2009 at 12:46 pm said:

Help! We just had our house stolen from us while my husband was on vacation (separated). Locks changed, furniture moved out, and a for sale sign out from. No recent Notice of Sale or anything. I need a lawyer quick. We were behind on our payment and had litigation (pro se) on File with the San Bernardino Court House with a court date set for January. We have proof that we properly served everyone (except Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac), but to our dismay Home Federal Loan now owns our house for $45K– our loan was for $199K. They auctioned it off on July 24th without sending us any notice or we would have responded. The realtor said there are muliple offers. She said the lawyers reviewed the case and said the house is now theirs. We just want to move back in. We were doing what we could Pro Se, but now we need a lawyer as the home may be sold to someone else. I have a home my husband can stay in, but he we are separated and he needs another place to stay. He’s tempted to just change the locks back, but is afraid he may get arrested. Anywone know a very affordable attorney. We were working with Hope Now and everything — this is a complete shock.
Marcus, on August 16, 2009 at 10:32 am said:

Firefox Plug-In Frees Court Records, Threatens Judiciary Profits
• By Ryan Singel
• August 14, 2009 |
• 2:07 pm

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/firefox-plug-in-frees-court-records-threatens-judiciary-profits

Access to the nation’s federal law proceedings just got a public interest
hack, thanks to programmers from Princeton, Harvard and the Internet Archive,
who released a Firefox plug-in designed to make millions of pages of legal
documents free.

Free as in beer and free as in speech.

The Problem: Federal courts use an archaic, document-tracking system known as
PACER as their official repository for complaints, court motions, case
scheduling and decisions. The system design resembles a DMV computer system,
circa 1988 — and lacks even the most basic functionality, such as
notifications when a case gets a new filing. But what’s worse is that PACER
charges 8 cents per page (capped at $2.40 per doc) and even charges for
searches an embarrassing limitation on public access to information,
especially when the documents are copyright-free.

The Solution: RECAP, a Firefox-only plugin, that rides along as one usually
uses PACER — but it automatically checks if the document you want is already
in its own database. The plug-in’s tagline, `Turning PACER around,’ alludes
to the fact that its name comes from spelling PACER backwards. RECAP’s
database is being seeded with millions of bankruptcy and Federal District
Court documents, which have been donated, bought or gotten for free by
open-government advocate Carl Malamud and fellow travelers such as Justia.
And if the document you request isn’t already in the public archive, then
RECAP adds the ones you purchase to the public repository.

The plug-in was released by Princeton’s Center for Information Technology
Policy, coded by Harlan Yu and Tim Lee, under the direction of noted computer
science professor Ed Felten.

That’s a pretty good hack, but it’s still just a stop-gap measure until the
federal courts figure out that in the age of the internet, charging citizens
to search and read public documents should be a federal crime.
Using it should not cause journalists, lawyers or law students (PACER’s main
customers) any legal trouble. After all, court documents are never
copyrightable.

But you never know how the justice system might react. Last fall, the federal
court system shut down a pilot program that offered free PACER access at a
few libraries around the country after it figured out that Malamud and hacker
Aaron Swartz took them at their word and started downloading court decisions
by the gigabyte.

That got Malamud 20 percent of the fed’s court filings and an interrogation by
FBI agents earlier this year.
Bryan, on August 15, 2009 at 6:05 pm said:

Hi everyone ~

Has anyone heard of Attorney Carl Pierson or seen his video about stopping foreclosure by filing a foreclosure against the bank? Here is this attorney’s phone number:

212-307-4444

Here is the link to his video on YouTube where he gives his phone number…

Next Subject:

The documents I have received for the hearings I am going to … say:

“The hearing will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of the Administrative Hearings.” Then it says I will be notified when and where.

I confirmed with two attorney’s and there is not any protection, and it is a court room with an audience, anyone welcomed. I will call first thing Monday morning and arrange for protection.

Next Subject:
I have contacted “all” media in the State of Arizona and they will only do my story after Victory. I even called 20/20, Dateline, Good Morning America, and Oprah etc…

None of the national broadcast have responded in the two years of attempts.

Back to first subject:

If that link does not work e-mail me and I will forward it to you.

drdance@dakotacom.net

In the subject line (when e-mailing me) type in “your friend” and I wil open the e-mail.
Kalona S B, on August 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm said:

Aloha Abby

OK that would make more sense. Mahalo. WOW Can’t believe he would have no security. So there is no judge and stuff where he goes for the legal battle of all this?

If there was a judge there I would expect them to provide security. I still think no matter environment he goes to he should let them know he fears for safety in WRITTING and WHY. That environment should then for everyones safety have security there. Even if they have to special hire. Because really NOT just Byran would be unsafe but anyone around him could be injured as well. This to me is PREVENTION in any environment that has such heated issues that have ort could be a safety issue not just to the person but others around them and the property.

Maybe Byran can get a TRO from the courts on this guy as well. Being he has proven to be a danger to him to the extend his attorney had to step in to try and stop any injury from happening.

There must be some laws there where he lives that would be in place. Assault in any state is illegal. Threat of assault is illegal.

Another thought I had which he may consider is contact the media. Tell his story and let them be there as well. It could help him a great deal in others getting the courage to come forward and it may be enough to get the other side to back off for fear of bad publicity and loss of any future bussiness.

I think from all we heard he has a very strong case. The kind that should be exposed at a very public level to draw out the others and force some corrective actions to take place.

Just my thoughts. Part of the problem on all these scams is that many feel so exhausted, embarassed, confused, to being there cases out into the open. But w/o awareness at the biggest possible levels, these scams are just increasing the numbers of victims. It’s not just the victims who pay for these scams.

Homelessness, and other consequences such as financial effects the entire community.

OK rant over for now. But thanks for pointing that out.
Aloha and have a great weekend!
Abby in CA, on August 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm said:

MERS-enter your info and track your home loan

https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/
Abby in CA, on August 15, 2009 at 12:22 pm said:

SB-aloha!
I think Bryan’s hearing with contractor is not in a regular court. I think it is some sort of contractor’s board, but I could be wrong.
angry&not taking it, on August 15, 2009 at 11:39 am said:

Bryan
great news.. keep up that fight…
do not fear this contractor.. i’ve been in construction my whole life.
being the smaller less feared has it advantages ..use them.
contractors that take the $ money & run are spineless dirt-bags. i already know them,their very much like dogs , dum & want to be feared through intimidation.
Bryan there are higher forces that are with you , those that try to harm you will discover these forces are your allies .
so if you have fear let fear be used to keep you alert.
GO GET EM!!!
Kalona S B, on August 14, 2009 at 9:18 pm said:

Byran

WOW That’s great news! I really believe ur chances are greatly increased that u will prevail! I’m so sorry for all u have gone through so undeserved!

But I think things will be looking ur way with this judgement in ur favor.

Being u are representing urself, I would suggest u write the judge a letter and explain ur genuine fear of safety with this contractor. I am really surprised the court has no Sheriff, Paliff or security of any nature. That’s really odd. Let the judge know! I can’t imagine the judge taking ur fear lightly especially when u explain ur logically reason for fear!

Please keep us informed.

Last month….the month of July 990 HOMES were foreclosed on in Hawaii. I was ill reading that article. Let’s hope Hawaii too will realize how massive these scams are to it’s citizens. I keep reading about the different places where judges are waking up to all this and I pray Hawaii will join in to stop this insanity before it’s too late for so many.

Thanks for the inspiration and the moment of hope!
msoliman, on August 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm said:

Read:

Typically either bank subsidiaries or independent companies — handle the day-to-day work with homeowners, ranging from collecting monthly payments to determining when to modify or foreclose. Problems with servicing often, but not always. , occur once homeowners start having trouble making payments.

MSOLIMAN – Again this is huge, really huge! If I tell you why you will discount it so try and read the above a few more times.

In my opinion you are assured to prevail if you can understand and have counsel articulate the above.

1) Find the answer yourself and read FASB FAS 140-3 criteria and GAAP procedures for booking a sale, or
2) Call an accountant and ask him or her for an opinion, or
3) Blow it off – go eat dinner or have a drink tonight

msoliman
msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com

Hint: Befriend MERS and embrace them. They can only strengthen your case as they do something only a bankruptcy judge has the capacity to otherwise accomplish.
Abby in CA, on August 14, 2009 at 3:02 pm said:

Bryan–hooray for you!!

If afraid of the contractor, why don’t you hire a ‘bodyguard’ for the day. I’m sure you know somebody who’d do it . Some great big fellow.

Also, you’d be better off showing up at an ACORN office, but I don’t know if you are far away from one. You have to really bug them. Not just one call or one email.

I hope and pray this all resolves in your favor.

Luck!!
Alina, on August 14, 2009 at 2:35 pm said:

Bryan,

A huge CONGRATS to you. Maybe this will give the contractor incentive to try and settle.
Bryan, on August 14, 2009 at 2:27 pm said:

ONE VICTORY FOR ME

Happy Tears…and snotty nose.

My good news is this:

The contractor that embezzled my construction loan money, also sued me for more money on items he was already paid for.

THE COURT AFTER THREE YEARS THREW OUT HIS LAWSUIT AGAINST ME….YES, YES, YES,

Now, I only have to stop the bank, from illegally foreclosing, and the Auction on September 9, 2009. And go to all the Registrar of Contractor hearings.

One large burden out of the way. The reason it was thrown out is because the contractor’s attorney stopped representing the crook after he discovered through my previous attorney’s all 3,000 plus crimes he commited against me. Now, we are both without an attorney.

Scary news: I still have to face the contractor at the hearings and they do not have bailiff’s or protection. It is an open court room with a judge and audience. At least I will have wittnesses if he beats me up…Chances 90%.

Update: ACORN has not returned my calls and has not replied to “any” of e-mails. I still do not have an attorney.

But today, the good news out weighs the bad.

Have a great day, everyone. Imagine a smiley face (here).
Abby in CA, on August 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm said:

BANKRUPTCY JUDGES & DOJ RIP MORTGAGE COMPANIES

by Karen Weise, ProPublica Aug. 12, 2009
“Systemic abuse.” “Extraordinary incompetence.” “Reckless.” In a growing body of legal cases, judges and the Justice Department are breaking from legal jargon to starkly chastise mortgage companies.
As mortgage delinquencies rise, more and more homeowners are learning the central role that mortgage servicers play in their lives. The legal cases show that role can be distressing. Judges have found that major mortgages servicers regularly mess up basic accounting, improperly credit payments and charge unwarranted fees. They’ve “not done a very good job of keeping the records,” said Judge Samuel Bufford of California.
Mortgage servicers — typically either bank subsidiaries or independent companies — handle the day-to-day work with homeowners, ranging from collecting monthly payments to determining when to modify or foreclose. Problems with servicing often, but not always, occur once homeowners start having trouble making payments.
Complaints to the government about mortgage servicers have soared in recent years. They’ve risen from 31 percent of the complaints that the Department of Housing and Urban Development received in 2006 to 78 percent in 2008, according to HUD spokesman Lemar Wooley.
Problems Exposed in Bankruptcies
Many homeowners in bankruptcy have legal representation and must settle claims with servicers. As a result, the process has revealed and documented a slew of servicer problems.
In many rulings, judges have shown frustration and even outrage. They’ve ruled that servicers have attempted to collect unjustified fees, charged homeowners for unnecessary insurance, failed to properly credit homeowners’ payments and failed to provide evidence to back up fee requests. In most cases, judges demand that servicers fix the problems and unwind the unjustified fees; sometimes, judges award damages and attorneys’ fees. In one extraordinary case, a judge issued $750,000 in emotional and punitive damages. (We’ve compiled five sample cases and rulings for you to see here.)

Take the case of Donald and Phyllis Moffitt of Arkansas. In June 2008, bankruptcy Judge Audrey Evans issued a restraining order against America’s Servicing Company, a division of Wells Fargo, saying it must stop attempting to collect payments that the Moffitts did not owe. In a 41-page ruling (PDF), the judge wrote:
“The evidence supports the premise that ASC’s servicing procedures, as exemplified by the Moffitts’ account, are not organized to assure accuracy and accountability. … ASC misapplied these payments, failed to record the correct information even though Mrs. Moffitt constantly called and talked to ASC’s agents, failed to follow her written instructions, failed to communicate with the Moffitts, sent mortgage statements that were incomprehensible and frightening, began collection calls, and engaged in a litany of mismanagement of the Moffitts’ loan.”
Wells Fargo did not respond to a call for comment.
A 2007 study looked at a majority of Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings in 2006 and found that in 70 percent of the cases studied, mortgage companies claimed homeowners owed an average of $6,309 more on their loans than homeowners believed.
Problems with servicing are not limited to families filing for bankruptcy, Katherine Porter, an author of the study and an associate professor at the University of Iowa’s law school, testified before Congress last year. She said servicers commonly foreclose when they do not have the legal right to do so, impose unwarranted or illegal fees, and miscalculate how much families owe.
In several instances, judges have taken broad action to address persistent problems with a servicer. This May, Judge Elizabeth Magner in Louisiana said her review of multiple cases involving Ocwen Loan Servicing had shown the servicer regularly acted in “bad faith.” The judge said Ocwen had charged improper fees and attempted to collect bankruptcy-related fees after the court closed a case. In one of the cases, Ocwen took 10 months to provide a full accounting of fees.
The judge wrote that Ocwen’s “systematic abuse” required more than monetary sanctions, which had not stopped the behavior in the past, so Magner issued an order (PDF) forcing Ocwen to follow specific accounting procedures. (We’ve noted before that Ocwen’s servicing procedures have raised eyebrows in the past). Ocwen’s general counsel, Paul Koches, said the company disagrees with the ruling and is pursuing an appeal in U.S. District Court.
Justice Department Takes Action
The Justice Department’s United States Trustee Program is a watchdog over the bankruptcy process. Its 21 regional offices oversee more than 1,300 private trustees who mediate between debtors and creditors in individual bankruptcy cases.
The Trustee Program’s annual report said combating servicer abuse (PDF) was a top priority last year. The program initiated 68 actions (PDF) against what it calls “systemic abuse” by mortgage servicers, including 25 large servicers such as Countrywide, HSBC and JPMorgan Chase, according to public documents (PDF) and speeches (PDF). The Trustee Program has sued Countrywide in at least six states.
Countrywide, now owned by Bank of America, is the largest participant in the federal Making Home Affordable program to modify troubled mortgages. A recent analysis by the Associated Press found that at least 30 of the 38 mortgage companies that have signed up for the program have been sued over their servicing practices.
In response to one U.S. trustee’s suit in Ohio, Judge Marilyn Shea-Stonum ruled in May (PDF) that Countrywide had charged fees with “no factual basis” and wrote: “Countrywide’s system is reckless. It appears to me designed to allow each actor in the process to act with indifference to the truth, and to rely solely on the limited information made available at each step. … [The errors in this case] evidence Countrywide’s disregard for diligence and accuracy.”
The judge is currently determining monetary and other sanctions. Countrywide spokeswoman Shirley Norton said, “We are reviewing the ruling and considering our options.”
Private trustees have sued servicers as well. Debra Miller, a private trustee in Indiana, has been active in litigation where servicers haven’t complied with federal regulations. Typically, she said, private trustees try to obtain settlements that are more about changing practices than monetary compensation. “Our job is to force mortgage companies to improve their systems,” she said.
Both the Justice Department and private trustees have stepped in to fill what they see as a regulatory void covering mortgage servicers, according to Andrea Celli, a private trustee in upstate New York.
Future Oversight Under Debate
Currently, a hodgepodge of agencies oversees mortgage servicing. HUD, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve all have partial authority.
Concern over mortgage servicing was part of the early discussions about the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, according to Eric Stein, the Treasury Department’s deputy assistant secretary for consumer protection. The CFPA, as proposed by the Obama administration, would be the primary watchdog for servicer abuses.
Servicers are resisting the new consumer agency. Paul Leonard, a lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, said his organization’s members believe that there should be better coordination among regulators and that existing agencies can handle the responsibility.
Tara Twomey, a lecturer at Standford Law School who co-authored the large study of bankruptcy cases, says that more regulation would help, but it would only be a “Band-Aid.” “The more fundamental problem is one of market structure,” she said. “Borrowers don’t get to choose their servicer.”
(See the mortgage chart/sample cases here.)
ProPublica is America’s largest investigative newsroom.
msoliman, on August 13, 2009 at 12:22 am said:

In a stunning victory for borrowers, a New Jersey court has dismissed a foreclosure action filed against the borrowers by Deutsche Bank Trust Company America as alleged trustee for a securitized mortgage loan trust after Deutsche Bank willfully, and despite the entry of three (3) separate court orders, refused to produce documents demanded by the borrowers which included documents setting forth the identity of the true owner and holder of the Note and mortgage, the complete chain of title to ownership of the note and mortgage, payment application histories, and documents as to the securitized mortgage loan trust. The Court had given Deutsche Bank multiple opportunities and extensions of time to produce the documents, but Deutsche Bank continually refused to produce any of the documents requested, resulting in the dismissal of Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action. The Court also ruled that Deutsche Bank is not permitted to re-file any foreclosure action until it is prepared to produce ALL of the subject discovery.
Kalona S B, on August 12, 2009 at 9:42 pm said:

Ehhh Byran

I’m still hanging in there. Basically counting down now.
My sorry excuse of an attorney is beyond my own belief! Grrrrr Waiting to see if I hear back from the judge or I guess just wait till my court date.

Ur stuff sounds like some hope may there. This is a great site with lots of good stuff to read. At least there is a lil bit of hope. Maybe our AG will become more active in these horro scams.

Keep us informed. U know we are all rooting for u!
msoliman, on August 12, 2009 at 7:20 pm said:

Vicki is correct .

The fruad you comitted and of the magnitude I have verified with multiple properties makes a lender look like the good guys.

It is unmatched and cannot be compared to anything I or other professionals has seen in our career. We will continue to fight fraud on all side Ms Mas
Vicki M, on August 12, 2009 at 7:13 pm said:

To:MSoliman,

You may be correct regarding what the servicers are being allowed to do but I believe the reason Atty General Brown is cracking down and causing this bond to post is because the majority of the loan mod companies are promising things to the Homeowners, taking their money, and not doing anything what they promised. In the attatchments on this Atty General site it shows copies of what they promised and in many cases not even possible to do.
Vicki M
cmysmile00@aol.com
msoliman, on August 12, 2009 at 6:16 pm said:

The State of California wants these foreclosure consultants to post a bond in order to:

“offering modifcations, short sales and other negotiated settlements.

NLS is testifying in similar matters before the courts and we applaud the AG’s efforts but ask the following:

“How will a bond and registering with the state by pass the fact the Trust indenture and propspectus DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE CURRENT LENDER TO PROVDE A MODIFCATION WHERE IT CLEARLY VIOLATES FAS 140-3 AND FURTHER BRINGS TO CALL THE SEC OVERSIGHT FOR LENDER SERVICING VIOLATIONS UNDER 1122 AB.

Has anyone a clue!

MSoliman
Expert Witness
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Bryan, on August 12, 2009 at 5:55 pm said:

Great Post Abby, and thanks.

Now if Brown could talk to Arizona attorney general, that would be fantastic.

Yesterday, I left two messages with ACORN. This morning I sent an e-mail. So far, no responses.

How ya doing SB? Any updates?
Abby in CA, on August 12, 2009 at 5:23 pm said:

CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL–FIGHTS FOR HOMEOWNERS!!

News Release
August 12, 2009
For Immediate Release
Contact: (916) 324-5500

Brown Orders Mortgage Foreclosure Consultants to Post $100,000 Bond or Face Prosecution
Los Angeles – Threatening possible criminal and civil prosecution, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today ordered 386 mortgage foreclosure consultants to post $100,000 bonds and register with his office.

He also ordered more than two dozen companies to justify suspicious loan modification claims made in “slick advertising,” online and through the mail.

“Hoping to lower their mortgage payments, thousands of homeowners were instead duped by slick advertising and money-back guarantees,” Brown said. “The time for accountability is at hand, and this rogue industry must clean itself up or face legal action,” Brown added.

Brown also unveiled a new website ( http://ag.ca.gov/loanmod) that provides homeowners tips to avoid loan modification fraud, allows them to determine if a company is registered with his office and makes it easier to file complaints.

Brown today joined with the California Department of Real Estate and the State Bar of California in a new partnership to combat loan modification and foreclosure fraud.

Brown has sent letters directing 386 mortgage foreclosure consultants to register with his office within 10 days and post $100,000 bond, or demonstrate why they are not required to. If the consultants are required to register and have failed to do so, they are subject to criminal penalties of up to a year in jail and fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 per violation. Eighty-five of these consultants are based in Los Angeles County, 133 in Orange County, 47 in the Inland Empire, 68 in San Diego County and seven in the Bay Area.

Additionally, Brown sent letters today demanding that 27 loan consultants substantiate suspect claims made on the internet and in direct mail advertising. For instance:

· Brown directed Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger, LLP as corporate counsel for JL Richman, doing business as Home Retention Programs of Glendale, Calif. to substantiate its claims including: “Our team has 10 years of success in negotiating 90% of all mortgage loan modification requests to a successful outcome….For the modification requests we accept, our modification failure rate is less than 1%.”

· Brown directed 21st Century Real Estate Investment Corporation of Rancho Cucamonga to substantiate its written solicitations including: “[y]our proposed loan modification is a 30 year fixed/3.5% interest rate with a monthly payment of $495. Your monthly savings is $705. Total savings over a 30-year period is $253,800. . . . Your first payment will be negotiated to begin March 2009 – payable to your current lender for $495.”

· Brown directed Mortgage Modification Solutions of Irvine to substantiate its claims including: “Our services are due to the FEDERAL MANDATE which makes it mandatory for mortgagees, upon the default of a single family mortgage, to engage in loss mitigation actions” and “Why $3995.00 is nothing compared to what you can accomplish in return? #1- It’s 10 times more expensive to hire a CPA or a Financial Advisor to exclusively analyze & Research your financial affairs to create a plan acceptable to the Banking standards.”

· Brown directed Alliance Law Center of San Diego to substantiate its letters to consumers stating: “Final Notice: 3/11/09, our review of certain information indicates you may be a victim of federal disclosure violations and/or predatory lending violations, therefore your loan may be invalid, and you may qualify for a loan modification saving you thousands of dollars.”

The State Bar of California today announced that it has obtained resignations from two lawyers and filed charges against a third for their loan modification activities. The State Bar’s special team on loan modification complaints continues to investigate more than four hundred active complaints from consumers about lawyers’ roles in loan modification scams.

Brown has made it a top priority to combat loan modification fraud. As part of a nationwide sweep last month, Brown filed suits against 21 individuals and 14 companies who ripped off thousands of homeowners seeking mortgage relief. In total, Brown has sought court orders to shut down 32 companies and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for deceptive loan modification consultants.

Copies of the letters and a list of consultants who have not registered are attached.

# # #
Related Attachments

Registry List [PDF 45 kb / 9 pg]
Sample Registry Letter [PDF 16 kb / 1 pg]
Substantiation Letters [PDF 15613 kb / 205 pg]
top

Back | News & Alerts
usedkarguy, on August 12, 2009 at 8:50 am said:

Ed, they will not “give up”. Follow this timeline:
June 05-Loan closed, Recorded in name of originator.
First default December 06 (3 months arrears)
Jan 07: lender asked for “deed in lieu”, refused
(Paid 3 payments plus,now we are current–we think)
June-July 07 Lender offers repayment plan again (refused), got current again (we thought)
Aug 08-accused lender/servicer of fraud in origination and servicing-”Who holds the note?”
July 08-Made last payment to Servicer (with 3 months arrears)
Sept 08-started with the demand letters, QWR, etc.
February 09–Foreclosure suit filed, LisPendens filed in name of trustee for ABS.
August 09-Awaiting pretrial conference-Plaintiff claiming over $22,000 in legal expenses.

You have a fight on your hands if you want it!
Ed, on August 12, 2009 at 4:07 am said:

I want to see if anyone else has experienced this or has heard of a Mortgage company taking this action

In my case I have heard from the Attorney firm who responds for my mortgage servicer on two occasions

I had sent in two QWR letters and they responded each time that basically my questions were not reasonable.

However they have taken no action as far as foreclosing.
It has been since January that I made my last payment.

Yesterday I received a letter from Carrington Mortgage (current servicer) and they said they will no longer pay my property taxes and will send me any amount left in my escrow account.

Does this mean they are giving up for now?
Are they hoping I dont pay it and they can buy my house that way?

All I know is that I will be happy to pay the taxes for now. It is a lot cheaper than the mortgage payment.

I know they will come after me eventually, hopefully later than sooner. This site is a big help.

Thank you
Bryan, on August 12, 2009 at 12:31 am said:

Regarding my latest post:

I forgot to mention; even though I was informed I did not have to make payments, I did anyway, and I wasn’t ever late, I had an interest reserve account that made all payments automatically. M&I simply quit funding disbursements and preventing, the progress to move forward in my construction…To this regard; the person I spoke with in Scottsdale, Arizona has never missed a payment either….Adn M&I simply quit funding prevent her construction too.
Abby in CA, on August 11, 2009 at 3:37 pm said:

Bryan–too bad a wise Arizona attorney does not jump on doing a class action against the offenders. Seems like there are enough of you around.
Bryan, on August 11, 2009 at 3:24 pm said:

To Abby;

Thanks for all your post, and your direct posts to me.

Hi Abby, I hope you are doing well today.

Yes, my previous attorney’s filed complaints against the contractor ,and the citations were sent out to them. Now, the contractors, have 15 days to answer. If they don’t answer in time, they do not get to state their own defense, at the hearings. The General Contractor may not even show up because of fear of being arrested. I would love to see him handcuffed, and sentenced to the min. of 30 years. I am currently one of several of his victims, and for the same reason; “fraudulenty conspiring with the Bank” and collecting construction loan money, and not building the houses he promised to build.

HOPE won’t help me, I called them again, today.

Again, for those who missed my previous posts.

Southern Arizona Legal Aide “REFUSES” to help, they arbitrialy pick who they will help. Curently, they say they “do not” handle civil matters.

ACORN refused to help me on more than 6 attempts made by me, this year. To this regard, last night I received a message from a reader.., in here … that gave me an actual name to contact at ACORN. I called first thing this morning, and left a message. No response yet.

YES, I am being foreclosed on, and the auction is September 9, 2009 and for some reason, each time I take the posted notices off of my fense, a new one shows up. hehehehe

(What are they going to do? Put me in jail, feed me, give me shelter, and teach me Spanish. That sounds better than having to excerise by running from coyottes, bears and mountain lions every day, and better than climbing under a rock only to get bitten by your next meal).

Even without those notices posted to my fense, strangers find their way here and trespass.., scaring the drainage(s) out of me … to evaluate whether or not they are going to bid on this MAJOR AND DEADLY, LIFE THREATENING STRUCTUAL DEFECT or not.

In my lawsuit against the bank I want to charge them $12,000.00 a day for stroring this piece of unbuilt (nicely shaped tree branches) on my property. If I could find an attorney and I could get away with this allegation … I would do it.

Abby: The letter that says; ” Bryan, you do not have to make “any” payments on the construction loan” this is a direct e-mail from Texas Capital Bank to me, it also says; “Texas Capital Bank will make ‘all’ the constuction payments until the house is built, and then ‘we’ will turn it into a perm. fixed loan, at a very low interest rate”. I have contacted M&I Bank and so did my previous attorney but they ignored us.., in full.

M&I bought the loan, did not honor any of the promises made to me in writing, or verbal ones. Also, they stopped funding without reasonble cause and without warning, and without notifying me ahead of time, (which is law) I’m sorry I didn’t write it down but I did read it. If I find it, I will post this law. Meanwhile you can read this;

§ 9.6 Good Faith
The court held that the lender must have a legitimate objective for cutting off funding and must give adequate notice of its decision. The borrower was awarded $7.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.53 Most courts apply the subjective standard in lender liability cases.54

Abby; yes, my foreclosure is different. My foreclosure is through the scam in construction.

This is when the bank stops funding and prevents the progess and completing of the home, and then foreclose on it. To this regard, M&I Bank has targeted “all” of Arizona borrowers wishing to build a house. Up until last night, besides one other, I thought I was the only victim in Arizona through construction foreclosure, who reads and learns from this web site.

One of our readers on this web site called me last night — (bless her heart) she too, is in Arizona and has the same situation as me, and with the same Bank.

We have the same case worker at the federal reserve.
We have the same person in Wisconsin in charge of our construction loans. We are sharing, almost everything to the bone. We have the same complaints, of breaches, frauds, intents, concealment of documents, missing documents, etc…. though over one hundred miles apart we were played through predatory lending and sweet talk, (the same tactics were used on her .., as with me).

The main thing that M&I is and has been doing is; creating construction loans, and intentionally knowing ahead of time “they are” going to stop the funding, preventing the houses from getting built and then foreclose on the borrowers, (in one known case) buy the loan themselves, finish building, and sale it . They will make more money on a fixed 30 year loan than a construction loan.

In the Tucson surrounding areas alone, there are over 18 cases I have been made aware of that share the same story as me. And 3 of those cases were vicitmized by the same contractor, and one of these cases was victimized by the same attorney I had. To this regard, a man, his wife, and their four children got a construction loan with M&I, who stopped funding, after paying a tremendous amount to the contractor for work not started, then got foreclosed on. This family hired the same attorney I had, this family stands in food lines every day now. They lost everything but the clothes, they could fit into suit-cases. After they gave their last penny to the “same” attorney, he bailed on them too, saying the same thing he said to me. “Your money ran out, I can’t represent you anymore.” They too, were dumped with all this legal stuff, which they (just like me) do not understand.

I am not feeling as stupid or a lone victim, anymore.

First…scammed by loan broker,
Second…scammed by bank.
Third…scammed by attorney.
Fourth…Battle of.., and for … your life.

The person who called me last night, is in the Scottsdale area. This tells me M&I Marshall and Isley Bank is spreading like a virus, and took over where Country Wide left off but added a twist.

The twist is targeting construction loans. This epidemic is and has been spreading fast.

It is very sad that Arizona does not have “findable” attorney’s who “get it”.

(If my memeory is correct) One, of “only four” attorney’s listed in Arizona on this site is currently representing 6 clients over relating issues with M&I Banks frauds. He alone cannot take on any more clients. He informed me he gets about ten calls every day for the same reasons I have.

To Neil,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Have a great Kick-bum day and evening.., everyone.

Bryan
Abby in CA, on August 11, 2009 at 11:00 am said:

Judge refuses to approve BofA settlement with SEC and Attacks the Merrill bonuses!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/judge-refuses-to-approve_n_256177.html
Abby in CA, on August 10, 2009 at 11:51 pm said:

Bryan–have you tried HOPE NOW? Also, your case sounds somewhat more complex than just a standard foreclosure.

http://www.hopenow.com/

RE: hearing with registrar of contractors–is this sort of like a State Contractor’s Board? Did you file a complaint against the contractor with them?

Also, did you call the company that sent you the letter
whether it was that Texas Bank or the one that bought them…..you need to call and discuss the letter. From what you posted it almost sounded like they were not foreclosing. You need to get real clear on that letter.

Good Luck
Kalona S B, on August 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm said:

Bryan

WOW Sorry to hear about all the obstacles. Have u thought about contacting some churches and see if any of their members have the ability to assist u with some of ur needs, even if just food drop off? But I would also ask about if they know of any attorney that could help u to save ur property within the congregation. Maybe u could call the law school and speak with one of the professors or dean to ask if the students could take it on as a pro bono project with the guidance of the prodessor. Just an idea.

i’m trying all that stuff as well. Sept 3 is my case for the mortgage. Very hair pulling, and nerve aracking.

As for ur question about safety in the court room. YES I believe ALL court houses have that in place. I would ask for the bailiff and tell him ur safety concerns the moment u get there. I would also find a way to let the judge know ur safety in the court house is an genuine issue of concern.

If there were any verbal or physical threats such as when ur attorney had to physically step in between u both to stop u from being harmed.

One thing for sure, u are fighting back the best u can. I really hope in my heart u win!
Bryan, on August 10, 2009 at 6:27 pm said:

To MSoliman

Yes, I have contacted proximatley 40 contract attorney’s throughout Arizona. Half want a consultation fee. That is out. The other half says several things.
A. I need a construction attorney.
B. I need a commercial litigation attorney.
C. I need a bankruptcy attorney.
D. I need a Civil Rights attorney.

Each time I get a response from either of those categories they send me to a different genre or Back to Legal Aide, or Lawers Refferal Services, who do not have any one on their list to help in my situation. I’ve spent my $35.00 with them and didn’t get anywhere.

On the tab above “Attorney’s” I sent Neil a long post of my newest discovery, asking him what kind of an attorney I need. I’m still waiting for an answer.

I also on August 4th, sent an e-mail to foreclosuredefensegroup asking about their services and if they could help me. I still have not got a reply, but I did get a receipt showing they received my e-mail.

Thanks for your help.
Bryan, on August 10, 2009 at 5:58 pm said:

Thanks for all your comments.

Texas Capital Bank, does not exist anymore. They were bought out by Colorado Federal Bank (I think).

Southern Arizona Legal Aide, refuses to help me. They say my situation is Civil and they “do not” handle civil. I told the lady “I guess you don’t read your own web site then, do you?” One full page of nothing but foreclosure help. I have been arbitrialy picked out. I only threw that in her face because it is about the 14th time they have refused to help me in the past t1 1/2 years over the same issue.

ACORN, says they can help remodify my loan to about $4,000.00 a month. I told them I owe nothing and it is in writing that I did not have to make payments on the construction loan, only when it turns to a perminate loan and after the house is built. The house was never built and the construction loan never went to a perminate loan.

I call Goldberg and AOsborn Accidental injury law firm, and they gave me an attorney who takes cases in Tucson like mine and on contingency. I called and set an appointment. There was no mention at all about a consultation fee.

Today, I received a bill from that attorney for $250.00. for the one hour we talked and she isn’t going to take my case. To this regards, recently I posted a note saying I avoid all attorney’s who charge a consultation fee. She must have read that post, and decided not to tell me about it. as I previously mentioned, I have spent well over $2,000.00 in consultation fees just to hear attorney’s say they won’t help me.

There should be a law in Arizona that if an attorney doesn’t take your case you should get your fee back.

This time, even though I am very alert of the attorney’s in Arizona … being as crooked as the banks, I got tricked, again.

Needless to say, but I will anyway. I will not pay this latest attorney who never once mentioned a consultation fee.

During that interview, she said, “if” I take your case I will need a $50,000.00 retainer and $400.00 and hour due at the end of each month”. Don’t be suprised, she is cheap compared to some of the attorney’s I have spoken with.

As far as as the letter I received from the clerk stating I filed my motions wrong,; I took the letter with me to see the clerk, and they were not allowed to assist me, or explain to me, what to do. She couldn’t even tell me the status of my situation. ( She was an assistant to the Clerk of the Superior Court ). I sent out several one to one e-mails to attorney’s asking for one answer, and no responses.

I only have one question today: These hearings I have to go to are with the Registrar of Contractors, I am going to have to go face to face with the contractor who stole my construction loan money. I am deathly afraid of him, (to this regard, the attorney I had for 1 1/2 years, “Did” step in front of him when he was close of punching my lights out over the professional reports that were written against him). His rage is very violent and he scares me. So my question is; at all these hearings will I be protected? If not, I am not going, to my own hearings.

S.B., I am glad you are able to help others. For me, I will have to walk over 58 miles each way, every day just to get a sandwhich. (My attitude, today, to far, not worth it).

September 9, is just around the corner, and each day, I get more scared. Mainly for my dogs and our survival, in the desert., without my sheds, and broken R.V. to live in.

Have a good evening everyone.

Thanks again.
Marcus, on August 10, 2009 at 12:01 pm said:

Harvard Professor Says His Plan Will Save Market

When borrowers owe more than their homes are worth, they have considerable incentive to simply walk away. These defaults result in further declines in home prices.

Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and economic adviser to the Reagan administration, says he has a plan that will encourage underwater borrowers to continue paying.

For any home owner with a loan-to-value ratio greater than 120 percent, Feldstein would offer a reduction in principal, the cost of which would be shared between the government and the lender down to the 120 percent level. In exchange, the borrower would accept a recourse loan that could not be discharged by bankruptcy.

He argues that this plan would stabilize the housing market and cap housing prices at the current level.

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Martin Feldstein (08/08/2009)
Abby in CA, on August 10, 2009 at 11:54 am said:

Putting Mods’ Glacial Pace in Context

By Kate Berry/American Banker

August 10, 2009

Not all servicers want to play the tortoise. Erbey claimed some of his rivals are accepting verbal verification and still granting mods. Others, like Citigroup Inc., are asking the government to ease income verification requirements.The danger is that doing so could effectively return to the days of stated-income loans, when lenders did not require verification of the income the borrower stated on their application. Stated income loans, widespread from 2003 to 2008, were a contributing factor to the housing bubble.As Treasury assesses whether to ease verification requirements, one area that most servicers are struggling with is obtaining an additional signature from borrowers who filed tax returns electronically. “You have to ask whether the documents are really providing additional support to the decision,” Garland said. “The program is there. The money is there. We’re all just tied up in paperwork.”He also noted that some borrowers are being asked to submit documents — without a loan officer’s aid — that were not required at origination. “Many of these loans were no-doc, low-doc loans to begin with, so we’re holding the borrower to a more onerous qualification than they had originally.”But Meadows said that without the extra layers, “we’re falling into the same trap that got us into this problem in the first place.”
If servicers appear to be failing in their implementation of the Obama administration’s loan-modification program, it may be for good reason: Reunderwriting hundreds of thousands of borrowers who got low- or no-documentation mortgages just takes time.

Some say that’s not a bad thing, as the extra verification steps this go-round will only help the mods to stick, reducing fraud along the way. “This is all about putting evidence together to support or deny a loan. We have to stop making bad loans and we can’t make ‘no-doc, low-doc’ mods,” said Jay Meadows, the chief executive of Rapid Reporting Verification Co. LP, of Fort Worth.

Servicers methodically gathering documents, collecting signatures and, in particular, verifying income, may be slow to produce results, but not taking these precautions could result in modified loans that redefault, observers say.

“The verification process is at the root of getting an acceptable pull-through rate, which is the be-all and end-all of why we’re doing this,” said Bill Garland, a senior vice president at Fiserv Home Retention Solutions, a unit of Fiserv Inc. in Brookfield, Wis., hired by Fannie Mae to assist servicers in collecting information from borrowers. “It’s a more permanent fix.”

The tortoise-over-the-hare approach also allows servicers to address an increased threat of fraud that comes with the Home Affordable Modification Program. “The best time to steal from a store is when the shopkeeper is busy and you can stick stuff in your pockets,” said Meadows. Putting customers through a series of verification steps, while time-consuming, is preventive medicine, experts say.

“We’ve elected to basically require that and get that done up-front, so you do not end up with the problem whereby you give someone a Hamp modification based on a verbal and then they don’t provide information that’s equivalent,” said William Erbey, the chairman and CEO of Ocwen Financial Corp., a servicer of subprime mortgages, said on a conference call last week. “That becomes a difficult situation further on down the line.”

Ocwen trailed most other servicers in the report card on the program that the Treasury Department released last week. Only 6% of the West Palm Beach, Fla., company’s eligible loans had begun a trial modification at the end of July, compared to 9% for all participating companies and 25% for Morgan Stanley’s Saxon Mortgage, the leader of the pack. But Ocwen said it was taking the time to verify income before modifying loans.

Peter Pollini, a principal of the consumer finance group at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said the program “adds a layer of complexity” for servicers that never had to make credit decisions before.

“There’s a balance between having more stringent requirements and the servicers’ ability to execute,” Pollini said. “This industry will continue to be targeted for fraud, and whether it’s on the front end on origination or the back end on servicing, there will constantly be a game of catch-up of new schemes.”

In addition to the risk of fraud from borrowers who want lower mortgage payments, servicers recognize that investors also may come back and ask them to repurchase loans that were modified in a way that did not adhere to investor requirements, he said.

Garland said any attempt by investors to force buybacks onto servicers could “basically shut the program down.” But he said investors would be more likely to make servicers reunderwrite the loan yet again.

Putting Mods’ Glacial Pace in Context

Not all servicers want to play the tortoise. Erbey claimed some of his rivals are accepting verbal verification and still granting mods. Others, like Citigroup Inc., are asking the government to ease income verification requirements.

The danger is that doing so could effectively return to the days of stated-income loans, when lenders did not require verification of the income the borrower stated on their application. Stated income loans, widespread from 2003 to 2008, were a contributing factor to the housing bubble.

As Treasury assesses whether to ease verification requirements, one area that most servicers are struggling with is obtaining an additional signature from borrowers who filed tax returns electronically. “You have to ask whether the documents are really providing additional support to the decision,” Garland said. “The program is there. The money is there. We’re all just tied up in paperwork.”

He also noted that some borrowers are being asked to submit documents — without a loan officer’s aid — that were not required at origination. “Many of these loans were no-doc, low-doc loans to begin with, so we’re holding the borrower to a more onerous qualification than they had originally.”

But Meadows said that without the extra layers, “we’re falling into the same trap that got us into this problem in the first place.”
Marcus, on August 10, 2009 at 7:54 am said:

$75 Billion Carrot, but Few Nibbles

In March, the Obama administration began an antiforeclosure effort that offers lenders up to $75 billion in incentives to modify troubled mortgages. If that sounds like a lot of money, it is. But so far, it has not been enough to persuade the mortgage industry to do what is needed to help Americans stay in their homes and keep the economy from falling into deeper trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10mon1.html?th&emc=th
Kalona S B, on August 9, 2009 at 7:10 pm said:

ABBY Great info….might be of help to me! THANKS!
Abby in CA, on August 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm said:

RE: Pentalpha

To anyone whose New Century loan was sold to JP Morgan Chase around Feb. 2006 and whose loan
ended up in the JPMAC 2006- NC1 pool of asset backed securities, the Trust Oversight Manager is a company called Pentalpha.

One of the people who runs Pentalpha is Jim Callahan.

This could potentially be a new defendant in your complaint.
S B, on August 9, 2009 at 1:51 am said:

Byran

I know exactly how u feel. Going through the same garbage. Even worse my attorney got me sued for attorney fees and cost of 48k. PLus he is representing me on a civil case which he lost the majority of already.

I am hoping in all my heart u find some help on this. Did u already ck with ur legal aid? Maybe ur representative? I did here but the wait list is several months because we only have 2 people in Legal Aid working on these cases. I even called the law school to see if I could get help here,

Maybe u can also call ur local college and speak with the professor for the law school and tell them ur situation. There’s got to be some help out there some where.

Please keep us informed. I am really reading ur post and each time holding my breath in hopes u get the justice u should have!!

WOW Hang in there!!
S B, on August 9, 2009 at 1:32 am said:

Sorry Byran missed ur Aloha. Hope ur hanging in there and kicking some butt!!

I finally sent the judge my letter to dimiss my deadbeat useless attorney who has done insane harm including having me sued by GMAC for 48K in attorney cost and fees, who scammed me big time along with the rest of them who many have now gone bankrupt. Unreal …the whole thing. It’s so crazy. Nothing in my mind can grasp the reality of how many people are going through this.

It really helps me to read this site. Although sometimes it goes real fast and hard to keep up with. I’m just now getting a break to be able to catch up and read some of the post I missed.

There’s tons of good info here. I’m thankful for that.

For all of u who post here and share info …MAHALO!

I am going to court Sept 3. Not sure what to expect accept that my attorney should be dismissed as he requested and now as I have requested. makes no sense to keep him on because no one will talk to me because I have an attorney and he won’t do a thing because in his mind he’s been off the case even though the judge hasn’t dimissed him.

I just keep trying to hang in there. And I am thankful for each day I have had with a roof over my head.
Today when my program went out to bring food, we got the chance to bring some good nutrtional food thanks to a recent fund raiser. We bought banana’s and carrots sticks along with the sandwiches, snacks and drinks. To top it off we gave every person in our line a fresh bouquet of flowers donated by my friend. Awesome.

So as tough as times are I am thankful to be able to still do some good for others.

No matter how tough things are, try and take a moment to bring others a lil moment of hope. If I lose it all I know in my heart I got to live a dream even for just a lil while.

Thought I would share that with u all. It’s made the world of difference for me to be able to do what I love most in spite of all the hard challenges. I know the chances of me being in that line are too close.

Hope u all have a great Sunday.
Aloha
http://tinyurl.com/lmju3u Hope this brings u all a moment of a smile.
Mahalo for the great post!
Ian, on August 8, 2009 at 9:16 pm said:

Hello to all- abby in CA. alina, marcus, and of course, the indefatigable MSoliman- I was talking with a friend of mine over July 4th weekend (a NY atty), he explained the “waterfall effect” of mortgage tranche payouts, wherein the money being paid into the pool paid off the higher-rated tranches first, and the leftover money paid off the lower tranches secondarily, and that the entities holding the lower tranche debt were ‘making a ton of money”. Before I could inquire further, he melded into the crowd, but I will see him again this coming week and press further. Anyone with any further questions? Post them here and I will get answers- the guy is on the ball and open. Thank you Neil for facilitating such an exchange of info. Regards, Ian
msoliman, on August 8, 2009 at 7:31 pm said:

Author: Abby in CAComment:Bryan . . . .I’d advise you again to bring your papers and go to ACORN or your local Legal Aide to see if they can help you unless you can find another attorney.

Good recomendation

Author: Abby in CA Comment: Bryan Did you try any ‘contract’ law attorneys yet? The courts want it one way or another. You either have an attorney representing you, or you do not and are pro se.

Feedback about making a decision here is wise and appropriate.

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on August 8, 2009 at 2:30 pm said:

Bryan

I’d get on the phone to Texas Bank and talk to a manager and ask questions about the letter you received and what it all means.

Keep us posted. It sounded good.

RE: your earlier post–(and maybe after talking to Texas Bank you have to do nothing further)

check this link and you will AZ Rules of Civil Procedure

http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=AZR-1000

Typically you will be responsible for ensuring the service of all your documents and filings. The courts have limited budgets and clerks.

You need to also inquire with the clerk about what you need to file to prove you have served your documents.
Typically called a ‘Proof of Service’ and these forms may be online for you. You will always need to have another individual actually ‘serve’ the documents, and in some cases in may be simply va first class mail.

Don’t panic about the hearings.

I’d advise you again to bring your papers and go to ACORN or your local Legal Aide to see if they can help you unless you can find another attorney. Did you try any ‘contract’ law attorneys yet?

The courts want it one way or another. You either have an attorney representing you, or you do not and are pro se.
Marcus, on August 8, 2009 at 12:47 pm said:

Lisa,
Here is a Sample Debt Dispute Letter for you.

http://www.foreclosureprose.com/storage/forms/DebtDisputeLetter.pdf

Marcus
pdx, on August 8, 2009 at 10:33 am said:

Neil – thanks so much for getting back to me!! no worries you are an angel.
livinglies, on August 8, 2009 at 9:50 am said:

pdx: I was away giving expert witness testimony —- a marathon scheduled for one day that went to three. My apologies to you and everyone else. Next time I will make arrangements for moderation of comments while I am distracted or away.
Marcus, on August 8, 2009 at 7:52 am said:

Lisa,
Triad Guaranty Insurance is a mortgage insurance company. They are trying to avoid paying any money on a charged-off mortgage. So they will try hard to convince you to work out a deal to bring the mortgage current.
They are considered debt collectors by federal law. If you look on the back of their letters, they do admit that.
What you need to do is send them a debt dispute letter and ask them to stop calling you. Make sure to send it via certified mail with return receipt. In a few days, the calls will miraculously stop. I have a sample letter I will be posting on the web site shortly or if you would like I can send it to you directly.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Lisa E., on August 8, 2009 at 6:01 am said:

Help please!

Several weeks ago I found a letter (I think it was posted here), to be sent to the mortgage insurer informing them that the entity attempting to collect insurance for a defaulted loan is not the party who has suffered a loss.

I have searched and searched but can’t seem to find it again (hate when that happens)!

Could anyone please guide me to that letter or provide info on how I could write my own? I am getting many aggressive letters and calls from Triad Guaranty Insurance company (even calls to my workplace).

Thank you very much!

Good luck to all. Have a nice weekend!
Lisa E. (ProSe Florida)

LisaBep @ Gmail . com (remove spaces please)
Marcus, on August 7, 2009 at 7:26 pm said:

Countrywide Financial to begin making settlement payments

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Aug. 7, 2009 – Countrywide Financial, now owned by Bank of America, will soon begin making cash payments of at least $3,000 to each of its Florida customers who have experienced a foreclosure or fallen behind on mortgage payments within four months of getting their loan.

The cash payments are part of a $1 billion settlement the company reached last year with the Florida attorney general to avoid prosecution for allegedly hoodwinking customers into taking out subprime mortgages and other risky, high-cost loans. Ten other states also reached agreements with the company for a combined $8.4 billion in mortgage relief, which also includes loan modifications.

In all, about 5,700 Florida borrowers are entitled to about $17 million under a Foreclosure Relief Program established as part of the settlement. Countrywide will pay another $4 million to the attorney general’s office. Last month, the office announced it would use the money to fund a foreclosure defense grant program through the Florida Bar Foundation. Letters notifying borrowers eligible for the payments began going out last month.

In the letters, Countrywide told borrowers that in agreeing to accept the settlement payment, they were also agreeing to give up any legal claims against the company and its affiliates, including joining any class-action lawsuits. To receive a payment, borrowers have to sign and return the claim form and release by Oct. 22.

Each eligible borrower will get at least $3,000, and possibly more, depending on how many people mail in the claim and release forms.

Checks will start being mailed in early 2010, the company said.

If someone thinks they maybe be eligible for a payment, but did not receive a letter, the attorney general said they should call the office’s fraud hot line at (866) 966-7226. They can also try Countrywide’s settlement administrator at (866) 411-6987, or, for the hearing impaired, (866) 494-8397. They can also visit http://www.countrywidesettlementinfo.com.
pdx, on August 7, 2009 at 3:56 pm said:

None of my posts are showing up. Its says awaiting moderation. Is there any way to get my posts rolling?

regards

J – portland
shanna, on August 7, 2009 at 2:50 pm said:

Hi GrammyG and Dan,

Dan i am in Georgia.

And GrammyG, i’d love to email you about your situation…sorry it took so long to respond…crazy around here.
Marcus, on August 7, 2009 at 8:37 am said:

No sense of responsibility whatsoever!!
————————————————————-
Ex-Chief of A.I.G. Settles S.E.C. Case for $15 Million

Federal regulators announced an agreement with Maurice R. Greenberg on Thursday to settle accusations that he oversaw an accounting fraud at the American International Group. But Mr. Greenberg did not go quietly.

Shortly after the announcement from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Greenberg issued a defiant statement saying he had “no responsibility” for the fraud at A.I.G., which he ran for about four decades ending in 2005.

Under the settlement, Mr. Greenberg agreed to pay just $15 million in penalties and disgorgement for overseeing fraudulent transactions at A.I.G.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/business/07aig.html?th&emc=th
Luis, on August 7, 2009 at 7:55 am said:

“Four states, Georgia, Illinois, New York and Washington, have not adopted the uniform act, but have statutes pertaining to electronic transactions.”

Check your state statutes because they may preempt some of the federal statutes.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13484
Alina, on August 7, 2009 at 7:36 am said:

Sue,

Please check out Abby’s and my posts on UETA. If you have a copy of a letter indicating that it was the lender’s policy to destroy notes, this would definitely apply to you. Under Section 16 of the UETA, you have to give your express permission for a paper note to be converted to an electronic format and used as a transferable record.

Additionally, there are four states that have not adopted UETA or E-SIGN. Check to see if your state is one of them.
Bryan, on August 7, 2009 at 1:38 am said:

Please slap me with your opinion.

“In Writing” Texas Capital Bank wrote exactly this;

“Bryan, you “do not” have to make “any” payments on the construction loan.”

and wrote;

“We (Texas Capital Bank ) will make all the payments on the construction loan and when the house is complete, we (Texas Capital Bank ) will refinance with a lower rate.”

Am I wrong for taken these words to meaning?

My opinion; I am not at default, and they have no right to foreclose because the house was never built, and was never refinanced, my loan was simply sold to M&I Marshall and Isley Bank, who didn’t honor the promises made to me in writing. Is my interpretation wrong when they say I don’t have to make any payments? It is in writing.
Bryan, on August 7, 2009 at 1:15 am said:

S.B. You clicked sumbit before me. So Aloha to you to.
Bryan, on August 7, 2009 at 1:11 am said:

Today, I received a letter fromt he Clerk of the Superior Court, responding to my very first “ever” submission to a court. I asked the court to throw out the illegal law suit against me by the contractor, and I provided evidence he allready stole the money from the bank for items he was suing me for. Then I asked the court to extend me time to amend my counterclaim lawsuit filed by my previous attorney, and allow me time to find a different attorney.

The letter sent to me by the clerk says: Documents do not comply with Rules of Civil Procedure. 7.1 (a) shall be served to apposing parties 11 (a) must sign the documents.

I gave the clerk three copies and kept one for me, don’t they serve the apposing party with the ciopies I gave them?

I am assuming it was the order I didn’t sign because that is attached to the note. So where do I sign it? There isn’t room for my signature and address.

Today, I received copies of 6 different citation sent out by my attorney, and the defendants have 15 days to respond, then the judge is going to set hearing dates.

What the heck did my attorney do to me? I can’t even submit a paper to the court without it coming back. And now I have to go to 6 different hearings all by myself. What the heck is a hearing? What do I do? OMG,,, don’t worry about my last two questions. with 5 weeks left, today is the first time in three years I’ve been negative about all of this and I really am mentally anguished. This is the first time I’m thinking of throwing in the towel. My attorney dumped 6 hearings on me and two lawsuits for me to handle, and I don’t even know how to say the word SHIT in legal terms.

Maybe msolimun was right, I should just write a letter to the court and say I am completely incompetent, and incapable of signing a contract, and the judge will tell the bank to get lost.
S B, on August 7, 2009 at 1:10 am said:

Aloha All

Just wanted to say there really are some great post here with a lot of eye opening comments.
MAHALO to ALL of u who contribute this information that allows us awareness and hope to try and battle to save our homes.

I do read all the post.
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 7:33 pm said:

Anyone know what an ‘Appraisal Kick’ is?

I’ve just got hold of a document about my loan and it
has a column titled ‘Fallout’ and under that
is Appraisal Kicks at 2.16% and then Credit Kicks at 3.81%.

For a number of loans the total for the ‘appraisal kick’ is over $20 Million!!

Both were under a section titled Investor Review Kicks.

I just am not familiar with the term ‘kicks’ unless it means simply kickbacks!!
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 7:12 pm said:

Marcus
re graphic
good one, but notice they only say ‘through a broker, the homeowner’s loan is funded’….

In my case, and I am still peeling the onion, the so called loan funder, was Deutsche. This was not disclosed to me. They wired the money on day of closing and gave escrow instructions which stated that Deutsche ‘owned the security interest in the note/deed etc.’, even though HOME123 (new century mortgage) was identified on the docs as the beneficiary (now called pretender lender).

The New Century, I believe, did a second sale a month later to Chase. I do have a document proving that.

I have also seen some FBI powerpoints which describe that some of these pretender lenders did not only ‘double sales’, but triple sales!! Thus reaping in beacucoup bucks!!

Everyone should examine for this with their cases.
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 7:04 pm said:

Alina-I knew people might be intersted in UETA etc.

I have been in computer industry for 30 years and had not heard of those two laws until I became curious as to why one of my recordings had no signature, just a typed in name (this was on the NOS) and actually the one mailed to me was different..it did not even have a typed in name….just a line.

Now in California, each county seems to be different with respect to how much of the electronic recordings they accept. Some counties still require an original ‘ink’ signature.

Anyways, upon investigating more, I have learned that the Mortgage Banking Association was heavily involved in forming UETA & ESIGN laws.

I wish Neil would review and comment on how we might be able to use UETA & SIGN to our advantage right now.

I think we might be lucky as we were in transitional phase of its implementation. Not all county recorders are prepared to handle all the totally electronic recordings.

In the future, I foresee a totally electronci closing and even the notary will be e-notary and we will have NO PAPER anything, thus further enabling the propagation of MBS and enabling investors to actually view our closing documents in totality. I have come across some information recently that describes that some investors may be able to do that already.

Very frightening.

Also, the transmission (transfer of notes/deeds electronically) could be subject to electronic
‘theft’ by hackers. AND I do not mean that the hacker just hacks into a system and pulls data and information out, I mean there are hackers who can tap
into the ‘transmission lines’ …the actual wires the data is flowing through. If these transmissions occur overy wireless networks that risk becomes even greater.

Between you and I, we might be able to explore attacking the security & reliability of these digital electronic systems & transmission methods.

I’ve been asking in some of my discovery for the identities of Data Base Administrators and CIOs -Chief Information Officers (both responsible for security of data and information) and I am asking for
the company’s security policy documents.

All in all, UETA and ESIgn was a big eye opener to me.
I have not worked in the Mortgage business, only
Financial (Fortune 500) and Telecommunications (Fortune 500). Mortgage Banking industry is pushing very hard for all electronic docs and process. We may never see a piece of paper in the future with respect to home loans.

I think, once we save our homes, that we need to do some lobbying and have some controls put in place especially about investors being able to look directly at our closing docs.
Marcus, on August 6, 2009 at 4:12 pm said:

The Path of a Bundled Mortgage
The graphic makes mortgage securitization easier to understand.

http://www.propublica.org/special/graphic-the-path-of-a-bundled-mortgage

Source: propublica.org
Marcus, on August 6, 2009 at 3:00 pm said:

U.S. Considers Remaking Mortgage Giants

WASHINGTON – Aug. 6, 2009 – The Obama administration is considering an overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would strip the mortgage finance giants of hundreds of billions of dollars in troubled loans and create a new structure to support the home-loan market, government officials said.

The bad debts the firms own would be placed in new government-backed financial institutions – so-called bad banks – that would take responsibility for collecting as much of the outstanding balance as possible. What would be left would be two healthy financial companies with a clean slate.

The moves would represent one of the most dramatic reorderings of the badly shattered housing finance system since District-based Fannie Mae was created by Congress to support mortgage lending during the Great Depression. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, based in McLean, have government charters to buy home loans from banks, which they then repackage and sell to investors. The banks can then use the proceeds to offer more loans to homebuyers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080504063.html
Marcus, on August 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm said:

Government Mortgage Partners Sued for Abuses

Source:AP
WASHINGTON – Aug. 6,2009 – Billions of dollars the government is spending to help financially pressed homeowners avert foreclosure is passing through – and enriching – companies accused of preying on the people they’re supposed to help, an Associated Press investigation has found.

The companies, known as mortgage servicers, are middlemen who collect monthly payments from homeowners and funnel the money to the banks or investors who hold the loans. As the only link between borrowers and lenders, they’re in the best position to rework the terms of loans under the government’s $50 billion mortgage-reduction program. The companies earn a fee for every successful loan modification.

But the industry has a checkered history. The AP found that at least 30 servicers have been accused in lawsuits of harassing borrowers, imposing illegal fees and charging for unnecessary insurance policies. More recently, the companies also have been criticized for not helping homeowners quickly enough – delays that lead to more fees for homeowners and profits for servicers.

The biggest players in the servicing industry – Bank of America, Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. – all face litigation, some of which has led to settlements with homeowners. All will receive federal money to modify loans.

But the industry’s smaller players, which specialize in servicing riskier subprime loans and loans already in default, face harsher accusations that they systematically abused borrowers.

“The irony is, in essence, the government is paying servicers to do their job, which is to do loan modifications where appropriate,” said Kurt Eggert, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. “And that’s not a part of their job they were ever especially good at.”

The government says it has no choice but to partner with the servicers because they are the only link between borrowers and the investors who indirectly own their mortgages through securities.

When President Barack Obama announced the plan, called the Home Affordable Modification Program, in March, he said it would help up to 4 million homeowners avoid foreclosure. But only about 200,000 loan modifications are under way. That led Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week to summon 25 mortgage-servicing executives for meetings at which he got them to promise to deliver 300,000 more loan modifications by Nov. 1.

Under the loan-modification program, 38 servicers will earn fees to help reduce the monthly payments of homeowners facing foreclosure. The goal is to modify mortgages so homeowners’ payments don’t exceed 38 percent of their gross monthly income.

Without government aid, servicers don’t have enough financial incentive to modify mortgages. Each year, they earn about one-quarter to one-half percent of the value of the loans they service, so the larger the mortgage, the more they make. They earn less if the loan is modified, usually by lowering the interest rate or principal or shortening the term.

The servicers also make money through late fees, or by foreclosing. The paperwork necessary to execute a foreclosure can generate hundreds of dollars in fees for some servicers.

Under the Treasury program, the servicers could pocket more than $5,500 for each loan they modify. But they won’t be paid until the homeowners have made timely payments for three months. The servicers will also get government money to give to mortgage investors to compensate them for reducing the loans. How much will depend on what it costs the investors to modify the loan.

The largest mortgage servicing abuse lawsuit was brought against Select Portfolio Servicing, which was accused of imposing illegal fees and charging borrowers for insurance they did not need.

The company paid $55 million in 2003 to settle charges brought by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Trade Commission. It is eligible for up to $660 million under the Obama plan – some to keep and some to pass on to investors and homeowners.

Most complaints against servicers allege similar abuses. Servicers often dispose of the harshest charges by settling without admitting guilt, as Select Portfolio did in 2003.

An AP analysis of the 38 servicers the government is paying to help vulnerable homeowners found that:

• At least 30 face lawsuits from homeowners and advocates claiming they charged illegally high fees, prematurely foreclosed on homes and engaged in illegal collection practices. Most of the suits allege violations of laws that protect homeowners in foreclosure and prevent debt-collection abuse. Treasury’s program requires servicers to comply with these laws.

• At least 14 have been accused of misleading customers before the program began about whether they would qualify for loan modifications or how low their new payments might be. In many such cases, servicers are accused of telling borrowers not to make payments because their applications for modifications were pending – and moving to foreclose anyway.

• At least three of the companies settled federal predatory collection allegations by pledging to correct their behavior. They have since been sued hundreds of times by homeowners who allege the same illegal practices.

“There is no question that there have been significant abuses by servicers, and a big part of that is there’s no one who is carefully monitoring their work to make sure that they’re not taking advantage of borrowers,” Eggert said.

In the past, loan servicing was a sleepy corner of the mortgage industry. Servicers did little more than open envelopes containing mortgage payments and forward money to investors.

The business became far more profitable during the housing boom. The proliferation of mortgages sold to risky, or subprime, borrowers created an opening for the servicing business. They specialized in collecting from people less likely to make timely payments, and profited as late fees mounted.

Servicers wanted this business so much that they sometimes bid more than they could reasonably expect to make back for handling a pool of loans, said Daniel Hedges, an attorney with Mountain State Justice Inc., a nonprofit West Virginia law office that represents homeowners facing foreclosure. As a result, some servicers began adding fees that weren’t due or otherwise overcharging borrowers, he said.

As borrowers fell behind on their loans, the servicers pocketed more late fees, foreclosure fees and negotiation fees. Some even profited from foreclosures.

In February 2005, Janet Simmons was more than $30,000 behind on her mortgage. Bayview Loan Servicing began foreclosure proceedings on her home, located on 3.1 acres in rural Rockingham County, Va., between Washington and Charlottesville.

But Bayview – which stands to receive up to $44.3 million from the Treasury’s loan-modification program – foreclosed without providing required written notice, the Virginia State Supreme Court found. Bayview never sent Simmons a letter by certified mail, as required under her loan.

Unbeknownst to Simmons, the home was sold at auction in July 2005. She didn’t find out she had lost the house until the new buyer asked why she was doing yard work on a home she no longer owned, said her lawyer, Kevin Rose.

The courts awarded Simmons $156,809 – the difference between what her home was worth and what it had received in a foreclosure sale.

Simmons could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Bayview did not return repeated phone calls requesting comment.

Rose said he gets “a lot of calls where it’s clear something was done wrong (by the servicer) and it’s clear you could reverse the foreclosure.”

But Rose and other housing lawyers said many cases of servicer abuse go unreported and unpunished – regardless of the evidence. In many states, there are no clear laws awarding legal fees to borrowers’ attorneys when servicers have acted improperly, Rose said.

“Servicers have flown under the regulatory radar,” said Julia Gordon, senior policy counsel with the Center for Responsible Lending, a Durham, N.C.-based advocacy group.

For six years, Jerry Turner made payments to Select Portfolio for a Charleston, W.Va., house he no longer owned.

In 2000, Turner was promised a loan modification in a court settlement. His mortgage belonged to a bank-owned pool of loans eventually serviced by Select Portfolio. Instead of lowering Turner’s payments as the court had ordered, the bank foreclosed on Turner’s home, court documents show. The bank then bought the house at auction.

Select Portfolio never told Turner his house had been sold. Instead, it continued sending him monthly invoices and cashing his checks. He didn’t find out he had lost the house until it was sold a second time, at auction – because Select Portfolio hadn’t paid property taxes on the home.

“I had excellent credit at one time,” Turner said. “Now, I can’t borrow money on the house, I can’t leave it, and it’s been tied up so much I don’t know what to do.”

Turner’s case against Select Portfolio is pending in West Virginia state court.

Borrowers facing foreclosure often don’t know who holds their mortgage. They have few options other than to sue their servicers for mishandling collections or failing to give adequate notice before foreclosing.

Servicers sometimes face frivolous lawsuits. But many servicers in line for government money are accused of ongoing, systematic abuses.

As part of its 2003 settlement with regulators, Select Portfolio, promised to end practices including collecting illegal fees and forcing borrowers to buy insurance. But the company, now owned by the investment bank Credit Suisse Group, has since been named in dozens of lawsuits alleging similar violations. A 2008 complaint in West Virginia state court, for example, alleged that the company charged homeowners thousands of dollars in unauthorized late fees and other charges.

Select Portfolio spokesman Craig Bullock said the company doesn’t comment on inquiries “about our practices and so forth.”

Another servicer, Ocwen Financial Corp., was found in 2004 to be engaged in illegal, unsafe and unsound collection practices. Ocwen settled with regulators by promising to comply with laws on foreclosure and debt collection and to try to find out if homeowners had insurance before charging them for its own, costlier insurance.

Ocwen, which is in line to receive up to $553.4 million from the Treasury, faces a federal class-action complaint for harassing homeowners with excessive phone calls, charging illegal fees and adding unnecessary insurance premiums to borrowers’ bills.

Ocwen engaged in “a nationwide scheme of illegal, unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices,” the complaint contends.

Paul Koches, Ocwen’s general counsel, disputed the allegations and noted the court has rejected one part of the lawsuit concerning illegal fees. “We have a deep and continuing commitment to foreclosure prevention,” he wrote in an e-mail.

The charges against Select Portfolio and Ocwen are unusual in their scope and severity. But at least 28 other companies on Treasury’s list also have been charged with, and in many cases settled, similar accusations.

Treasury says it has no choice but to work with all servicers, no matter how dubious their records. Refusing to work with a particularly bad player would “deprive homeowners who have mortgages with that servicer from getting modifications,” Treasury spokeswoman Jenni Engebretsen said in a statement.
Alina, on August 6, 2009 at 7:55 am said:

Abby,

First, I want to thank you for pointing out UETA to us.

With regard to the term “issuer,” I have a coy of the prefactory notes and comments drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. They define the term as the “obligor.” That is the reason they comment that conversion of a paper note is not negotiable. In order for an e-note to be negotiable, (a) it must be created as an electronic document, and (b) the obligor/issuer must give their express permission for the use of the e-note as an electronic record.

I am now researching to see if there is any case law dealing with this. It would seem to me that the standard in the industry, namely MERS, scanning notes into their system and then “negotiating” the notes would be a violation of UETA. I know I did not give my express permission for the paper note to be used as an electronic record.

It’s an interesting angle, and IMHO, one that should be looked at closely. I don’t believe anyone has ever thought of this. I know it never crossed my mind until you raised the issue.
msoliman, on August 6, 2009 at 6:24 am said:

Lisa- please fax to President Obama a smilar letter. He needs to know the banks are still doing nothing except to continue to pay out their bonuses extraordinaire. Nobody is really helping us victim homeowners.

Obama knows and so does Geithner. They fail to tell you that Fannie Mae and other GSE originations are the only assets qualified for modification. This is contemptuous and mislead of the American people.

GAAP under FASB will not allow for the Fed Savings bank to modify a loan that is sold.

(This is sincere and not aimed at anyone – It’s scary considering how far behind the 8 ball we are if we still are asking this question!)

msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
http://www.borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 4:03 am said:

Bryan–one more thing. If it goes to auction, you can go with some fliers and hand them out. Describe
why a person should NOT buy your property.

Keep in mind, that like in my case, the bank bought the property from itself at the supposed auction. At a very reduced rate!
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 3:09 am said:

MERS investors are familiar to us:

Mortgage Banking Association
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
American Land Title Association (ALTA)
and mortgage companies.
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 2:58 am said:

Lisa- please fax to President Obama a smilar letter. He needs to know the banks are still doing nothing except to continue to pay out their bonuses extraordinare. Nobody is really helping us victim homeowners.

The white house fax is
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

Also, if you write letter and post snail mail to white house, they get delayed 4 weeks or so for special screening for anthrax etc.

fax goes there pronto. I have gotten responses from the white house, on some fancy letterhead and in one case, PBO sent something over to HUD and then I got a letter from them.

PBO needs to know what is happening on main street.
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 2:51 am said:

Bryan

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=4323 find YOUR ACORN and go down there in person. ASK FOR SOME LEGAL ASSISTANCE.

http://www.sazlegalaid.org/lna.html is your az legal aid society—website WORK THE PHONE with them.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/Self-ServiceCenter/index.asp this is Maricopa court website…has forms….I don’t know where you are at Bryan.

http://www.azroc.gov/ to check on contractor license ‘license lookup’ and to file complaint

http://www.azag.gov/consumer/ to file fraud complaint with your AZ attorney general

go to pleadings here on LivingLIes and I think the very first listing is for a Template Complaint and it looks like one used in AZ, but it is NOT on pleading paper.

If you are pro se, the court may overlook the ‘pleading paper’

If you use it, you have to make it fit your situation and your facts. so, you will have to type.

If you really want pleading paper template you can give me your email and I will send one to you in WORD format. Then you can cut and paste from Neil’s template complaint into the pleading paper.

For you…best if you can find a freelance paralegal.
Lisa E., on August 6, 2009 at 2:44 am said:

“A prime example is Florida Default Law Group; having seen many of their cases, one can easily predict what paper they will file next. They’re like well oiled machine with no brain.”

OH MARCUS! With your quote here, from a post you wrote on 8/5/09, you have started my day with a great LAUGH!

I have often, tentatively stated, with a hint of whispered audacious amazement, “I sometimes think I am the better attorney compared to my FDLG attorney”! Having no legal training whatsoever this would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that the homes of hundreds of thousands of Floridians is/was on the line.

I often click on the employment opportunities link for FDLG, hoping a position for which I am qualified opens up locally to my home. Wouldn’t it be a kicker for all of us, including Neil G., Creator Extraordinaire of LivingLies Blog, to have an “inside connection”?

I’ve filed a Motion for Extension of Time in response to the Motion for Summary Judgement.

Now, I’m almost done with my Motion to Compel with request for Award of Expenses and Imposition of Sanctions.

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa Bep @ G Mail . com (remove spaces to email)

P.S. Please all, consider writing a letter of support to Congresswoman Kaptur! Here’s mine, feel free to copy & edit to your situation!

Although I reside in Florida and therefore am not fortunate enough to be one of your constituents, I am compelled to write a letter expressing my deep appreciation and gratitude for your efforts championing the rights and protections of the beleaguered homeowners who have been kneecapped by the fallout of Wall Streets’ securitization of home mortgages.

As a life-long hard working, gainfully employed, fiscally responsible woman who never as much paid a single bill late; I alternate between fear, disbelief, confusion, shock, dismay, resignation, and shame, as I cope with being caught up in a foreclosure suit against a bank who ignored eight months of pleas for loan modification, then rushed to foreclose immediately upon a few missed mortgage payments.

The Plaintiff in my case is represented by a well known “foreclosure mill” law firm, one which earned a $95,000 sanction for filing false affidavits in federal court, has in my state civil court case, produced an alleged copy of my mortgage note with an endorsement which differs from my own copy of my original note. It appears that the Plaintiff bank who initiated the foreclosure suit against me is using tampered and falsified documents to prove their right to be a holder of my Mortgage Note in order to foreclose upon my house.

Every single lawyer I consulted has informed me that “eventually they will produce the correct documentation and you will lose your house”.

Congresswoman Kaptur, thank you for taking the political risks, which you are most assuredly welcoming into your career, earned by passionately speaking out against the Wall Street gamblers who played fast and loose with the homes of Americans. These homes; which provide shelter to American families, children, elderly, disabled, ill, unemployed, economically devastated, constituents in every state, city and county across our struggling nation, will serve as a monetary boon to the foreclosing bank or mortgage servicer, without providing any financial relief to the investor who provided the funding for the loans in question.

Somehow a party who has not been damaged, is ending up with the houses (and equity therein) of Americans, leaving two damaged parties in its wake; the homeowner and the investor.

Despite the bleak outlook and the apparent lethargy, if not outright disinterest ,exhibited by all three branches of the American government which have thus far shown inability to create, uphold and enforce legislative policies which truly work to repair the terrible damage done to unsuspecting American families; YOU are a shining light, giving hope to ALL of us who are facing sure homelessness.

With gratitude and appreciation
Bryan, on August 6, 2009 at 2:44 am said:

Abby,

Once again, thank you.
Bryan, on August 6, 2009 at 2:38 am said:

S. B.

Thank you for your kind wishes. I just said a prayer for you. I wish you all the best, too.

Here is a visual for you. If you watch America’s Got Talent, there is a singer who is an uneducated, unemployed Chicken Catcher… I cannot imagine him ever defending himself, in a situation like we are going through. Well, I’m not a Chicken Catcher but I probably have the same or less mentality of that man. I was brought up and raised in a very tiny town, where everyone helped everyone, Doctor’s would make house calls in trade for a meal, or a carton of fresh eggs, attorney’s were no different.

I was never exposed to the corruption of the United States until this situation. I am certain there has to be at least one attorney out there who isn’t as corrupt as most that I’ve ran across. I don’t understand or comprehend greed for personal gain.

Today, on the news, in Tucson alone, they were talking about 250 families “not single men” but families that have been thrown out of there houses, they showed families, with their children standing in line to be fed a few crackers and a sandwhich. The food banks are running out of supplies. The shelters are full, leaving these families exposed to the dangerous eliments of the monsoons. I have never thought of myself first, and I will never stand in a line depriving someone else food, or shelter. I will not eat scraps out of a garbage can or food people throw out of their cars at the homeless and laugh. It breaks my heart to learn that the United States is “NOT” what I was raised to believe it was.

God Bless us everyone…
Abby in CA, on August 6, 2009 at 2:25 am said:

Bryan-remember, I am NOT an attorney just someone who has gone through something similar. I am not giving out legal advice. Always consult an attorney.

NO–I don’t think you have to ‘stop the foreclosure’ before ‘suing’ or filing a complaint for fraud etc as to your situation. Get the complaint filed and it may actually help you to stop any foreclosure action.

I am in Calif. so do not know AZ laws.

Also, until you file a lawsuit and then move to next phase called ‘discovery’ it would be very difficult to get back any documentation etc. Once in discovery if they don’t comply, then you can do a motion to compel them to produce (the judge needs to approve the motion, but you have stronger legs to stand on) and/or you can ask the judge to grant you subpoena (court order to produce documentation).

Here is another path to try. See if you can find a freelance paralegal (someone trained to write the legal documentation and who knows how to look up the AZ laws. You can arrange a deal with that person to do your legal docs for you, but then you file them, serve them etc….and, should you find the right attorney in the future, you can have the attorney work for you on a limited basis (go only to court hearings to represent you).

One more idea–have you looked online for lawyers who deal with ‘contract law’, since maybe there are elements regarding construction which they’d be better to handle.

And—go onto Craiglist, and they have a legal forum….create a ‘handle’ (your call name) and post to see if you can find any freelance paralegals.

You will not have a ‘case number’ to put on right side until your document is finished and you go to the courthouse to the civil clerk and ‘file’ it….and pay fees….the civil clerk will assign the case number and stamp the document with date/timestamp and sign his/her name.

Always bring 4 copies of the document(s) to the clerk.

They will stamp one or more to keep and then you will need one for yourself and then one for each defendant in your case (bank, construction company etc.).

Always, keep a copy of everything for yourself.

Call the civil clerk or go to courthouse in person to ask.
1. fees to file civil complaint (bring cash)
2. what are their hours of operation
3. how can you access your case (once filed) online?
4. what other legal forms need to be filed along with the initial complaint (in Calif. you have to file a Civil Case Cover Sheet and a Summons Form at same time) Bring 4 of those to get stamped, filed etc.

I will look and see if there is something on this site which you can sort of use as a ‘template’ for your complaint.

You can file pro se, without an attorney, then later, if you find one, you can subsitute him in.

Also, look online for your court information. Often, they have the forms to fill out on their website.
S B, on August 5, 2009 at 11:32 pm said:

Byran

I feel ur pain big time. I’m sure most of us do!

My sorry excuse of an attorney recently gave me notice of his withdrawl for Sept 3 09. And put me in as my own defence.

Nothing new there. Been threatening me for months and doing nothing. Can’t talk to anyone cause they say I have an attorney, but he refuses to anything cause in his mind he quit a long time ago. Went to the Bar Association and that was useless too. So guess I’m counting days now.

Not sure how the heck one is suppose to just walk away and mark it as the worst experience ever. Sicking. Geeeez

Hang in There Byran….I hope u win big time!!
Bryan, on August 5, 2009 at 11:11 pm said:

Abby,
Thank you for your direct posts to me. And thanks for all your supporting posts, I deeply appreciate you taken the time you do, this applies to you too, Marcus and everyone.

In Arizona, most of the attorney’s I have actually talked with “do” charge a consultation fee, in my situtation and after a couple of thousand dollars worth.., over three years … I now avoid “all” attorneys, who want to charge me money just to hear them say they can’t help me.

This past two weeks I have spoken with 6 different attorney’s in Arizona, and they have each told me, I don’t have the right to see “all” the documentation regarding my construction loan. And I don’t have the right to know how each penny was spent.

On this web-site, I have read it several times that I do have the right to know where and how every single penny was spent, and what it was spent for. I have also read that I am not at default, which I know I am not. But the attorney’s I spoke with, said I am at default, and this includes the attorney I had for 1 1/2 years.

Which is it, do I or don’t l have any right to see all documentation regarding my construction loan?

Which is it, do I or don’t I have the right to see where, when, and how every cent was spent and applied?

I want to know why I am being billed $356,000.00 and I never got a house, built? Where in the hell did the money go? Did “Arizona” take this right away from me also?

I must be missing something, because even my previous attorney who ripped me off, was unable to get documentation and financial proof of every cent.., he did ask in writing for it but he and I both, were denied by the General Contractor, and the Bank.

I understand that I have to stop the foreclosure first, and then sue afterward…Is this correct?

Since I am forced to file a lawsuit to stop the foreclosure myself, against the bank.

I need help with the first page.

On the first page and on the left, I know I put plaintiff verses defendants … what do I write on the right side of the page that usually goes under the case number?

And because there isn’t a case number I obviously can’t put one in there right?

I’ve copied and pasted so many documents I’m totally lost again.

I started reading this web site every single day for the past few months, I admit I am more educated than ever before, but it isn’t doing me a bit of good if I don’t know how to apply it.

I have been searching for an attorney in Arizona for Two Full years and dailey.., without success … and now I have less than 5 weeks before I am removed as a human being.

And the one thing I “HATE” most .., which has been said to me by way too many governmental agencys’ and attorneys … “Just walk away, it’s only property and you will still have your life.” ERRRRRRRR

If beating people up were legal, I’d have the power of Bruce Lee.

1.
Marcus, on August 5, 2009 at 6:30 pm said:

For those who want to understand the different accounting rules in corporate finance.
Learn this stuff, if you want to understand the pretender lender frauds.

http://accountingonion.typepad.com/theaccountingonion/2008/08/fas-140-lets-ca.html

Marcus
Abby in CA, on August 5, 2009 at 6:16 pm said:

Alina-I’m still uncertain about the ‘issuer’ term.

It could mean that the ‘issuer’ is the one who is going to use a ‘certificate’ for security purposes when sending e-document to the next party (i.e. when one bank sells loan/note to a second bank)

Go here to read some terminology — check out ‘issue certificates’

http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/resources/elibrary/eclgloss.shtml#certauthority

It seems logical that if we signed paper documents at closing that, yes they could be scanned into some system. In my case, it seems that every defendant I have (even title companies) can easily produce/print out the scanned image of Deed etc.

I suppose if any of us every is able to buy another house in the future, we might be faced with total E-NOTE and an E-NOTARY!!
Abby in CA, on August 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm said:

This is great!! Written by a Simon Johnson on 8-5-2009

In a quote potentially for the ages, John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency since 2005, told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, enforcement of consumer protection laws “should stay with the bank regulators, where it works well.”

This is a bold statement. Does Mr. Dugan have any evidence to support the idea that consumer protection vis-à-vis financial products currently works well? A close reading of his written testimony to the Senate Banking committee reveals none.

In fact, his whole testimony sounds like it comes from a parallel universe – one that did not just experience the biggest banking crisis in world history.

On p.18 of his testimony, he does have a good statement of the broader issues (emphasis added).

“Today’s severe consumer credit problems can be traced to the multi-year policy of easy money and easy credit that led to an asset bubble, with too many people getting loans that could not be repaid when the bubble burst. With respect to these loans – especially mortgages – the core problem was lax underwriting that relied too heavily on rising house prices. Inadequate consumer protections – such as inadequate and ineffective disclosures – contributed to this problem, because in many cases consumers did not understand the significant risks of complex loans that had seductively low initial monthly payments. Both aspects of the problem – lax underwriting and inadequate consumer protections – were especially acute in loans made by nonbank lenders that were not subject to federal regulation.”

The “especially acute” in the last sentence may be correct, but we know that many regulated banks (covered by all the existing regulators) participated in exactly the same rip-offs of consumers – which created the basis for a financial system meltdown.

Remember that the OCC supervises over 1,500 national banks, which includes many that have run into serious difficulties recently (a full list is not easy to find, but start here and here; or use this search; the list includes Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo, etc). (Post here stories of how OCC-supervised banks either took care of you as a consumer or mistreated you. Did the OCC side with you or the bank?)

The heart of Mr. Dugan’s objection to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) as proposed appears on p.25,

“The Proposal would vest all consumer protection rulewriting authority in the CFPA, which in turn would not be constrained in any meaningful way by safety and soundness concerns. That presents serious issues because, in critical aspects of bank supervision, such as underwriting standards, consumer protection cannot be separated from safety and soundness.”

Mr. Dugan wants to put the bank first – and if that involves taking more from the consumer or even taking advantage of the consumer, so be it (read the first full paragraph on p.26 carefully).

My favorite statement comes at the end.

“Our experience at the OCC has been that effective, integrated safety and soundness and compliance supervision grows from the detailed, core knowledge that our examiners develop and maintain about each bank’s organizational structure, culture, business lines, products, services, customer base, and level of risk; this knowledge and expertise is cultivated through regular on-site examinations and contact with our community banks, and close, day-to-day focus on the activities of larger banks.”

Is this why almost all our major banks essentially failed in 2008?

By Simon Johnson
Alina, on August 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm said:

I have researched and have found the answer to my question regarding UETA. Here is what I discovered,

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”) allows the use of E-Notes. However, these are electronic documents from their inception and the parties agree to the use of the e-signatures. Additionally, Section 16 limits the definition of a transferable record in two significant ways. First, only the equivalent of paper promissory notes and paper documents of title can be created as transferable records. The operative word is “created.”
This brings us to the second limitation which is that the issuer of an electronic record must expressly agree that the electronic record is to be considered a transferable record. Therefore, conversion of a paper note issued cannot become a transferable record because the issuer would not be the issuer in the case of the electronic record. The purpose of this restriction is assure that a transferable record can only be created at the time of issuance by the obligor.
Marcus, on August 5, 2009 at 1:29 pm said:

Fla.-based mortgage company suspended
Source:AP
MIAMI – Aug. 5, 2009 – A prominent U.S. mortgage company is being investigated by the Housing and Urban Development Department after allegedly failing to submit a required financial report, raising concerns of fraud.

The Federal Housing Administration on Tuesday suspended Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. from originating new FHA-insured mortgages, HUD said in a news release.

HUD claims company CEO Paul R. Allen gave false or misleading information regarding the company’s delay in submitting audited reports for the fiscal year ending March 31. Company President Ray Bowman is accused of submitting two false certifications to HUD on a yearly report.

HUD wants the executives barred from conducting business with the government for 18 months. Calls to Allen and Bowman were not immediately returned Tuesday.

The Ocala, Fla.-based company also was barred from issuing mortgage backed securities for the Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae will take control of the company’s nearly $25 billion portfolio of its loans, HUD said.

The lender said there were no unresolved issues with its independent auditor, even though the auditor discovered “certain irregular transactions that raised concerns of fraud,” HUD said.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General is investigating. The company and the executives can appeal.
Alina, on August 5, 2009 at 1:19 pm said:

There was a great post from Abby on UETA some time back.

Can anyone comment concerning MERS use of e-notes? My understanding is that the originals are scanned into MERS registry and then MERS negotiates the notes from there.

My thoughts are that this is a violation in that the borrowers have not consented to their signatures used for electronic means. MERS website states that “The eNote is a Transferable Record as defined by E-SIGN or UETA, whichever is applicable. A Transferable Record is an Electronic Record that (1) would be a note under the Uniform Commercial Code if the Electronic Record were in writing; (2) the issuer of the Electronic Record expressly has agreed is a Transferable Record; and (3) for purposes of E-SIGN, relates to a loan secured by real property.”

Is the issuer of the Electronic Record the borrower?

If anyone can point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
erlinda, on August 5, 2009 at 1:15 pm said:

sue, are you from california? give me a call. maybe i could help figuring it out. i have a hearing tomorrow in northern california bk court, two of the lenders filed motion for relief of stay. my attorney and i are ready to attacked lthe lenders and my attorney are ready for it. in california the only have power to sale is the original trustee look for your deed of trust, that is the agreement we signed and that is where our rights as a trustors/borrowers are within that document where the title company recorded the deed of trust. you have to read your deed of trust.call me 650-284-1764.
Joe, on August 5, 2009 at 12:28 pm said:

AP IMPACT: Gov’t mortgage partners sued for abuses
AP IMPACT: Mortgage middlemen to profit from gov’t housing bailout despite checkered past

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-IMPACT-Govt-mortgage-apf-3488611282.html?x=0&.v=5
GrammyG, on August 5, 2009 at 9:56 am said:

Sue
Listen to what Abby is telling you. I have been down that road and it’s been filled with potholes the whole way. Yesterday we had our Motion to Lift Stay hearing. No one (attorney) came with us. The judge asked if we had an attorney and we answered we thought we did, after all we paid $5000.00 to a firm to help us during this ordeal. our BK attorney had said, all they do is straight BK’s, no extras, this is why we had to retain another firm.
So the judge did not make a decision and set another hearing for 09/01 . In the meantime, she had us meet with the attorney from the Justice Department.
We showed him our contracts, receipts of payments etc. He wanted everything we had in our dealings with both of these attorneys. I think we spend at least an hour with him. He stated that many people are being taken advantage of and his department are looking at all the law firms that say they can help.
I don’t know what will come of this, but I did have a large trail of emails that he found interesting.
Marcus, on August 5, 2009 at 9:39 am said:

To add to Abby comment, I will say that as a pro se, agility is on your side and use it astutely. Due to their mill like procedure, the big firm do not move fast and often time their moves are predictable.
A prime example is Florida Default Law Group; having seen many of their cases, one can easily predict what paper they will file next. They’re like well oiled machine with no brain.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on August 5, 2009 at 9:25 am said:

Bryan-do not feel bad. All the big banks have retained the very large & well stocked (with attorneys) law firms.
They can afford to.

Do not dwell on your mistakes. Learn and move quickly forward. Stay focused on your end result. Identify what you want as the result of your contesting for your property. Write it down. Make it realistic.

I have found myself up against some of the biggest law firms in New York City.

This is like David and Goliath!!

What happened with David & Goliath?

Be strong and keep moving forward toward your goal.
Abby in CA, on August 5, 2009 at 9:21 am said:

To Angry & NTI– there is some pro-se informtation available online for Federal BKR. search around on their internet site. You probably already found it.
Abby in CA, on August 5, 2009 at 9:18 am said:

To Steve & Bryan

Work the phones and set up appointments with the attorneys.

Go see them in person. Have a list of your
questions written down so you don’t forget to ask.

Get specifics on how they would handle your case and exactly what services they’d provide.

Also, ask while making appointment via phone, do they have a conflict of interest with such and such lender/bank or…

Sooner or later, you need to go see the lawyer in person.

Also, many will not charge an initial consult fee. So ask for the initial consult and go in person.

I’d avoid mass e-mailing anything. Firms, people generally know of a mass e-mail and will ignore.

Work the phones!!!
sue, on August 5, 2009 at 4:36 am said:

Abby & A&NTI,
My attorney is -as he says – helping me “survive” another day, but it’s been tough getting him on par with the new realities of home mortgages. The ‘lender’ did motion to lift stay in Feb but hasn’t been granted as of yet – they’ve produced a defective assignment and we questioned it.
I’m not using the lost note defense yet but I found out that the note was destroyed, a policy of the lender since 4/06. I have this in writing, if you’d like to see it, I’d be happy to email it to you or maybe a moderator can post it.
Thanks for the support, and thanks, Neil G , for your gentle reminder to stay the course.
crazy, on August 5, 2009 at 1:21 am said:

FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Can both Freddie Mac and the “Pretender Lender” hold the mortgage at the same time? No, UCC 3-301

Does this prove that the “Pretender Lender” is not the real party in interest? No, FRCP 17a Ratification is the cure for the lenders

That the mortgage and the note are now separated due to improper assignments? The theory is, where ever the Note goes, the mortgage follows. Mortgages do not have to be recorded to be effective, they are contracts to secure repayment of the debt. MERS as nominee is the cure for the lenders

Can a mortgage be “unsecuritized” to allow a single entity foreclose on it? Im not to sure what your ? is on this one. If its securitized, only the trustee of the trust has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, or the actual owner of the note and mortgage.
Bryan, on August 4, 2009 at 10:31 pm said:

WARNING TO ALL VICTIMS SEEKING HELP, AND ESPECIALLY THE VICTIMS OF M&I MARSHALL AND ISLEY BANK IN ARIZONA.

Adding to my mental anguish are these two new facts; I contacted an attorney who fished for more information, leading me into thinking he may represent me. After telling him a portion of my situation, he turns out to be one of many attorney’s representing the very bank who is illegally foreclosing on me. To rub this new wound.., with salt … I sent out over 100 letters to the same law firm, who has close to 300 attorney’s. I’m certain by now they are all fully aware of my e-mails. (This may help me). The bank will never be able to say I didn’t contact them…

If you are wondering how could I be so stupid, this is the reason; I sent hundreds of e-mails out to multiple law firms.., all over Arizona … several of these law firms told me there is a conflict of interest because they already represent the bank, this caused me to feel safe with the remainder law firms.

With this knowledge, I know I am wrong but I can’t help feel like M&I Marshall and Isley Bank has hired all the big law firms in Arizona, and why not? They have stolen thousands of homes, sold them and now they can afford as many law firms as they want.

Bryan
angry&not taking it, on August 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm said:

abby point well made.
i am working on this very thing now..
having a fool for a client, i’ll be representing myself in an adversary action against sevicer thru bk court , i’ll post further details once i can avoid looking like a utter fool here.
Abby in CA, on August 4, 2009 at 5:25 pm said:

Sue-advise that you get exact details of what the bankruptcy attorney will do for you. Typically they will file papers, make the plan and go to hearings with the creditors and you.

Very few people have found, from my discussions with many facing foreclosure, that the BKR attorney will typically NOT fight your lender in your behalf in BKR.

The lender will typically come in and file a Motion to Lift Stay on the property and that is usually granted, so then the foreclosure proceeds ahead.

The BKR may buy some time, but unless you have a very saavy BKR attorney who knows what to do with the lender, you will still have to deal with a foreclosure.

Neil has many postings on this site that discuss special tactics the BKR attorney can do with the lender.

Get specifics from the proposed BKR attorney on services provided.
angry&not taking it, on August 4, 2009 at 2:23 pm said:

thanks sue

btw you should be sure to discuss with your atty & explore the fact that some of the advantages that bk court has that is unavailable in civil court.
sue, on August 4, 2009 at 1:29 pm said:

I should mention that I do have a lawyer advocating Ch 13 for me, but I believe there’s enough discoverable information for more action against this particular bank.
sue, on August 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm said:

A&NT,
I went to the County Assessor’s website where I live, and searched by keywords “business interest” and “property interest” and also took a look at forms I could download from that site. I found a tax manual that I downloaded, there is plenty of information there that I plan to request during discovery phase.
Yes, sorry, that was a typo – I was told “There has been no power of sale recorded” by the County Assessor’s office.
Of course, that’s because the ‘bank’ must have documents sent by M.ER that the PIF, or payment in full, was acknowledged before releasing the Master Deed & Note.
The banks are not selling REOs because 1) they like the tax exempt status, and 2) they don’t want your house – that may change when someone thinks about leasing it out instead of it sitting abandonded in a city, – oh lets not forget about the tax exempt REMICs that would not exist if they were found not to be tax exempt.
I’ve learned that the Netherworld of securities is a reverse of the real world, (i’ts Opposite day there) Liability is an asset. Tax-free, asset.
I realize to fully understand what happened, I need to have a basic understanding of law, common & federal, and procedures in the course of normal business. I audit records for compliance for a living. I know there are industry standards available (www) on credible sites. Right now I’m making a ‘best practice’ standard checklist based on rules rules & reg and comparison to determine what happened in my case. I’ve found title insurance companies, auditors, legal opinions, etc – believe me, everyone cuts corners, it’s called “Human Factors”.
Hope this helps!
angry&not taking it, on August 4, 2009 at 11:55 am said:

sue
thank you for sharing..
it appears that you have done a fair amount of research..
might i humbly ask .. of you & everyone else
who has gone through the effort of researching issues – example –
“Susan you wrote” – In fact, I went to the Tax Assessor’s office and was told ~ “me one had recorded a “Power” of sale.” – sue is there is a typo here !?
[ one had recorded a "power of sale " ] ?
or [ no one had recorded a"power of sale"] ?
and
1- the requirements for recording of docs at the [ country recorders office ]
your source of legal reference or requirement [ simply where other will find this same reference or requirement ]
this may very well prove to become a valid attack for “homeowners”;
as if any of the assignment[s] being defective or incorrect .. [ neil correct me here please ]
the foreclosure would then be defective or unlawful to allow completed?
so where & what to look for in these assignments & proper recording of.
and i would hope that all of us reading would know this already -
but myself i can not state the statute or requirement to confirm these important elements.
i hope this made sense .
thanks
pdx, on August 4, 2009 at 1:07 am said:

Hello to all. I live in OREGON which is a non-judicial state.

Loan Servicer = BofA
House purchased = summer 07

I recently received by certified mail..
” Trustee’s Notice of Sale ” dated july 14 2009

Upon receipt (of no less than 8 copies of this letter) I started hitting google and found Neil’s blog. A God-send! Still, there are so many ins-and-outs to this whole debacle. My head is spinning. I am ready to fight but don’t know the rules of engagement yet.

Here’s what I have done so far.
About 10 days after receiving the letter from the “trustee”…
I downloaded “initial debt dispute” & “objection to trustee sale” from this blog and sent them by certified mail to the “trustee”.

MY house is scheduled for Auction nov 09 (3 months away). I have no idea what the correct next steps are. How do I suspend the auction? I feel like I need to pause that before I can go on the offensive… but i don’t know.

Let’s say I get the Auction stalled or suspended somehow… (ideas?)

The next steps from what i gather are… sending a Qualified Written Request & Recision Letters ? But to whom? The “trustee”, the title company, the pretender lender? I just don’t know.

Cash is tight (obviously) so I am pro se, at present. Some of document templates such as the QWR has “lawfirm” in the document. If I am pro se do I just put my name? So far I have only sent the objection letter and dispute of debt to the “trustee” not my pretender lender.

To whom and which documents need to be sent next? How do I get this stuff properly recorded? What do I need to be doing on the county level or federal level?
I have tried to read and re-read posts and comments before posting. Everyone’s situation is different and there is also cool high level intellectual banter on this blog.A lot of you seem to be in Florida which has a different set of legal steps vs non-judicial state like OR. So for this Oregon dude what is next. Wait? Attack? Who, What, Where, and When ?

Thanks so much!!! (sorry for all the questions at once I just dont want to fudge up)

- Mr. Oats & Treebark in Oregon
Alina, on August 3, 2009 at 1:55 pm said:

57 Orlando homes set for auction
Mary Shanklin Sentinel Staff Writer
2:36 PM EDT, August 3, 2009

As many as 57 foreclosed homes in Orlando are expected to be auctioned on Saturday as part of a statewide auction of 200 bank-owned houses through Sunday.

Most of the properties have failed to sell after being on the market from three months to a year, said a Crystal Wright, spokesperson for Baker Wright Group, a publicity group that represents auctioneers Hudson & Marshall of Texas Inc.

While some experts have suggested that banks are not putting all of their foreclosed properties on the market, Wright said she sees no evidence of that based on the volume of those houses coming to market.

A big appetite for distressed properties in hard-hit states is driving national sales numbers, said Dave Webb, a principal with Hudson & Marshall.

“…there has been an uptick in home sales nationwide because of historically low prices and interest rates and the government’s tax credit,” Webb said. “Certainly, in the Sun Belt states like Florida, drenched in foreclosures, sales of bank-owned homes are contributing to the sales gains nationwide.”
Foreclosure Fraud, on August 3, 2009 at 7:17 am said:

Scenario…

1. Wholesale lender originates loan.

2. Wholesale lender sells loan and gets paid in full before first payment is made by borrower. Borrower has statement showing original loan paid in full.

3. New servicer collects payments for first 2 years for new “investor”. (Freddie Mac?)

4. Servicer for first two years is acquired by another “Lender”.

5. New “Lender” does an assignment of mortgage from original wholesale lender (3 years after origination) and claims they now hold the mortgage and the note which they acquired from original wholesale lender. (Who was paid in full shortly after origination).

6. New “lender” files foreclosure action.

7. Motion to Dismiss and Discovery submitted by defendant.

8. The “Pretender Lenders” attorneys objected to nearly all requests for admissions.

9. They did admit to the original loan being securitized.

According to Freddie Macs website
“Does Freddie Mac Own Your Mortgage?”
they hold the mortgage as well.

QUESTIONS

Can both Freddie Mac and the “Pretender Lender” hold the mortgage at the same time?

Does this prove that the “Pretender Lender” is not the real party in interest?

That the mortgage and the note are now separated due to improper assignments?

Can a mortgage be “unsecuritized” to allow a single entity foreclose on it?

Any insight on this by anyone would be appreciated!

Fraud in Florida
Marcus, on August 1, 2009 at 7:59 am said:

Why Own When You Can Lease?
NY Times

BY providing financial institutions with enough capital to survive (and even thrive) over the past year, the federal government prevented the global economy from grinding to a halt. But it may also have unwittingly encouraged banks to slow the resolution of delinquent, defaulted and underwater loans secured by homes and commercial real estate. Such “extend and pretend” behavior does little except delay losses — which helps explain the recent crop of prediction-beating, market-rallying bank earnings reports — while prolonging and worsening the damage done by bad loans.

Just this week, the White House met with a gaggle of mortgage company executives to discuss why their loan modification programs have been so ineffective. In fact, a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research illustrates that these programs haven’t been ineffective so much as unused: only 8 percent of seriously delinquent borrowers have received any form of mortgage modification and fewer than 3 percent of such borrowers received a concession on principal or interest payments from their lender. By contrast, about 50 percent of those seriously delinquent loans had foreclosure proceedings initiated against them. That’s a record rate of 1.9 million foreclosure filings in the first half of this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01alpert.html?th&emc=th
sue, on August 1, 2009 at 2:21 am said:

Abby –
You are on the same track as I after taking a tip from Mr Neil G – ‘attack the NOD’ and ‘question everything’). In fact, I went to the Tax Assessor’s office and was told me one had recorded a “Power” of sale.
I also found out there are rules to be followed for recording certain documents with the Assessor’s Office, such as Affidavit of Beneficial Interest, Business property interests, Power of Attorney, and more.
These REMICs and REITS and trusts are all slaves to master documents, and all are manufactured for TAX AVOIDANCE. When my pseudo- ‘lender’ purchased ‘certain’ assets and rejected ‘liabilities’ of a failed bank, he signed away all right to relief from this tax burden, and neither I nor the Court has the power to relieve his self-injury, aka ‘Tax liability,
Remember there is a Master and a slave in the world of Trusts and trustees and REMICs and REITS. There is the Authoritative document, all others subrogated, and this is the Master Deed of Trust and Master Promissory Note we signed. The Power of Sale, unless proven otherwise, has not been revoked and is with the Master Trustee named on the date of the Deed.
Wall street does not have the power to ‘take’ real property, they want the tax avoidance from the interest – and this is what the REMICS need to survive.
Title fee ownership is ours, and please correct me if I am wrong – adequate protection is the property owner’s right above all others.
There are important documents on record with the County Tax Assessor, an important TDN identifier, an Affidavit of Beneficial Interest, a Change of Ownership, and Business Property Interest record.
I concluded that the business entities are so well insured from money bucket to money bucket, and so well indemnified that they cannot litigate disputes from wall street, so the disputes spill out to our streets.
Deloitte admitted to structuring finances around existing laws. I saw that isn’t breaking the law, but forcing new laws to meet their needs, and litigating to expand the boundaries at the expense of unwary and weary homeowners.
My Deed also obligates me to defend against third parties in opposition who cause property devaluation, and slander the title, and who seek to ‘take’ the property for their tax avoidance.
My Deed has additional steps to reinstatement, even after Notice of sale, doesn’t everyone’s?
I’m sure they’d be happy to sit on a tax-exemption forever, but not in my back yard. I am not happy to oblige wall street and lose my rights so they have more.
I plan to slap them out of California, because the Master Deed of Trust expects payment, yes, but never agreed to an involuntary sale by auction, and by disputing the third party lender, and petitioning for protection under chapter 13, one of those Title insurers on record had better take notice that the Master Trustee did not record the Power TO sell, as well.
Dan Edstrom, on July 31, 2009 at 5:18 pm said:

No. The originator and original sub-servicer was Mortgage Lenders Network. The Custodian is Wells Fargo Bank. About 1.5 years into the loan Wells Fargo took over sub-servicing. The warehouse lender(s) is/are subsidiaries of GMAC-ResCap: Residential Funding, Residential Asset Security Corporation, etc.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on July 31, 2009 at 5:06 pm said:

Dan–is yours New Century?
Dan Edstrom, on July 31, 2009 at 4:52 pm said:

Abby,
The SEC documents for the pool my loan is in say something like this:

The documents go to the Trustee or the nominee for the Trustee (who may be the Custodian)

It also happens in my case that the Custodian is the sub-servicer (they replaced the originator/sub-servicer who went into bankruptcy).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on July 31, 2009 at 4:07 pm said:

TIPS for your Discovery–focus on the
Master Document Custodian!!

In the discovery for each link in the securitization chain there must be:

· a note

· a purchase and sale agreement

· a transfer receipt

· a delivery receipt

· a bond if the notes are endorsed in blank

· a receipt of funds for the purchase of the note

· and a disbursement of funds for the acquisition of the note

In the very simple RMBS model, there has to be transfers from the
originator to the sponsor, from the sponsor to the depositor, from the
depositor to the Trustee for the Trust, and from the Trustee to the
Master Document Custodian for the Trust.

Abby is offering her opinion & personal advice she has used and does not purport to be offering any legal advice. Always consult an attorney.
msoliman, on July 31, 2009 at 2:36 pm said:

Frank Threatens Banks To Stop Foreclosures.
(AP) A senior House Democrat is threatening banks that if they don’t volunteer to save more homeowners from foreclosure, Congress will make them.

How , they cannot ….Fannie and Freddie are the exception and the Government knows it.

Sick, really!
Marcus, on July 31, 2009 at 7:17 am said:

Big Banks Paid Billions in Bonuses Amid Wall St. Crisis
NY Times 07/31/09

Thousands of top traders and bankers on Wall Street were awarded huge bonuses and pay packages last year, even as their employers were battered by the financial crisis.
Nine of the financial firms that were among the largest recipients of federal bailout money paid about 5,000 of their traders and bankers bonuses of more than $1 million apiece for 2008, according to a report released Thursday by Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31pay.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Marcus, on July 30, 2009 at 7:11 pm said:

Hello Folks,
When my loan was created, the broker license had expired. I am looking for case law in Florida that supports the argument that the mortgage is invalid because the broker was not licensed.
Thanks for any help.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Alina, on July 30, 2009 at 3:39 pm said:

Abby,

Thanks. That is a website I peruse once in while. They do have a great Legal Lounge with a good collection of case law. Even their Forum has good information once in while. Lately though, there have been some very strange posts so I do not visit the site as often now.
Abby, on July 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm said:

BARS–not the one you find drinks in!!

FLORIDA ETHICS ALERT (from Florida Bar News)

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/bcf87a46ab97f2b2852575700067e13f?OpenDocument

CALIFORNIA ETHICS ALERT (from the California Bar)

http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/ethics/Ethics-Alert-Foreclosure.pdf
Abby, on July 30, 2009 at 3:05 pm said:

Alina et al—this is a great site with lots of cases re: MERS and other perps

http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/lounge.html
Marcus, on July 30, 2009 at 2:33 pm said:

Frank Threatens Banks To Stop Foreclosures

(AP) A senior House Democrat is threatening banks that if they don’t volunteer to save more homeowners from foreclosure, Congress will make them.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that rising foreclosure rates will increase Congress’ appetite for legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down a person’s monthly mortgage payment. The financial industry has fought bitterly against the bill and, so far, kept it from passing the Senate.

Frank said that besides reviving the bankruptcy bill, his committee won’t consider legislation to help banks lend until there is a “significant increase” in loan modifications.
GrammyG, on July 30, 2009 at 12:53 pm said:

Shanna
I can let you know by next wednesday, 08/05, if you want to continue fighting for your home. We are a bit further than you in fighting for our home. Next tuesday we appear in court for Motion to Lift Stay.
We were able to get Tim McCandless to represent us but we may be to late as far as moving out of our home for now.
If your in California and want to compare attorneys and fees, email me @ my personal.
Dan Edstrom, on July 30, 2009 at 8:59 am said:

Shanna,
What state are you in?

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Marcus, on July 30, 2009 at 7:36 am said:

Lucrative Fees May Deter Efforts to Alter Loans

By PETER S. GOODMAN
NY Times
Published: July 29, 2009

This week, the Obama administration summoned mortgage company executives to Washington to demand they move faster to lower payments for homeowners sliding toward foreclosure. Treasury officials called on the companies to hire and train more people quickly to field applications for relief.

But industry insiders and legal experts say the limited capacity of mortgage companies is not the primary factor impeding the government’s $75 billion program to prevent foreclosures. Instead, it is that many mortgage companies are reluctant to give strapped homeowners a break because the companies collect lucrative fees on delinquent loans.
Even when borrowers stop paying, mortgage companies that service the loans collect fees out of the proceeds when homes are ultimately sold in foreclosure. So the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater the opportunities for these mortgage companies to extract revenue — fees for insurance, appraisals, title searches and legal services.

“It frustrates me when I see the government looking to the servicer for the solution, because it will never ever happen,” said Margery Golant, a Florida lawyer who defends homeowners against foreclosure and who worked in the law department of a major mortgage company, Ocwen Financial. “I don’t think they’re motivated to do modifications at all. They keep hitting the loan all the way through for junk fees. It’s a license to do whatever they want.”

Rich Miller, a governance project manager at Countrywide Financial and Bank of America before he left in January, said Bank of America had been reluctant to modify loans, which hurt the bottom line. The company has been waiting and hoping the economy will improve and delinquent customers will resume making payments, he said.

“That’s the short-term strategy,” said Mr. Miller, who oversaw training programs at Countrywide, which was bought by Bank of America. He now works as an industry consultant.

Bank of America disputed that characterization. “To think that somehow or other we would jeopardize investor relationships and customer relationships for the very small incremental income we would receive by delaying seems ludicrous,” said Robert V. James, the bank’s senior vice president for mortgage operations and insurance. “It’s not the right thing to do.”

Mortgage companies, some of which are affiliated with the nation’s largest banks, are paid to manage pools of loans owned by investors. The companies typically collect a percentage of the value of the loans they service. They extract their share regardless of whether borrowers are current on their payments. Indeed, their percentage often increases on delinquent loans.

Legal experts say the opportunities for additional revenue in delinquency are considerable, confronting mortgage companies with a conflict between their own financial interest in collecting fees and their responsibility to recoup money for investors who own most mortgages.

“The rules by which servicers are reimbursed for expenses may provide a perverse incentive to foreclose rather than modify,” concluded a recent paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

Under the Obama administration’s foreclosure program, a servicer that modifies a loan for a homeowner collects $1,000 from the government, followed by $1,000 a year for each of the next three years. A senior Treasury adviser, Seth Wheeler, said these payments amounted to “meaningful incentives to servicers to help overcome the challenges and competing demands they face in considering and completing loan modifications.” He added that mortgage companies “are contractually obligated to the terms of this program, which require them to offer modifications to qualified borrowers.”

But experts say the administration’s incentives are often outweighed by the benefits of collecting fees from delinquency, and then more fees through the sale of homes in foreclosure.

“If they do a loan modification, they get a few shekels from the government,” said David Dickey, who led a mortgage sales team at Countrywide and Bank of America, leaving in March to start his own mortgage advisory firm, National Home Loan Advocates. By contrast, he said, the road to foreclosure is lined with fees, especially if it is prolonged. “There’s all sorts of things behind the scenes,” he said.

When borrowers fall behind, mortgage companies typically collect late fees reaching 6 percent of the monthly payments.

“For many subprime servicers, late fees alone constitute a significant fraction of their total income and profit,” said Diane E. Thompson, a lawyer for the National Consumer Law Center, in testimony to the Senate Banking Committee this month. “Servicers thus have an incentive to push homeowners into late payments and keep them there: if the loan pays late, the servicer is more likely to profit.”

She cited Ocwen Financial, which reported that nearly 12 percent of its income in 2007 came from fees to borrowers.

Paul A. Koches, Ocwen’s general counsel, said: “We’d prefer that to be zero. The costs associated with our delinquent loans are in every instance in excess of the late fees.”

Data on delinquencies reinforces the notion that servicers are inclined to let problem loans float in purgatory — neither taking control of houses and selling them, nor modifying loans to give homeowners a break.

From June 2008 to June 2009, the number of American mortgages that were 90 days or more delinquent soared from 1.8 million to nearly 3 million, according to the realty research company First American Core Logic. During that period, the number of loans that resulted in the bank taking ownership of the home declined to 245,000, from 333,000.

As a home slides toward foreclosure, mortgage companies pay for many services required to take control of the property and resell it. They typically funnel orders for title searches, insurance policies, appraisals and legal filings to companies they own or share revenue with.

Ocwen established its own title company, Premium Title Services, in part to keep more of the revenue from foreclosures, said Ms. Golant, who helped start it.

“It was hugely profitable,” she said. “Premium Title would charge for the title when it got transferred to Ocwen, then charge again when it got transferred to the new buyer, and then sell title insurance. It was easy money.”

Mortgage companies not only gain this extra business through their subsidiaries, but also collect reimbursement for the payments when the houses are sold.

The investors who own bad mortgages accept whatever is left. Investors typically do not notice how much they give up to the servicers, because fees are embedded in complex sales.

“It’s under the radar,” Ms. Golant said.

Ultimately, the benefits of delinquency erode incentives for mortgage companies to dispose of troubled loans quickly, say experts, allowing distressed houses to decay and fall in value — a fact of little interest to the servicer.

“At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the house sells for, because they don’t take that loss,” said Ms. Golant. “Meanwhile, they are collecting all these fees.”
Alina, on July 30, 2009 at 7:03 am said:

Thanks Abby,

I do understand there are firms mining these websites. As for law school, the attorneys I work with ask me that question all the time. However, it was something that I put on the back burner until my kids were out of school. Now with all that has happened in the past 2 years, I am not sure if that will ever be realized. But you never know what tomorrow will bring.
Abby in CA, on July 30, 2009 at 12:37 am said:

Alina
I am not discouraging you from posting. I’d just like to warn you a bit that the opposing side in your matter, may also have somebody checking/reading on this site.

Thus, they might be able to understand all your strategies and directed efforts.

Be careful. Like to see you win this.

Also, are you considering law school after your win?
shanna, on July 29, 2009 at 4:58 pm said:

Really deciding to try and fight my post-foreclosure. I won’t go through my long drawn out process of how i got where I am now (unless someone needs me to in order to answer my quesiton)…but i’m trying to decide if i should pay lawyers to fight this.

My sale actually took place on July 7, 2009. On the day of my sale, after my year long battle with my Lender in trying to get a modification failed. My lender said, “he tried to get my sale postponed but could not reach the ‘investor’ in time to do so. And that he would work on a “revert of sale”. Frantic, i thought well this could be turned around perhaps…i was to call by the end of the week. I called and he said he had no answer yet. The next week I called, and he asked that I send our updated financial information and asked how much could we pay in aerrages? And that this would be key in figuring out what could be done. I told him to just give me a number to see if we could work something out (he said we owed 25,000 ) and i said of course i could not pay all of that, but perhaps half. He said he’d call back. Of course, i did all of the calling and he never followed through.

Fast forward to now, i’m trying to fight off eviciton by having an audit done on my loan. Which revealed that my Lender who is known to be a servicing company and generally not in the habit of purchasing loans, did not have my loan on the 3rd of June when they initiated the foreclosure but MERS did. And that my Lender supposedly purchased it weeks later on the 23rd! What does this mean?

And the crazy part, they haven’t even taken the time to take my name off the deed at the courthouse, it looks like we are still the rightful owners!! I’m just so confused.

I want to know should i go forward with these attorneys who is going to cost me a pretty penny, but seem genuinely excited to try this case.

Do you guys think i have a shot, or should i just pack up and walk away now, and save my money? ANY thoughts would be greatly apprecaited.
James#, on July 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm said:

I ran across this article on livinglies from Sept. 22, 2008. It was sumitted by Gator Bradshaw Esq.
Titled: Using ID theft and Morgtage Fraud against the Banks.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/turning-the-tables-using-id-theft-and-mortgage-fraud-against-the-banks/

It looked like a real find. I don’t think it got enough consideration so I copied the link here. . I was hoping that Mr.Garfield might consider reposting it so it could be parsed for any I ran across this article on livinglies from Sept. 22, 2008. It was sumitted by Gator Bradshaw Esq. Titled: Using ID theft and Morgtage Fraud against the Banks.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/turning-the-tables-using-id-theft-and-mortgage-fraud-against-the-banks/

It looked like a real find. I don’t think it got enough consideration so I copied the link here. . I was hoping that Mr. Garfield might consider reposting it so it could be parsed for any potential value.
Marcus, on July 29, 2009 at 1:27 pm said:

Countrywide’s promised loan relief falling short for many

The Miami Herald, Monica Hatcher

WASHINGTON – July 29, 2009 – Countrywide agreed last year to give Florida customers mortgage relief as part of a settlement over lending practices, but critics say the company is not living up to its end of the bargain. As part of a settlement, the now-defunct subprime mortgage giant promised $1 billion in mortgage relief to its legions of struggling Florida customers.

Now, eight months later, borrowers trapped in problem loans say Countrywide Financial is not living up to the terms of the $8.4 billion deal.

The loan modifications were part of a settlement reached with Florida and 10 other states that allowed Countrywide, which merged with Bank of America a year ago, to avoid prosecution for allegedly using deceptive sales and marketing practices to sell borrowers risky, high-cost mortgages.

“My 1-year-old nephew has more teeth than the settlement agreement,” said Dennis Donet, a Miami foreclosure defense attorney.

Both borrowers and loan modification consultants complain of abysmal customer service and a maddening process that can take months to complete. Mortgage brokers and attorneys criticize the low number of loan modifications completed, considering the company’s past dominance in Florida.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill McCollum said it appears the company is sufficiently complying with the settlement – one of the largest of its kind in U.S. history – but the attorney general’s office still has the matter under review.

Civil suits dropped

Under the settlement, Countrywide admitted no guilt in the civil cases filed by Florida and the other states.

The lawsuits were dropped, but Florida is moving forward with a case against the company’s former chief executive, Angelo Mozilo, for allegedly engaging in deceptive lending and other illegal practices related to the sale of mortgage-backed securities.

A motion to dismiss the case against Mozilo is being heard Wednesday in Broward Circuit Court. If the case proceeds, he would be the highest profile lending executive to face trial since the start of the mortgage debacle.

Back in October, Countrywide estimated about 52,000 Florida borrowers were potentially eligible for help, which included loan modifications for subprime and payment option adjustable rate mortgages – loans especially prone to default because of payments that shoot up.

It promised to waive all fees and penalties and agreed to make cash payments to families needing help to relocate after foreclosure. The company also set aside $21 million to compensate borrowers who quickly defaulted on their loans – often a sign they never had a chance of affording a home to begin with.

As part of its outreach, the company also said it would offer modifications to borrowers even if they had not yet fallen behind. But homeowners, including Michael Lutfey, who lives in Miramar, say they have pleaded for a loan modification to no avail.

Lutfey, who has a payment option ARM that allows the loan balance to grow when minimum payments are made, says the value of his house has fallen by 40 percent. He’s current, but has a loan payment that is about to balloon.

Countrywide, he said, rejected his loan modification application because he made too much money and was not yet behind.

“It did not make any sense to me since a loan modification could have been tailored under their [program] to equal the amount of the minimum monthly payment that I am able to pay,” said Lutfey, who still has not received a modification. He has had to hire a lawyer to help him through the process.

Rick Simon, a spokesman for Bank of America, which now owns Countrywide, defended the company’s efforts. “We are very proud of our record,” he said. “We think we are running ahead of the schedule envisioned.”

He did, however, acknowledge that after a quick start, the pace of modifications slowed during the first part of the year as the company waited for the release of the Making Home Affordable federal loan modification program.

Simon also said the company is struggling with the volume of borrowers calling in for aid. The company has 7,400 home retention specialists handling 80,000 calls a day.

According to its first compliance report to the state, Countrywide said it modified 6,497 Florida loans between December – when the settlement took effect – and March 31.

Critics say it is impossible to gauge the significance of the number, since the total number of Countrywide subprime and payment option loans in Florida is unknown. The attorney general’s office said it does not have the number, which Bank of America also would not disclose.

“We’re in a state of 15 million people and they probably made a loan to one in five adults. Where are the modifications? Countrywide could have modified 52,000 loans in Miami-Dade County alone,” said Grant Stern, a Bay Harbor Islands-based mortgage consultant.

Delays are to be expected, according to Keith Gumbinger, vice president of mortgage industry publisher HSH Associates. The 6,500 modifications completed so far are a promising step, he said.

“It’s not like flipping a switch,” he said. “There’s paperwork that has to be drafted, developed and signed. It’s an uphill battle to get that positive result.”

Countrywide has also made $491,963 in relocation payments. And it said it would begin making payments early next year to borrowers that defaulted quickly. On Tuesday, the attorney general’s office announced another payment from Countrywide: $4 million that will be used to offer foreclosure defense services to borrowers through the Florida Bar Foundation.

Beyond that, neither the state nor the attorney general’s office is making the details of the first compliance report public. Last month, Countrywide obtained a temporary protective order from a Broward Circuit Court judge to prevent the release of further details, citing trade secrets. The state, consequently, released only a single page summary of the report.

Critics claim they need to see a detailed account to evaluate how much the company is doing to repair the damage from its lending practices.

“There is no list of loans. There is no mechanism to ensure transparency or to track what happens with the loans. We don’t know who gets relief and who doesn’t and why,” said April Charney, a senior staff attorney with Jacksonville Area Legal Aid.

Some fault McCollum’s office for giving too much control to Countrywide to administer the relief. “They left it up to Bank of America and Countrywide to help borrowers and that is sort of like asking the tobacco industry to take care of smokers who get cancer,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance.

The state should have demanded $1 billion in cash from the company to use for its own foreclosure prevention programs, he said.

Another development some find troublesome is that Countrywide has begun modifying mortgages under the federal Making Home Affordable program, which subsidizes reductions in interest rates and makes incentive payments to lenders for each completed modification.

Austin King, national director of the financial justice center for ACORN, a grass-roots community advocacy group, said Countrywide should not be allowed to substitute one obligation – reviewing loans and making modifications under the federal plan – with its obligations under the settlement.

The settlement should be used to qualify borrowers who cannot be modified under the federal plan, he said. “[The settlement] was to make people whole because of Countrywide’s law-breaking lending practices and that obligation still needs to be satisfied,” King said.

Simon said in many cases borrowers got a better deal under the federal plan and that incentives were used to foot the cost of more modifications.

Bad experience

Even some customers who eventually succeed in getting a Countrywide loan modification have few nice things to say about the experience. Germain Leville, 52, a technician at Memorial Regional Hospital, said she had to jump through hoops for more than six months.

“I kept calling and they kept transferring me from phone to phone,” Leville said. Like Lutfey, she said she had to pay a private loan modification company for help.
Alina, on July 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm said:

James#,

During my hearing in state court on my Motion to Dismiss, I found the judge to be receptive. However, he denied my motion on the basis that opposing counsel advised the court incorrectly that they had sent the notice of default/acceleration. That was never sent and the document that opposing counsel with the court is not an acceleration/default letter. After that I filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. So my current perception of the judge is that he is either disinterested or there’s another agenda. I get the distinct impression that because I am pro se, my arguments are not given any merit. Additionally, when you call the JA and tell her your case is a foreclosure case, there is a change in her tone of voice. It’s almost as if a foreclosure case is not important because the term “just a foreclosure” is used a lot.

As for the federal judge, I have not had enough dealings with her to comment yet.
James#, on July 29, 2009 at 12:39 pm said:

Alina,
How have you found the Judge? Has your Judge been knowledgable about forceclosure issues?
By the way I have been following your post and never thought the opposing Attorney would have a cake walk. Just the contrary.
Thanks, for the History. I like to know how people are progressing in this crazy process.
Alina, on July 29, 2009 at 11:40 am said:

James#,

Thanks. I have been fighting the foreclosure suit in state court for almost a year now. I filed the federal case seeking rescission. I filed it within one year of sending the rescission letters. I have gathered enough case law to support my position.

The attorney in the state court action told me that once I filed in federal court, they would bring in the BIG GUNS. Btw, the attorney in the state court case has been substituted out. He was replaced by the attorney representing the servicer and trustee in the federal action.

The attorney in the state court action has misrepresented several items and also filed documents claiming to something other than what they really are.

There is no pending court date yet. I have to respond to MERS motion to dismiss and yesterday the servicer and trustee also filed a motion to dismiss. Responding to the servicer and trustee will not be a problem, however, MERS is a different story. I am challenging MERS assignment. I rescinded the loan about 3 months before MERS’ assignment, thereby invalidating the assignment.

I bring up the ethics topic b/c the allonge is signed by EVP for the mortgage company (“pretender lender”). The allonge is indoresed in blank. I ran a background check and discovered that he is an atty licensed to practice in several states including CA, LA and TX. He graduated from Tulane in 1997 and apparently did some asbestos defense work in LA from 1997 to 2002. Interestingly, the address he gave on PACER was the mortgage company.

The mortgage company/pretender lender in my case is now defunct (another one of my challenges in that MERS could not have received authorization to assign the note from a defunct company). One of the early ones to bite the dust. But like a phoenix, it rose from the ashes and now has a different name.
James#, on July 29, 2009 at 11:05 am said:

Regarding Alina’s posts,
It seems to me that MERS is bringing in the Big Guns going after a pro se(Alina).in order to create case law. They think that they will have an easy win against a pro se. If there are any lawyers out there that could help answer her questions I think it would be in all of our best interest. Alina, when is your Court date?
Marcus, on July 29, 2009 at 8:13 am said:

Wall Street will never learn from past mistakes. Greed deprives people of their intelligence. This is the next bubble brewing.
——————————————————————-
Hurrying Into the Next Panic?
NY Times
By PAUL WILMOTT
Published: July 28, 2009

ON vacation in Turkey, I am picked up at the airport by a minibus. It’s past midnight, pitch-black, the driver is speeding around corners. Only one headlight is working. And I have my doubts about the brakes. In my head I’m planning the letter of complaint to the tour company. And then the driver’s cellphone rings, he picks it up and answers it, he has only one hand on the steering wheel. Now I’m mentally compiling the list of songs to be played at my funeral.

That’s rather how I feel when people talk about the latest fashion among investment banks and hedge funds: high-frequency algorithmic trading. On top of an already dangerously influential and morally suspect financial minefield is now being added the unthinking power of the machine.

The idea is straightforward: Computers take information — primarily “real-time” share prices — and try to predict the next twitch in the stock market. Using an algorithmic formula, the computers can buy and sell stocks within fractions of seconds, with the bank or fund making a tiny profit on the blip of price change of each share.

There’s nothing new in using all publicly available information to help you trade; what’s novel is the quantity of data available, the lightning speed at which it is analyzed and the short time that positions are held.

You will hear people talking about “latency,” which means the delay between a trading signal being given and the trade being made. Low latency — high speed — is what banks and funds are looking for. Yes, we really are talking about shaving off the milliseconds that it takes light to travel along an optical cable.

So, is trading faster than any human can react truly worrisome? The answers that come back from high-frequency proponents, also rather too quickly, are “No, we are adding liquidity to the market” or “It’s perfectly safe and it speeds up price discovery.” In other words, the traders say, the practice makes it easier for stocks to be bought and sold quickly across exchanges, and it more efficiently sets the value of shares.

Those responses disturb me. Whenever the reply to a complex question is a stock and unconsidered one, it makes me worry all the more. Leaving aside the question of whether or not liquidity is necessarily a great idea (perhaps not being able to get out of a trade might make people think twice before entering it), or whether there is such a thing as a price that must be discovered (just watch the price of unpopular goods fall in your local supermarket — that’s plenty fast enough for me), l want to address the question of whether high-frequency algorithm trading will distort the underlying markets and perhaps the economy.

It has been said that the October 1987 stock market crash was caused in part by something called dynamic portfolio insurance, another approach based on algorithms. Dynamic portfolio insurance is a way of protecting your portfolio of shares so that if the market falls you can limit your losses to an amount you stipulate in advance. As the market falls, you sell some shares. By the time the market falls by a certain amount, you will have closed all your positions so that you can lose no more money.

It’s a nice idea, and to do it properly requires some knowledge of option theory as developed by the economists Fischer Black of Goldman Sachs, Myron S. Scholes of Stanford and Robert C. Merton of Harvard. You type into some formula the current stock price, and this tells you how many shares to hold. The market falls and you type the new price into the formula, which tells you how many to sell.

By 1987, however, the problem was the sheer number of people following the strategy and the market share that they collectively controlled. If a fall in the market leads to people selling according to some formula, and if there are enough of these people following the same algorithm, then it will lead to a further fall in the market, and a further wave of selling, and so on — until the Standard & Poor’s 500 index loses over 20 percent of its value in single day: Oct. 19, Black Monday. Dynamic portfolio insurance caused the very thing it was designed to protect against.

This is the sort of feedback that occurs between a popular strategy and the underlying market, with a long-lasting effect on the broader economy. A rise in price begets a rise. (Think bubbles.) And a fall begets a fall. (Think crashes.) Volatility rises and the market is destabilized. All that’s needed is for a large number of people to be following the same type of strategy. And if we’ve learned only one lesson from the recent financial crisis it is that people do like to copy each other when they see a profitable idea.

Such feedback is not necessarily dangerous. Take for example what happens with convertible bonds — bonds that can be converted into stocks at the option of the holder. Here a hedge fund buys the bond and then hedges some market risk by selling the stock itself short. As the price of the stock rises, the relevant formula tells the fund to sell. When the stock falls the formula tells it to buy — the exact opposite of what happens with portfolio insurance. To the outside world — if not necessarily to the hedge fund with the convertible bonds — this mix is usually seen as a good thing.

Thus the problem with the sudden popularity of high-frequency trading is that it may increasingly destabilize the market. Hedge funds won’t necessarily care whether the increased volatility causes stocks to rise or fall, as long as they can get in and out quickly with a profit. But the rest of the economy will care.

Buying stocks used to be about long-term value, doing your research and finding the company that you thought had good prospects. Maybe it had a product that you liked the look of, or perhaps a solid management team. Increasingly such real value is becoming irrelevant. The contest is now between the machines — and they’re playing games with real businesses and real people.

Paul Wilmott is the founder of Wilmott, a journal of quantitative finance.
Alina, on July 29, 2009 at 7:42 am said:

Lisa,

I have a copy of an order imposing sanctions against FDLG for filing false affidavits on behalf of Wells Fargo in bankruptcy court. The case is In Re: Haque. What’s interesting in this case is that the judge asked FDLG how many false affidavits they have filed on behalf of Wells Fargo and their response was “less than 50″ in bankruptcy proceedings. The judge asked about state court proceedings and FDLG claimed they had not filed any false affidavits. The judge did not believe them.

If you would like a copy of the order, send an email.
James#, on July 29, 2009 at 7:34 am said:

Alina,
It was a joke. Nevertheless, I have been screwed over threefold by his like. So I’m safe from any blow back!
Alina, on July 29, 2009 at 7:16 am said:

James#,

Thanks for the hex, however, I strongly believe in the truth and the power of the Almighty. Not only that, but I was taught that wishing bad for someone comes back to you threefold. I don’t wish Mr. Brochin anything bad, just curious to see if anyone knew him and could give me some pointers on his strategy.

As for ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 5.4(b) and (d), this particular attorney was both the general counsel and the Executive Vice President of a corporation. The other officers of the for-profit corporation were non-lawyers. I believe this is an ethics violation, but wanted some constructive comments.

Thanks.
Marcus, on July 29, 2009 at 6:21 am said:

You’re right Luis. Sometimes you get to let them dig their own grave.

Marcus
Luis, on July 29, 2009 at 4:11 am said:

Lisa,

Use those documents as a base for dismissal for fraud in the court.
Lisa E., on July 29, 2009 at 3:34 am said:

In regards to “incompent Affidavits” (that’s putting it as nicely as I can without resorting to profanity) and pretend “Vice Presidents”: Florida Default Law Group filed several affidavits in my case.

Two specifically were by Affiant Whitney K Cook, one where she is a representative for MERS and another where she is a representative for JP MORGAN CHASE (servicer). Busy lady that Whitney!

I filed a Motion to Strike Affidavit as Invalid On It’s Face in response to one of them and am sitting on the other while I think about a plan. In some ways, I wished I hadn’t filed that Motion To Strike as I wonder if I can still refer to that fraudulent document after I moved to strike it. FDLG simply got a new Affiant and filed the exact same Affidavit that I’d moved to Strike, so it really didn’t help me to file my Motion to Strike.

Good Luck everyone!

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
LisaBep at Gmail dot com
James#, on July 28, 2009 at 9:02 pm said:

Alina,
I have put a hex on Robert Brochin. Don’t be surprised if he comes to court drooling and incoherent!
Abby in CA, on July 28, 2009 at 8:51 pm said:

Maher-Hamideh had to deal with Sovereign. they bought her loan from Countrywide.

Even though Countrywide was the bad boy….Sovereign did not negotiate to modify.
Abby in CA, on July 28, 2009 at 8:46 pm said:

http://www.moratorium-mi.org/About.shtml

check out this site. maybe somebody on this site can build something similar for our movement
Marcus, on July 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm said:

Alina,
Concerning MERS, one should remember that MERS is a black box. If you can’t see what is going inside of it look at what goes in and what goes out. For instance in one of my cases, ABC Mortgage( original lender) is out of business. The law firm requested from MERS an assignment from ASC (servicer) to USBANK. I don’t know if it is complete incompetence or disregard for the law. They broke the chain of title right there. The assignment should be going from ABC Mortgage to USBANK. The servicer has no stake in the game. There is no trace that the servicer ever hold the note and mortgage. This is where you get them. It is complete fraud. The law firm, the servicer, the pretender lender, they are all part of the fraud upon the court. You should go after all of them.
Scrutinize everything. Double, triple check everything.

Marcus.
James#, on July 28, 2009 at 5:35 pm said:

5.4b says partnership. Would that be differrent than a corporation?
5.4d seems to speak to the aspects of Lawyers working for Corporations.
5.4b Partnerships,
5.4d Corporations.
that’s the way I parse it.
S B, on July 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm said:

Alina Aloha

Glad u asked that question! The attorney that WAMU had now works for FDIC. Very confusing. She continued the case after she left WAMU. I don’t understand how she can do that …seems like a conflict of interest?
Alina, on July 28, 2009 at 2:40 pm said:

Can anyone tell me if it’s an ethics violation for an attorney to be general counsel and Asst. VP of a mortgage company?

I am specifically referring to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 5.4(b) which states, ” A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.”

and

5.4(d): A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

(1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration;

(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation ; or

(3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

Thanks.
Marcus, on July 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm said:

Grant Money to Help Those Facing Foreclosure
South Florida Business Journal

Florida nonprofits that work to keep homeowners from foreclosure will benefit from $4 million in grant money obtained through a settlement agreement with now-defunct Countrywide Financial.
Florida’s attorney general said Tuesday that the money will be available over the next two years to pay for additional lawyers and paralegals who will provide free legal assistance to homeowners who can’t afford it. “The high number of foreclosures in Florida has left our homeowners vulnerable to fraud and desperate for assistance,” Attorney General Bill McCollum said in a news release. “I know that the assistance these attorneys will provide will mean a world of difference to the homeowners they help.”
Ironically, it was Countrywide’s offering of subprime mortgages to those who could not otherwise qualify that forced many into foreclosure.
Florida, along with several other states, reached a settlement with Bank of America, the company, which now owns Countrywide Financial, last October.
The money will be distributed through the Florida Bar Foundation in the form of annual grants that will vary in size, depending on the number of foreclosures in a particular area.
richard krigel, on July 28, 2009 at 8:38 am said:

marcus,true,however, i do not and many do not have an escrow account. the bank has tried to force place insurance in the past when i allowed it to lapse. they also did this when i already had insurance and it ruined my credit. the problem will come for those who do not have escrow accounts and the bank who has no standing fails to place insurance on the property. if a hurricane comes to south florida who is going to pay for the clean up.; it will than be the state and federal governments stuck for cleaning the mess up unless these entities force property insurance on the foreclosing parties, my opinion but i don’t see another outcome. and then what happens to property values…rick
- Show quoted text -
Marcus, on July 28, 2009 at 7:46 am said:

Richard,
If you had an escrowed account, the servicer usually keeps paying the hazard insurance and property tax during the foreclosure.
Marcus
richard krigel, on July 28, 2009 at 7:12 am said:

marcus of july 27th
i believe at least in south florida a title wave of problems are coming if we should get a hurricane of any proportion. how many of the properties in foreclosure or vacant have no insurance, a lot i think.cities will pay the price for clearing properties not the banks/ investors.
in my case i have 2 properties in foreclosure, one a condo and one a sfh. wamu who is the servicer for the sfh and has lost the mortgage and note have not inquired about placing h/o insurance on the property. they never did this before. however they are so screwed up that they said i had to place flood insurance or they would force place it.later they sent a letter saying that since i had placed flood insurance, i had not, they were withdrawing their request for coverage.i have placed my own insurance on the sfh just in case and i have it rented out. its another mess waiting to happen.
msoliman, on July 28, 2009 at 4:25 am said:

Got a client with Soverign Bank loan and cannot find any dirt on these good ol boy’s. Is it possible a good guy in the industry does exist?
msoliman, on July 28, 2009 at 4:22 am said:

PAY ATTENTION… do they not cleanse the title chain [per say] with a foreclosure sale?

Cleansing Title (Ahhh) – I guess?

1. They originate and claim to sell the loan afterwards
2. A true sale (to trust) prohibits any repurchases
3. Your modifcation offers are all form over substance and prohibitive by FASB rules.(They count down the days to sale).
4. The end sale in foreclosure is compliant (they think) in that it appears to meet GAAP criterion for an OMT or Open Market Sale conducted at a fair price others willing to bid (but who usually lose out ).

Its a deceptive means to keep the troubled asset on the banks books long enough to be made whole (get paid for losses under the mortgage insurance coverage).

msoliman

It’s all a sham…..
Dan Edstrom, on July 27, 2009 at 7:05 pm said:

Maher,
I just read it 5 times and each time I seemed to understand more and more. This looks really huge.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
angry&not taking it, on July 27, 2009 at 6:26 pm said:

m soliman

“Compare once again this example to taking the home to a Sheriffs or trustees sale at $200,000 and then having the mortgage insurer pay the difference to cover any foreseeable losses.
The latter is just a better economic alternative. I can’t take much more…..Don’t see anything the new Administration can do to help us folks!”

mayher i’m sure you can take way more.. sure its unpleasent haha!

PAY ATTENTION… do they not cleanse the title chain [per say] with a foreclosure sale?
if so it would appear that their [the lenders or who ever] only real alternative would be forced by the threat of litigation of ? sec & banking violations? before the foreclosure, is this also non compliance issue? and a fraud or wrongful foreclosure after a sale?
please note i’m not seeking legal advise.
but merely understanding of these events in relation to the law[s] that might apply. information purposes only.
& maybe the unavoidable bullet..er.. cannon fodder .
thanks
Dan Edstrom, on July 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm said:

Maher,
Thank you! I wasn’t even looking specifically at that. I will go back and review more carefully.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ed, on July 27, 2009 at 5:32 pm said:

Another big victory for Jeff Barnes esq.

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/
msoliman, on July 27, 2009 at 5:26 pm said:

Dan;

Thanks for the info. This is the link between the investor on Wall Street and borrower on maIn Street.
Look here;

MSoliman
msoliman, on July 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm said:

Dan;

Thanks for the info. This is the link between the investor on Wall Street and borrwer on man Street.

Look here;

PROSPECTUS (OPENING PARAGRAPH):

If Residential Funding Company, LLC cannot cure a breach of any representation or warranty made by it and assigned to the trustee for the benefit of the certificateholders relating to a mortgage loan within 90 days after notice from the trustee or servicer, and the breach materially and adversely affects the
interests of the certificate holders in the mortgage loan, Residential Funding Company, LLC will be

obligated to purchase the mortgage loan at a price …

equal to its principal balance as of the date of purchase plus accrued and unpaid interest to the first day of the month following the month of repurchase, less the amount payable in respect of the applicable servicing compensation.

HERES THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN THE INVESTORS AND CONSUMERS. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN OFFER A MODIFCATION AND WHEREBY THEY HAVE TRIGGERED A BREECH TO THE INVESTOR. THE CLAIM CAN BE BROUGHT BY THE BORROWER

Likewise, as described under “Description of the Certificates–Review of Mortgage Loan or Contract Documents” in the prospectus, if Residential Funding Company, LLC cannot cure certain documentary defects with respect to a mortgage loan, Residential Funding Company, LLC will be required to repurchase there late mortgage loan.

In addition, Residential Funding Company, LLC may substitute a new mortgage loan for the repurchased mortgage loan that was removed from the trust within two years after the closing date if it delivers an opinion of counsel with respect to certain tax matters.

HERE IT IS – FAS 140-3 THEY ARE REFERENCING A TAX MATTER AND LIABILITY! FOLKS – IF YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND THEN PLEASE GET AN ACCOUNTANTS REFERENCE GUIDE AND START LEARNING THIS STUFF!

contine – Any substitute mortgage loan will be required to satisfy certain conditions regarding its outstanding principal balance, mortgage rate, loan-to-value ratio and remaining term to maturity, as described more fully under “The Trusts–Limited Right of Substitution” in the prospectus.

THIS LENDER ALONE LOST $9 BILLION TO DATE. THERE IS NO AVAILABLE CAPITAL TO REPURCHASE AND THAT WOULD TRIGGER A RECEIVERSHIP ANYWAY!

AND THERE IS NO PRODUCTION TO SUPPLEMENT OLD LOANS WITH NEW!

See also

“The Trusts–Repurchases of Mortgage Collateral” in the prospectus.

THIS EXCULPATORY LANGUAGE WILL BURY THIS LENDER – GET IT ? NO REPURCHASE AGREEMENT CAN EXIST UNDER GAAP CRITERION WHERE THE ASSETS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD.

MSoliman
msoliman, on July 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm said:

MERS and lender appoint an officer on behalf of every member lender. The VP therefore has the full authority to execute these documents.

It’s tough to beat the system on a technicality folks. Equitable distribution say’s you’re the maker of the note and consideration was the inducement for making the obligation.

I opine theres nothing there !
Alina, on July 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm said:

msoliman,

I agree with you. Wall Street stole billions and now the world wants the money back. However, that money was stolen at the expense of the every day John/Jane Doe. The money the world wants returned will be taken from hard working individuals, not the Wall Street fat cats who are standing with their hands outstretched.

It just makes me sick that our government has not done enough to protect its citizens. Instead, if someone from Wall Street says “jump,” our government replies with “how high?”
msoliman, on July 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm said:

This morning on CNBC, there was a story regarding the fact that China is the U.S.’s biggest creditor. China is pushing to move away from the U.S. dollar being the standard in world economics.

Wall Street stole more money from the world without ever firing a shot. Now the world wants its money back . . .not a modification or new borrower loan.
Marcus, on July 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm said:

Alina,
Pull his cases from PACER system and study his strategy. Try to find holes in his arguments.
Post a copy of the cases online; many eyes are better than 2.

Marcus
Alina, on July 27, 2009 at 3:39 pm said:

I am up against Robert Brochin, atty for MERS in federal court. Brochin has represented MERS for a number of years and won the 2 appeals as well as being successful in getting a class action dismissed.

Any suggestions and/or information would be extremely useful.
L.Fitzgerald, on July 27, 2009 at 1:52 pm said:

To Foreclosure Fraud,
and or Kevin ,

” I have found the “vice presidents” on my assignment of mortgage on hundreds of assignments throughout Florida as “vice presidents” for every lender under the sun, all assigning
interested.”"

I congratulate you for your extensive investigation on the ” Vice Presidents ” scam .

I never went as far as you did…congrats ..!!

I my case its the Original note 3 rd page endorsements .

The V.P.s names signing the endorsements were not found in the list of Corp.Officers,CEOs, and directors in the State Dept.’s ” Profit Corp. Annual Report “.

Like you said the ” VP’s could be employees of the Corporation , or fake names .

The stamps where they signed , can also be fabricated at a local Office supply store.

We must always request proof of authenticy in all signatures, and Corp.stamps

Never forget one thing ! We are all facing White Collar Criminals in the Banking Organizations
…
that will fake, fabricate ,mislead ,misrepresent , and outright Lie ….to take your house from you .

Also remember They [ Criminals ] can copy ,paste and paint your photo copy black signature into a blue ink fake with a digital colorize pen. They can then paste the blue fake on any document they please …to commit Fraud.

I can do it …..I am sure they can..
[ photo shop , and other similar programs]

Don’t trust what your eyes see…it can be a fraudulent document.

Keep up the good work. ..Foreclosure Fraud …

LF
Alina, on July 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm said:

My son just returned from a trip to China and he told me about “foreclosure tours” that organized to bring prospective Chinese buyers to the U.S. to but foreclosed properties. He also told me that the Chinese who come to the U.S. to buy foreclosed properties pay cash.

My first reaction to this story was – “what incentive is there for a servicer or bank to work with homeowners when they know they may be able to sell the house to foreign investors and make a profit?”

Then this morning on CNBC, there was a story regarding the fact that China is the U.S.’s biggest creditor. China wants reassurance that their investments are secure. Additionally, China is pushing to move away from the U.S. dollar being the standard in world economics.

Any thoughts?
Earl, on July 27, 2009 at 1:10 pm said:

My bad – misread your post about the PMI.

Earl
Earl, on July 27, 2009 at 12:52 pm said:

If mtg insurance worked that way it would be better to take the PMI – but it does not.

Using the example you gave… there would be no PMI (in 99% of the cases) if it was worth 400K and they owed $200K.

Earl
msoliman, on July 27, 2009 at 12:51 pm said:

LENDER NEWS FLASH**

Spoke with GMAC counsel / back east on Friday. Sad case of a retired civil servant who lost his NORCAL home to a loan he never could afford.

GMAC has agreed to a tentative “stand still” agreement of 90 days. They have offered $20,000 cash for keys to date which we declined.We are asking them to charge off the loan….down to 0.00

More to come.

msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
msoliman, on July 27, 2009 at 12:44 pm said:

PMI is a critical component for understanding the lenders economic disincentive to help you in a modification and or a short sale. Take a $400K loan and offer to short sale or modify the loan at $350,000.

If you had a choice of repurchasing a $400K loan, forking out the cash, subjecting the remainder of loans in your portfolio to derecognition and repurchase scrutiny (under accounting rules) and then taking a hit of $50,000, would you?

It’s better than selling the home and chancing a $200K loss at a foreclosure sale, correct?

Compare once again this example to taking the home to a Sheriffs or trustees sale at $200,000 and then having the mortgage insurer pay the difference to cover any foreseeable losses.

The latter is just a better economic alternative. I can’t take much more…..Don’t see anything the new Administration can do to help us folks!

msoliman@borrowerhotline.com
Alina, on July 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm said:

Luis,

If I am not mistaken (Neil correct me if I am wrong here) but the insurance policy required under the PSA is private mortgage insurance (PMI), not a homeowners insurance policy.

The PMI protects the investors in the event of a default whereas a homeowner’s policy protects the home in the event of a loss (such as would happen if a hurricane damaged the home). A homeowner’s policy is required by lenders to protect the asset, i.e. the home.

Alina
James#, on July 27, 2009 at 10:38 am said:

Marcus,
Would you mind tellin us you story. I sounds like really good news.
Marcus, on July 27, 2009 at 8:00 am said:

Luis,
If your case is dismissed “with prejudice”, they can’t come back and refile. Check the dismissal order signed by the judge.
Ask for dismissal with prejudice if you can, then file a quiet title action.

Marcus
Marcus, on July 27, 2009 at 7:56 am said:

Luis,
According to the Servicing & Pooling Agreement, the servicer is required to keep insurance on the property as long as there is a mortgage securing the investment.
I don’t know about the need to have 2 insurance policies on the same property. I can tell you this: if the property is currently vacant, make sure to update the policy for vacant property; otherwise the insurance company will decline any claim that happens during the vacancy. I learned the hard way.
You should contact the insurance company about your concern. They will be able to give you the right answer.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Joe, on July 27, 2009 at 6:53 am said:

Good Question Luis. I’m in the same situation. Anyone know an answer on the insurance issue. My policy renewal date is mid September. It took out the policy, but it is escrowed and the insurance company would need to sign off on any claim to release the money to me if there were a claim.
Luis, on July 27, 2009 at 4:14 am said:

I have been fighting a foreclosure for almost a year and it looks like there is going to be a dismissal of the foreclosure. I have been told that the mortgage company may try a second time. In the mean time, I am sure that the mortgage company has a insurance policy on the house, even though they have not proven that they own mortgage. Can I get a homeowners policy on the house that would be payable to myself and not the presumed mortgage company? I live in Florida and hurricane season is here.
angry&not taking it, on July 26, 2009 at 10:48 am said:

abby
i think what is important that [ although i have not read thru the entire e-sign doc ] mortgage servicer abuse [ fraudulent foreclosure assignments or erroneous misinformation in favor of those choosing to abuse other parties ] that e-sign may never anticipated . e-sign acceptance policy appears to contain a means to evade the due process of not using true & factual & authentic documentation.and at who’s expense & detriment will the burden be on to prove and or protect consumers from the very actions taking place today of wrongful foreclosure? problematic me thinks!
James#, on July 26, 2009 at 10:11 am said:

Does anyone know how to set up a web site that would contain a database of these fraudulent signature? . I am sure there are a lot ot individuals out there who have done their own investigation. It would be valuable to pool the research. It could be powerful in Court to show how wide spread the forgeries are, It would help other people who could find their fake signitures contained in their documents.
Rik, on July 26, 2009 at 7:58 am said:

For the benefit of those at the same point as me…. Here is the definition of a Qualified Written Request. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00002605—-000-.html)

The QWR provided as an example on this site is fully compliant and should not be disputed by FDLG or any other organization.

U.S.C § 2605 – Title 12 – Chapter 27 Section (e)(1)(B)

(B) Qualified written request

For purposes of this subsection, a qualified written request shall be a written correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer, that—

(i) includes, or otherwise enables the servicer to identify, the name and account of the borrower; and

(ii) includes a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower, to the extent applicable, that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.
msoliman, on July 25, 2009 at 8:41 pm said:

TELL ME YOU DID NOT SEE THIS ONE COMING. . .
Banks, Judges and Lawmakers Y-I-K-E-S! (See below)
——————————————————————————
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LITIGATION
& REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
October 27 – 28, 2009 | The Adolphus Hotel | Dallas, Texas
American Conference Institute’s National Forum on

(Go to http://www.foreclsureinfosearch.com for more information-

PREPARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF CLAIMS, REGULATIONS,OBTAIN EXPERT ADVICE AND KEY INSIGHTS THAT WILL HELP YOU:

• Defend against investor claims arising from loan modiﬁcations
• Manage the increase in investor repurchase demands and contest improper claims
• Ensure proper standing before bringing foreclosure proceedings and defeat challenges to loan ownership

Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan – U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla. Hon. Michael B. Kaplan – U.S. Bankr. Ct., D.N.J.

Post-Conference Master Class:
Mastering the Nuances of Foreclosure and Bankruptcy:
Establishing Effective Defenses against the Newest Claims and Counterclaims

October 28, 2009 – 3:15 p.m. – 5:45 p.m.

EXPERIENCED IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FROM:

• Bank of America
• GMAC Financial
• Services
• GreenPoint
• Mortgage Bankers Association

SPONSORED BY:
Sterling Bank, SunTrust, UBS, Wachovia

I’m concerned again and we have been right on most everything NLS predicted to date. The point is. . mounting concerns for a government quick fix. We opine borrowers need to get something filed….soon! Maybe move now as a plaintiff and as time closes in.

The “Beast” is out there…looming and has been patient! Some government strike to take control of the massive problems stemming from litigation, consumers left with legal bafflement, genuine borrower claims, closing in on massive accounting irregularities and genuine suspicion of fraud and malfeasance at each registrants executive board level.

It all suggests a looming pre-emptive strike (or at least a series of enforcement steps brought by the Fed that is inevitable. – It’s due to happen, if not solely for stemming the mass overflow volume and workload of the court$ and case$ throughout America!

[(Speak English damn it! Ahhhh! . . .I think that means a $199.00 settlement per every American homeowner and blanket lender immunity from further lawsuits (Yikes)].

Look, the states AGs have been running the show a long time now and outside of some effort by the SEC, where are the DOJ (and FBI) and why has the US Attorney Generals office remained relatively quiet?

As always consult a legal practitioner licensed in your state on anything you read and always ask your attorney for his or her opinion.

MSoliman
The events promotional invite can be found on http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com

admin@borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on July 25, 2009 at 5:58 pm said:

e-sign law links with ‘state’ info at bottom to click on

http://www.isaacbowman.com/esign-laws-and-regulations

poke around, we might find something to use as a defense.
Abby in CA, on July 25, 2009 at 5:52 pm said:

Wikipedia has an easier explanation of UETA

pay attention to 4, 5(a), 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Electronic_Transactions_Act

some of my recorded foreclosure documents had no signatures at all…only a typed name….so I suppose those were ok to do per this UETA.

California is a non-judicial foreclosure state. So I wondered why I was getting copies that had no signatures on them.

Also, I did not agree to to conduct transactions electronically. However, they don’t need to disclose this to you!! So you are supposed to disagree on your own.
Abby in CA, on July 25, 2009 at 5:28 pm said:

We should all trade names of these so-called VPs who sign with squiggles on recorded docs.

I have one V.P. Stephen Nagy who signed a squiggle and claims to be from HOME123 Corp (subisidiary of New Century Mortgage) signing in Calif.

Also, Vivian Pham, VP with U.S. Bank National Association allegedly signing also in Calif

Anyone else come across these squiggle signers, especially in other states.
Abby in CA, on July 25, 2009 at 5:22 pm said:

This is a great publication about those fake squiggles on Mortgage Assignments, Affadvits etc.

Mr. Lavalle has, according to this document, reviewed over 10,000 assignments etc. Fakes!

This also discusses Ocwen!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13625520/PMIOcwenAndersonReport
Abby in CA, on July 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm said:

New Information-UETA Uniform Electronic Transaction ACT currently adopted by 46 states.

I have just discovered this. It also mentions the
Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act (e-sign).

This is very interesting to read. Maybe applies to MERS folks. Maybe something we could use in our defenses. Definately explains how some county recordings are done!!

Here are some quotes

” Unlike the UETA, E-Sign excludes notices of foreclosure under a mortgage or lease from being legally valid in the form of an electronic document. This means that under E-Sign an electronic mortgage may be the subject of a foreclosure proceeding, and can further be deeded away electronically at the close of the foreclosure sale, but the notices to the proper parties must be made using the traditional paper documents.”

“The primary purpose of E-Sign is similar to the UETA. Just as the UETA grants legal affect to electronic documents and signatures, E-Sign states signatures, contracts and other transactions affecting interstate and foreign commerce “may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. Furthermore, an electronic signature is defined the same in both acts.”

“A year after the UETA was promulgated, Bill Clinton signed into federal law the Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign),34 with the hope of encouraging state legislatures to adopt the UETA. Once E-sign was enacted, even if a state had not already adopted the UETA or similar legislation, electronic signatures and documents were granted legal effect. This meant that for the first time in many states a mortgage transaction could be completed electronically and have the same validity as a traditional paper transaction.”

“” Another relevant characteristic of the UETA is the element of intent necessary to ascend to an electronic contract. By defining an electronic signature as some symbol or byte or sound executed or adopted by a person, a greater importance is placed on the signor’s intent to be bound by the electronic document rather than the actual act of signing. This is a shift from the simple traditional requirement of a wet ink signature. The importance that the UETA places on the requirement of a signature is not on having an autograph or a specific squiggle or symbol, but rather if some form of recognition was used with an intent to be bound.”

“Furthermore, E-Sign’s rule of consumer consent is a negative rule that says that a consumer is not required to use or accept an electronic mortgage or recording unless consent is given.51 Therefore, it is possible for a mortgage company to carry out an electronic transaction with a consumer absent consent, so long as the consumer does not object to completing the transaction through electronic means. This is because even though an electronic transaction is not required absent consumer consent, the electronic transaction is not precluded absent the consumer’s consent either. Moreover, the consumer’s consent can be inferred by his or her actions. Therefore, even the mere use of electronic means to carry out the transaction or the exhibition of any other behavior consistent with acceptance of an electronic transaction would prove that the consumer impliedly consented and intended to complete the transaction electronically”

“The ability to search a real estate title electronically greatly reduces the time and expense of searches. However, electronic title searches have not yet progressed very far because, until recently, many states had statutes that required conveyance documents to be written on paper with an original signature before they could be recorded. Therefore, many recorders’ offices do not allow electronic documents to be recorded in the public record. The UETA and E-Sign were not sufficient to address this problem in some states because the state laws had recording requirements of written paper documents. Such clauses were statute of fraud provisions that had to be specifically addressed and changed, which neither the UETA nor E-Sign had done. In addition, the UETA and E-Sign only addressed “transactions,” and many states did not classify recording land documents in the county registry as a transaction. Another problem with the conversion to electronic recording is that the recording system consists solely of compiling and organizing old documents for future reference and the vast number of these antiquated documents and initial investment for converting all those documents to a format that is available online is costly and time consuming.”

” To eliminate the problem of state laws prohibiting the acceptance of electronic documents for recording, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws created the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA). This model act is quickly being accepted by the states. Currently, 20 states have enacted the URPERA. This is a sharp increase from the six states that had adopted it as of a year ago.66 Moreover, five more states are currently considering the bill this year. While the initial cost and time investment is expensive, title searches and state governments are finding that in the long run electronic records make title examination and the storing of records more cost efficient.”

” In addition to bridging the gap between state laws that require paper documents and the UETA which gives legal validity to electronic documents, the URPERA has two other far reaching goals. It provides standards for recording offices to follow to facilitate the most effective use of electronic recording. It also requires state wide standards to be set for recording offices in each county. By unifying the standards in each county in a state, the URPERA sets the ground work for future efforts of states to unify the records of each county recording office into one single state wide database that would be accessible from any off-sight location.”

“There are essentially three levels of electronic documents that are prepared and recorded in the public land records. On the first level, the document is prepared on paper and signed using wet ink. This physical document is then taken to the recorder’s office where it is scanned and placed in the database. The second is prepared in the same way, but in addition to the paper document the necessary data used to create an index entry is also delivered with the document. While the recorder still must take the time to scan the document into the database, this second model of electronic documents helps to save the recorder’s time from having to create the index entry because the document already has one. The third starts in electronic form, is signed electronically, acknowledged electronically, transmitted electronically, and returned electronically. This third type is never converted to paper form. Moreover, since the document is purely electronic the information needed to create the index entry is imbedded in the document thereby saving the recorder’s time once again.”

“This legal framework of the UETA, E-Sign and the URPERA has sparked an electronic revolution. The landmark event occurred in 2000 when this country’s first truly paperless real estate transaction was completed in Florida in less than five minutes”.
To date there have been no reports of forged or altered electronic documents with respect to e-recording.130 This does not mean that security is not an important issue in relation to e-recordings. The fear and concern that is so pervasive among the general public is ample evidence that security has great importance with respect to e-recordings.131 However, it is an issue that is being addressed and satisfied within the e-recording industry.132 The fear factor in e-recording has provided an excellent motivation for the Property Records Industry Association (PRIA) to anticipate possible breaches in security and establish standards that would prevent such breaches. These standards are some of the primary reasons why e-recording has been so reliable and trustworthy over the last 10 years.133

” Fears that e-recorded documents containing copies of consumers’ wet ink signatures are also available online for potential criminals to copy and forge, can also be eliminated as e-recording becomes even more common place and people start using encrypted digital signatures on the real estate documents that are recorded. This would eliminate the fear of having public postings of signatures online. Moreover, the speed by which a document is recorded reduces the chance that the document could be intercepted and altered.”

THIS LAST PARAGRAPH IS VERY SCARY!!

GO HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AND I WILL TRY TO FIND THE LIST OF 46 STATES WHO HAVE ADOPTED UETA.
http://www.okjolt.org/articles/2009okjoltrev44.cfm
msoliman, on July 25, 2009 at 5:10 pm said:

QWR Letter “Failure to Respond” Sample

Under Section 6 of RESPA, borrowers who have a problem with the servicing of their loan (including escrow account questions), should contact their loan servicer in writing, outlining the nature of their complaint.

————————————————————————-
July 17, 2009

Servicing Supervisor
Servicing Department
Washington Mutual
PO Box 44090
Jacksonville FL 32231

Dear Loan Servicing Manager:

Your office received from the borrower a notice of a Qualified Written Request. The request was delivered to you pursuant to HUD published borrower-lender guidelines.

You have passed the 20 days threshold for compliance. You have failed to honor the request within the term of fulfillment as outlined in accordance with HUD regulatory criteria.

Therefore we are asking on behalf of the client that you agree to a 90 day “Stand Still” understanding and consider forbearance.

Will you kindly cease and desist with any further threat of a foreclosure or recovery proceeding until such time you can determine why the borrower was denied their rights.

Respectfully,

MSoliman
Secondary Examiner
(As Authorized by Counsel)
Tel. 310-765-7388

CC: HUD Office
Los Angeles, CA Office

——————————————————————-

The servicer must acknowledge the complaint in writing within 20 business days of receipt of the complaint.

Within 60 business days the servicer must resolve the complaint by correcting the account or giving a statement of the reasons for its position. This does not absolve borrowers from continuing the payments. They are no defenses to missed payments.

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com.
(Published earlier )
msoliman, on July 25, 2009 at 4:57 pm said:

As to the QWR’s in different formats.

You must be specific about the problems that you are encountering in terms of your loan servicing. The HUD web page states as follows – “You may send a QWR directly to your lender without outside assistance”.

Then tell us HUD – who is the lender? HUD is in fact the primary federal agency responsible for enforcement of RESPA. Accordingly we suggest you always follow HUD’s Format (only) for a qualified written request. Therein, avoid 1,000 items unrelated to servicing rights.

Send the QWR certified mail and keep the blue stub for records to bring to court. Remember a QWR is most potent when your payments are current and facing a variable rate hike and prospects of no longer affording your home payments.

The QWR serves the borrower and achieves other valuable affirmative defenses
1) It is a government sanctioned document that is
a) Actual notice from the date submitted.
b) It documents your attempts to reconcile the issues surrounding your file.
c) Its valuable to attorneys in court that will claim you (the borrower) are a “last minute” opportunist laying claim solely to prolong the inevitable . . . foreclosure.

Recent events and the QWR:

We sent the request out to Downey Savings with no response. Counsel when pressed told us the bank was not responsible for the request as they sold the loan. I later pointed out the loan modification (sham) could never have been negotiated under the terms offered by the bank. Downey sold the loan and lacked control of the asset under FAS 140-3.

Lead Counsel then explains the asset was retained as a bank receivable and was never sold. Then where is the written request? The important consideration is where the QWR did in fact ferret out the truth – the loan was intended to be sold and was never delivered. This type of malfeasance can invite regulatory scrutiny close the bank s we saw happen. If Downey were not bought it would be forced into receivership and liquidated.
This is what I keep saying on here about the various pass-through investment platforms brought to market by defunct registrants. As for Downey example – now they have bigger problems as to the control of assets allegedly sold versus making high risk unlawful (stated sub prime) loans uncovered and prohibited by the regulators and FDIC.

The bank therein likely never reserved or classified the asset.
—————————————————————————–
* FAP FAS 140-3: Control of assets accounting rules
* Reserved: Post additional money to offset the likelihood of risk.
* Classified: Labeling the loan a problem.
* Derecognition: Lose all tax incentives and benefits under a “Trust” structure.
* Regulators: FDIC bank auditors working for the government.
* Risk Weighted Capital: Added cash to offset risks and needed for a bank to remain open.

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Rik, on July 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm said:

Thank you Marcus and ForeclosureFraud for the quick input.

I thought FDLG might be playing games, and was looking for confirmation that a Motion to Compel is the correct action. I also have a hearing date on my “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” on the 6th of October. The Judge is Linda R. Allan. Anyone made an appearance before her. Tips or guidance is welcomed!!

Does anyone know if any other motions would be addressed at the same time? I have filed several responses and motions… in response to FDLG’s correspondence.

Rik
Foreclosure Fraud, on July 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm said:

Kevin

I have actually met the reporter of that story and have been working with her to do a follow up story on what I have found. She has all the information and says she is interested but is currently overwhelmed covering the US / Canda Health Care System. Hopefully she will find the time to expose these fraudsters.
Foreclosure Fraud, on July 25, 2009 at 2:43 pm said:

Rik,

I sent them numerous QWR’s in differnet formats and received the same exact responses. Then they followed up with my payment history but did not include any of 2008 or 2009 when I stopped paying. Now they just objected to almost all my requests for admissions by stating that they are “unclear, ambiguous, confusing, and capable of multiple interpretations” when in fact they were very direct statements.

You just need to keep on them and notify the judge of their practices.
Kevin C., on July 25, 2009 at 12:46 pm said:

opps here is the link sorry.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article997375.ece
Kevin C., on July 25, 2009 at 12:41 pm said:

Foreclosure Fraud,

Yes I would be very intersted in seeing what you have uncoverd as well. I can share with you what I have been working on. I have included this link to a news clip that further explains the assigment of mortgage lies.

kcollma@hotmail.com
Marcus, on July 25, 2009 at 12:04 pm said:

Rik,
Florida Default is notorious for this kind of BS. File a “Motion To Compel”.

Marcus,
SANDISUE, on July 25, 2009 at 11:09 am said:

RECENTLY SOMEONE SUGGESTED THAT I COULD GET ALL THE MONEY PAID ON MY MORTGAGE NOTE BACK THRU A RECONVEYENCE ,APPLIED FOR THRU THE IRS . CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW THIS WORKS AND WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR ?
Rik, on July 25, 2009 at 11:00 am said:

Hi all,

In response to my second QWR I got the following for the Florida Default Law Group…. (Christina N Riley)

“This letter is in response to your correspondence titled Defendants Demand for Disclosure Required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act dated April 08, 2009. Please note that the correspondence is not a qualified written request as defined by 12 U.S.C 2605(e). Regardless of the applicability of 12 U.S.C 2605(e), please be advised that in an attempt amicably resolve this matter in an expedient manner, we have requested a payment history of your clients mortgage loan and will forward a copy to you on receipt.”

Not only is it WAY after the 20 days allowed, but it is dismissive of the QWR. I used the QWR that is posted on Living Lies, so i only have two questions…. are they correct on the QWR, and if they are just bull-shipping me, what should I respond with?

Thank you in advance for your help!!

Rik
Vicki M, on July 25, 2009 at 8:11 am said:

To Foreclosure Fraud

NIce job- Can you send me the vice president info that you spoke of to Kevin?

Much Thanks!

VickiM
cmysmile00@aol.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on July 25, 2009 at 7:14 am said:

Kevin

I have found the “vice presidents” on my assignment of mortgage on hundreds of assignments throughout Florida as “vice presidents” for every lender under the sun, all assigning the mortgages over to the same “lender”. This intrigued me so I decided to try and track them down. What I found amazed me. They are actually employed by the lender they are assigning the mortgages to. I gone as far as getting their home addresses, work numbers, positions, and even copies of their mortgages from public record to verify that they were the same people by comparing the signatures on their mortgage to all the assignments on public record. I have submitted a motion to dismiss based on this. I would be happy to share that with you if interested.
S B, on July 25, 2009 at 12:18 am said:

Aloha Abby

I agree but I will tell u last October I wrote and called my Senators office, signed off on an agreement for her to help and never heard again accept recently when she is seeking support for some other non related issues.

Our Legal Aid office has 2 workers! They are booked to the gills and then some.

I have a mountain of things I do for the community which has always come before my own needs. And the challenge now is to try and balance that. Sometimes I am so overwhelmed with the legal end of things, my brain just freezes and I run back to the place and things that I am good at just to keep myslef in some form of sanity. Not sure the sanity thing is working too well. lol

Everytime I look at the papers for all this, it’s as if my mind crashed into a brick wall. That’s why I read all the comments here to try and help myself take another food forward. Just worried I am too slow and time isn’t on my side at all.

Anyway, Hope u all have a great weekend!
Aloha and Mahalo
SB
Abby in CA, on July 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm said:

You know–maybe we should be calling the President and Senators to have them spend some of that
aid money to beef up legal aid groups!!

It is insane that a person who has never been in court before is now doing all nighters to read laws and to write motions and c__p and go to court. Pro se’s I bet are clogging all the courts.

Homeowners need more help!!

Faxing them is a good way to go too.
S B, on July 24, 2009 at 5:04 pm said:

Kevin C

WOW great job! Still working on mine. Getting lost in the wording. Plus trying to multi focus on several items. Hard to figure out where to start. Just as I pick up to read what I have a crisis seems to jump in and take my immediate attention. By the end of that I am exhausted. It seems to be a cycle of need to do it now things. So maybe tonight I can do more reading and get better prepared.

It really helped reading ur post! Gave me a chance to refocus.
MAHALO
Kevin C., on July 24, 2009 at 3:59 pm said:

Abby,
Thank you. If I was a drinker i probably would have done a couple of straight shots to calm me down first. LOL. I think the motion is the correct way to go about Since it involves fraud etc.

Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER.

(a) Clerical mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

(b) Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
Abby in CA, on July 24, 2009 at 3:56 pm said:

Kevin
check out these sites for Hawaii bankruptcy. This one is your main BKR court system. There is a section on how to file pro se.

http://www.hib.uscourts.gov/

http://www.hawaiibankruptcy.com/
Abby in CA, on July 24, 2009 at 3:46 pm said:

Kevin
go here for Hawaii rules of court!

http://hawaii.gov/jud/toc.htm

Also, great job!! I know it is scary in court, but remember, the judge is going to say yes or no or give other instructions. Judge is not going to eat your, nor put you in jail. This is civil court.

I actually had to have my MD prescribe a tranquilizer before I went, otherwise I might be shaking like you or have fainted!

Always pat attention to your health as well. It is not good for us to be shaking and fearful.

All this foreclosure & eviction stuff and then having to act as our attorneys–very stressful.

Great Job!!

Now I think bankruptcy attorneys are a bit cheaper, however finding one to do the right things in these matters is a different story.

They are usually very good at the filing of documents and plans, and showing up for creditor meeting, but for more sophisticated things like adverse actions or contesting Motion to Lift Stay….not sure.

You can file the BKR yourself. All forms are online.
I’ve done it. You will have to read a lot. You must go to the BKR federal district for your area.

The general BKR will halt foreclosure but lender will then file Motion to LIft the Stay to remove your home from BKR and then they will proceed very quickly to finish foreclosure/eviction.

Unless you fight the Motion to Lift Stay.

Always consult an attorney. I am not giving legal advice, merely describing what I did.
Kevin C., on July 24, 2009 at 3:34 pm said:

Aloha everyone,
Here is something I have been working on. I went to court on the 22nd of july for a hearing to stay the foreclosure based on the outcome of my hearing in federal court. The judge denied that based upon the Rooker/Feldmen doctrine. I did right up a reply but did not work. He mentioned that he was very impressed by my research and writing skills, However that also worked to my disadvantage of being Pro Se. Judge mentioned that with the amount of research I have done and it clearly shows that I am not the average layman and I should have known that I should have responded to the notice of default as well as file a timely answer. I mentioned back to him that I have just recently became aware of some new evidence involving the plaintiff’s have committed fraud, and or misrepresentation upon the court I would like to motion the court to set aside default judgment. Judge answered back and said that is not the proper procedure, please lets address what currently before the court. On my request to stay foreclosure and or to move to federal court. He said because of what appears to be level of understanding on how to research and site case law etc. that I need to do research on Hawaii rules of civil procedure, to help me find the proper course of action. Also understand I was very nervous in fact I was actually shaking and could hardly even talk in the beginning, but later calmed down when I noticed the plaintiff’s attorney’s also had nervous looks on the faces and fumbled around for words as well. Any way in saying he denied the request he also ordered the commissioner that is acting on behalf of the court to auction and sale my home, to not proceed with any advertising of my home for 30 days. Judge said that should allow me plenty of time to research the Hawaii rules of civil procedure. He also asked if I new I had the right to appeal this decision, I said yes. He asked if there was any further questions and everyone said no. We were then dismissed. What I found interesting is on the way out one of the plaintiff’s attorney’s stopped me outside the courtroom and said very quietly, you do have another means to get this into federal court, he said have I ever filed BK, I said no, he then replied you should look into that, as it appears you may a have a strong case. I was blown away. I do have a very strong case. This is just a work in progress not complete yet. So any sound suggestions would be greatly appreciated. By the way I think I have 1 way to set aside default judgment, but not sure how much I need to prove in the initial motion.

Here is sample motion: Kevin Collman, Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR WFMBS 2007-AR6,
Plaintiff, vs .
KEVIN COLLMAN; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10 AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10,

CIVIL NO. 08-1-198K (Foreclosure)(Kona)
KEVIN COLLMAN’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
CERIFICATE OF SERVICE

Defendants.
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b)
I, Kevin Collman, appearing Pro-Se herein, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalties of perjury stating the following:
1. That I am the defendant in the above entitled action and proceeding and that I am over the age of 18 years of age, I am familiar with the facts stated herein and I have personal knowledge of these facts in the above case.
2. That I submit this affidavit in support of a MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

3. That the judgment of foreclosure and sale was obtained in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights, including the right of confrontation in which the record is devoid of information, evidence and documentation that would tend to support or show that plaintiff is the legal owner of the note and mortgage at the time it had commenced these proceedings against defendant, Despite the fact that defendant did not answer, object or move to dismiss in a timely manner.

4. Defendant has just recently become aware that this court has been presented with fraudulent and/ or incomplete documents from plaintiff. Pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b)(2) and (3). Defendant did not motion the court for a new trial Pursuant to HRCP Rule 59(b). Because Defendant through his recent due diligence has uncovered an obvious case of fraud and misrepresentation to the court by the plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel.

WHEREFORE, your deponent respectfully prays for a MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
I DECLARE UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

DATED: July 22nd, 2009
_________________________
KEVIN COLLMAN, PRO SE

I also have this information out. I have been trying to figure out a way to show that this kevin prieshoff guys has signed as vice president and assistant secretary on any one else’s assignment of mortgage?

Defendant has just recently become aware of what Defendant believes that this court has been presented with fraudulent documents from plaintiff. The MIN (mortgage identification number) numbers on all the mortgage documents including the assignment of mortgage have been blacked out by Plaintiff’s. See (exhibit A) “Copy of Assignment of mortgage”, and (exhibit B) “copy of mortgage”. (in order to reduce paper work defendant has included the only 4 pages that had MIN numbers) A true copy of the disputed mortgage obtained from first American title see (exhibit C) “FAT MORTGAGE” (in order to reduce paper work defendant has included the only 4 pages that had MIN numbers) includes the actual MIN number assigned to said mortgage by MERS, nominee for First Magnus Financial. See (exhibit G) “declaration from defendant” Defendant called MERS at 888-679-6377 because of the confusion as to the actual possession and ownership of the disputed mortgage and reached an automated touch-tone system. The system prompted me to put in the MIN number, after such, the automated voice indicates that said MIN # was transferred from MERS on April 10th, 2008 to servicer Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Defendant requested to have a copy faxed from automated system. See (exhibit E) “Fax from MERS”. When the fax was received, and the date was not present on the document. Therefore, I am requesting that the court call the number to also obtain verification as to said allegation. Please see the filed foreclosure complaint specifically page 3, Id at 7. (Exhibit D) “Page 3 from plaintiff’s complaint”, indicates the following; “by assignment of mortgage dated May 22nd, 2008 and recorded in the bureau of Conveyances, as document no. 2008-101011, Plaintiff is now the owner of the mortgage. A true and correct copy of the assignment is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Plaintiff is also the owner of the note.” This is not true. There is clear evidence that fraud is being committed against this court. Plaintiffs have been involved with many different schemes to get away with wrongful foreclosures. Defendant has also included a document that further explains how lenders are defrauding courts across America this also includes some case law. See (Exhibit F) ”UCC” also See (exhibit A) “assignment of mortgage” It clearly shows the assignment was notarized on May 22nd 2008. Not sure how that can be? Since it was already assigned to wells fargo home mortgage on April 10, 2008. It also states MERS was the nominee for first magnus financial, and Kevin Prieshoff as assistant secretary and vice president of MERS on May 22nd, 2008. Now looking up on the MERS website clearly shows Dan McLaughlin as Executive Vice President & Product Division Manager, as well as Douglas Danko Vice President, Customer Group Manager. Those are the only two Vice Presidents I could find. see (exhibit H) “news clip 3 pages” explains to the court what is happening all across the country with regards to the mortgage crisis. I believe that the actions of Plaintiff to try and mislead, and defraud the court should be addressed here. Plaintiff’s attorney should have done their own due- diligence. Defendant Requests the court to subpoena Kevin Prieshoff of Ohio to Produce Evidence or Permit Inspection of Documents or Things…See Haw. R.C.P. 45(b). Including the corporate resolution, certificate of conformity as well as power of attorney. Defendant is appalled by the disrespect and fraud to the honorable courts that are in place to uphold the law, so lenders can just cash in on even more profit taking. Not to mention the lenders disregard to homeowners and families across America because of GREED.
Alina, on July 24, 2009 at 11:09 am said:

Quick question –

I am fighting on 2 fronts – state and federal. I filed the federal action. The attorney representing the servicer and trustee in the federal case has just filed a substitution in state court, basically replacing the foreclosure mill attorneys who, IMHO, were total idiots.

The new attorney signed the Motion for Substitution as the representing the servicer as attorney in fact for the trustee.

Can I object to this substitution? Do they need to produce and/or file the POA giving making the servicer the attorney in fact for the trustee?

Alina
L.Fitzgerald, on July 24, 2009 at 7:56 am said:

To Neil ,Mario & Rosetta ,

Don’t forget to Use a good magnifying glass with a flashlight to study the signature .

In front ,and on the back of the paper . Even a portable microscope taken to the Court house records may help you discover a tampered signature…

Remember we are dealing with a White Collar criminal organizations here. They know ever trick in the book. ..and more !

L.F.
Alina, on July 24, 2009 at 7:23 am said:

L. Fitzgerald,

I totally agree with your comments. Not only can black ink be changed to blue but if you have a color scanner (which most businesses have), you can scan it in the original colors. However, when you print the documents, the colors are more vibrant. I believe this is actually what was done. Per testimony from Countrywide employees, their business practice was to scan in the notes and then shred them. Also, per MERS documentation, MERS keeps an electronic copy of the note so they can transfer the note immediately.

Alina
L.Fitzgerald, on July 23, 2009 at 9:04 pm said:

Dear Neil Garfield ,

” Don’t even Trust the Blue Ink signature on that supposedly Original Note the Banker Plaintiff’s lawyer is showing the Court ”

They could be Counterfeit signatures …..

I don’t know if anyone has written in this blog before about the use of digitizing Photo Shop type programs .. to change signatures color’s….

From black to Blue.!

These type of programs can digitize a black signature on a document photo copy , and turn it into a very true blue signature.

The Original Notes [ blue ink signed ]
that the Plaintiff sometimes brings to court ..proving it supposedly owns the Note ….can be fabricated !

I myself have changed my own signature from a black copy on a Mortgage Note , and colorized it into a color blue signature .It looks real .

It’s easy , and I am not a computer wizard .

Test for Counterfeit signatures :

So if you can just touch the paper of that original note with your fingers on and under that blue signature … feel the back side of your supposed original signature .. The pen you used ..should have made some embossment on the signature itself…or the back of the paper ..

If the back of the paper is flat , and smooth… it’s a Fraudulent document .

If it has the signature embossment feel on the back of the signature ..it could still be a fake digital print.

..Your plaintiff’s and their document designers could have run a stylus type pen [ no ink ] over the fabricated blue.signature …

..thus leaving an embossing on or on the back side of the paper of your signature..

Don’t let it fool you into believing its the original .Check your Mortgage note document ..against their copy ..They should be identical if they are real. Any additional text line , mark, anything that looks different than your copy …can be proof of fabrication.

This ability to change and digitize documents will eventually become a problem for the Courts .

It will be too controversial to accept any document as an

original at its face value .

I hope this article opens your eyes and you’ll be much more aware of signatures that appear to be real ..

but are ” really ” not.

L.F. Counterfeit signatures
Abby in CA, on July 23, 2009 at 11:06 am said:

This is a 50 State Report on Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices Statutes.

http://www.consumerlaw.org/issues/udap/content/UDAP_Report_Feb09.pdf
Abby in CA, on July 23, 2009 at 10:50 am said:

A Good Read
“Written Testimony of Diane E. Thompson’ of the National Consumer Law Center of July 16, 2009.

Preserving Homeownership: Progress Needed to Prevent Foreclosures

“Goldman Sachs estimates starting in last quarter of 2008 through 2014 – 13 million foreclosures will be started”.

Be sure to continue to write, fax or call your legislative representative & BO.

http://www.consumerlaw.org/issues/mortgage_servicing/content/testimony_DT_7-16-09.pdf
Vicki M, on July 22, 2009 at 2:54 pm said:

Anyone Seeking A Bankruptcy Atty ?

I have worked with Lamphier and Associates in Sacramento and found them to be experienced, knowledgable, professional and caring individuals with all of their bankruptcy clients. Their phone number is 916-442-7768 or 916-442-0376. Steele or Joseph can help you.
Vicki M.
cmysmile00@aol.com
Marcus, on July 22, 2009 at 2:19 pm said:

Rent Plan May Keep People in Homes
Tampa Tribune

TAMPA, Fla. – July 22, 2009 – Losing your home to foreclosure may no longer mean you have to leave.

Congress and the Obama administration are considering a controversial plan that would allow homeowners to rent their foreclosed home for at least five years. The proposal is setting the real estate community abuzz.

“It’s clear that the modification plans have not been as successful as Congress had hoped,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economics and Policy Research. “We need something that will make more of an impact.”

The program could reshape Florida’s real estate market and the overall economy. Experts disagree on whether the effects would be positive or negative. One thing everyone agrees on is this: Florida doesn’t need any more vacant homes.

The Sunshine State’s foreclosure rate remains the third highest in the nation. During the first six months of the year, foreclosure filings jumped 50 percent from the same period last year. One in every 33 households received a default notice, auction notice or bank repossession.

Details of the rental plan are sketchy, but the idea is gaining momentum, according to U.S. Treasury Assistant Secretary Herbert Allison. He told the Senate Banking Committee last week that the proposal was being considered for homeowners whose mortgages did not qualify for modification programs to make them affordable.

Some versions of the plan involve lenders selling foreclosed homes to approved professional landlords. In other versions, the lenders would sell to private investors or keep the home and hire a management firm to handle the rental arrangement.

The rent would be determined by the market-rate rent in the area, determined by a professional appraiser.

Jack Rodriguez, president of the Greater Tampa Association of Realtors, said the plan would “tinker with the free-market enterprise.”

“I know where Congress is coming from,” he said. “But my gut tells me investors would shy away from this, and banks will end up stuck in the real estate market.”

Baker, who first proposed the plan two years ago, said it has evolved and continues to be tweaked. Even though people who take advantage of the plan would still lose their homes, Baker said, the plan could keep that from happening to others.

“The lender would have more of an incentive to work something out through a modification because the home would be worth less,” Baker said.

Under the plan, the lender still could sell the home but, Baker said, “The homeowner would come with the home.”

The homeowner, turned renter, would be allowed to stay until the lease runs out, which could last as long as 10 years.

One potential problem, however, is that many homeowners who lose their properties aren’t interested in staying as renters, according to William Apgar, senior mortgage advisor for the Department of Housing an Urban Development.

The program could have an unintended consequence, Rodriguez said. Lenders would feel pressure to shed properties to avoid becoming a landlord. Investors, who would have to give up some property rights, would low-ball lenders. The result could drag down housing prices even more. (The median sales price in the Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater area was $141,100 in May, down 20 percent from $176,100 in May 2008, according to the Florida Association of Realtors.) Others think the plan is a win-win for everyone involved.

Don Burnham, a real estate investor in the Tampa area and co-founder of the Wealth Restoration Institute LLC, said the plan could be a hit.

Investors, he said, would want to buy the homes because they will know they have a long-term tenant and a steady revenue source. Lenders will like the plan, he said, because they’ll be able to find buyers faster. Homeowners would be happy because they’ll have a secure lease and not have to foot the bill to move.

Mike Larson, a real estate analyst with Weiss Research in Jupiter, said the plan is one of several the Obama administration is hoping will keep more homes from becoming vacant.

“We don’t yet know fully how the plan would work,” he said. “But if you have a warm body in the house who will keep it from going into disrepair and keep the lawn mowed, that will be at least somewhat helpful.”
bryan, on July 22, 2009 at 11:20 am said:

This link is a great easy read for foreclosure victims and attorneys.

good luck….

http://www.firstam.com/content.cfm?id=2828
Alina, on July 22, 2009 at 9:43 am said:

Here is some word play to contemplate:

mortgagee – “lender in a mortgage agreement” or “the person or organization that lends money for a home.”

nominee – “Entity (the registered owner) in whose name securities or other assets are recorded and held under a custodial agreement with the actual owner (called beneficial owner). Such arrangements are used where the beneficial owner is abroad, wishes to conceal his or her identity, or to facilitate a trade or collection of income from several securities.”

IMHO, the very terms used in a mortgage document clearly reflect that these are not real estate transactions but rather securities transactions.

thoughts from anyone?

Alina
livinglies, on July 22, 2009 at 7:25 am said:

TO EVERYONE WHO HAS A DISPUTE WITH SOMEONE ELSE ON THIS BLOG: TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. I WILL NOT HAVE THIS BLOG USED AS A FORUM FOR PERSONAL BATTLES. IF YOU HAVE A DISPUTE OF IDEAS, THAT IS OK. A DISPUTE WITH A PERSON BELONGS SOMEWHERE ELSE
Marcus, on July 21, 2009 at 4:01 pm said:

Florida AG sues home loan modification companies
South Florida Business Journal
June 21, 2009

Florida’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit against four South Florida companies that allegedly collected upward of $1 million in illegal upfront fees for loan modification services to homeowners facing foreclosure.

FHA AllDay.com of Deerfield Beach and its owner, Jason Vitulano, along with three other affiliated companies, are alleged to have solicited hundreds of distressed homeowners nationwide using the Internet and robo-calls that featured President Barack Obama’s voice.

According to the complaint, filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, Vitulano’s companies were charging as much as $5,000 to modify loans for those who faced losing them to lenders.

The other companies, which went by the names Safety Financial Services Inc., Housing Assistance Law Center PA and Housing Assistance Now Inc., were previously located in Boca Raton and Delray Beach.

The suit alleges that the companies promised to work with lenders to reduce debt and prevent foreclosures. However, consumers claim the companies did not perform the promised services, and that they were unable to contact the companies or get their money back.

The attorney general’s office received as many as 300 complaints.

The lawsuit asks that Vitulano and his companies be prevented from continuing to do business and that the court order the dissolution of the businesses, as well as award civil penalties of $15,000 for each violation of the Foreclosure Fraud Prevention Act.
bryan, on July 21, 2009 at 12:56 pm said:

I’m the guy that paid cash to frame a house, and it could never pass inspections so I got a construction loan and a different contractor, and he embezzled over $250,000.00 from my loan and did not build me a house. I have been suffering without a place to live for the past several years. And I refused to pay the bank for something I didn’t get. I am suing both contractors. But the bank wants to foreclose on me. I can prove my earlier posts of the Law against the bank which is:

Chapter 14. Lender liability VIII. Negligence
14:22 Duty of construction lenders
[FN2] Rudolph v. First Sothern Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 414 So. 2d 64 (Ala. 1982) also Davis v. Nevada Nat. Bank, 103, Nev. 220, P.2d 503 (1987)
(lender had duty of care not to disburse construction loan without investigating borrower’s complaint of substantial construction deficiencies) First Nat. Bank v. Wernhart, 204 wis. 2d 361, 555 N. W. 2d 819 (Ct. App. 1996)
(where construction lender disbursed both loan proceeds and personal funds of borrower deposited with lender, the lender was agent of borrower and owed duty of care to assure the funds were paid out for work actually done and that contractor had complied with construction contract).

The structure ( I paid for) is so bad it all must come down and start over. Yesterday, I spoke with another attorney, who thinks he might be able to stop the illegal auction but I will be stuck with a pile of crap which is unlivable and He says, I can’t sue the bank for any damages at all…I can only stop foreclosure sale.

The bank has prevented me a home to live in for over 3 years because they abandoned the construction payout, after four different draws to the contractor who never did any construction..

I’m beginning to have faith I can stop the illegal auction and keep my land but I am out $800,000.00, plus the bank wants over $375,000.00 for something I didn’t get, “no house”, and I strongly want to disagree with what the attorney told me. I think I should be entitled to damages, and sufferings, too. (the reason for math difference is the high interest rate from the $250,000.00 to $375,000.00, in three years and growing after the forecloser posts.)

The attorney said I can’t sue the bank and I’m entitled to nothing because the loan money wasn’t mine in the first place, and they gave it to a contractor who unfortunately ran off with it.

The only .., “TWO” questions I have (today) through all of this is…

1. Am I entitled to sue the bank for sufferings and damages, forcing them to take the crap off of my property?

I would like everyone’s opinion on my next question, regardless if I like your answer/opinion or not, your opinion will not be argued with by me.

2. After discovering the Bank was giving your construction money away without your signature, knowledge or approval and then you told the bank “STOP FUNDING” because there isn’t any contractor and the bank told you it wasn’t your dicision to make and to take it up with the contractor, and they kept giving him money, after you demanded they stop, with Zero Production, Would you pay for monthly payments of over $5,000.00 for something you did not get?

Thanks…
Ed, on July 21, 2009 at 9:57 am said:

Robin…how can one get a copy of the information you mentioned in your story?

My e-mail is :
eddarsom@aol.com
msoliman, on July 21, 2009 at 9:48 am said:

Anita Car – Cease
Marcus, on July 21, 2009 at 9:20 am said:

I came across this affirmative defense yesterday during a research. It applies to Florida.

Failure to Name Trust as Party.
Trustee alone could not maintain foreclosure action; the trust must be named as party. Corcoran v. Brody, 347 So2d 689 Fla. 4th DCA 1997.

Marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Paula, on July 21, 2009 at 8:22 am said:

Robin

What a great initial victory!. I am connected with a number of homeowners that are facing foreclosure before this same judge. We’d love to take you up on your offer of the copies that you used in prosenting your case.
Abby in CA, on July 21, 2009 at 6:43 am said:

This has some good tips for Homeowners facing foreclosure. This is from California’s State Attorney General Jerry Brown. The tips are located in the bottom third of the web page.

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1767

The tips also could apply to non-Californians.
Abby in CA, on July 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm said:

This is an emotional time for many of us who are struggling with foreclosures, evictions, bankruptcies, job losses and the whole legal process. Additionally,
the attorneys are getting swamped by folks who are desperate for help and relief.

In a prior posting, this past June, I stated that LL readers on this public blog, should avoid, avoid, avoid a particular attorney by the name of Tracy Wood.

I apologize for this. I apologize to Tracy Wood.

I have read almost all the legal papers produced for my friend Hamideh’s case. She has a language barrier and consistently came to me to ask questions and to try to understand the legal process. Tracy Wood was the attorney she retained.

As I have always promoted in other postings, you need to do your own research on the attorney you select to assist you.

You can go to State Bar Associations and do attorney lookups.

You can go to Martindale Hubbel at http://www.martindale.com to learn about their education and specialty work area.

You can ask them for references and talk to those references.

You can ask them how many cases they have won which are similar to yours.

I’d also recommend that you meet in person with each prospective attorney and prepare a list of questions you wish to have answered.

Typically, there should be an attorney retainer agreement, like a contract between you and the attorney. Read this carefully. Ask Questions.
Keep a copy of this.

It is understandable that there is a real feeling of desperation when you are being foreclosed upon or evicted.

Tracy Wood performed the best he could for his client Hamideh.

Hers was a difficult situation.
VG Diaz, on July 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm said:

Robyn

Congratulations..!! I hope that you will not give up the fight. Now that you know much of the truth, you should “stick it to the man” and have no mercy.

I am so glad to read your story, it is a true inspiration and a sense of hope for many homeowners in the same situation.

VG Diaz
Broward County, Florida
Marcus, on July 20, 2009 at 4:24 pm said:

#

They never learn from past mistakes. Here they go again with their scams.
=================================
Subprime Brokers Back as Dubious Loan Fixers
NY TIMES By PETER S. GOODMAN

LOS ANGELES — From the ninth floor of a downtown office building on Wilshire Boulevard, Jack Soussana delivered staggering numbers of mortgages to homeowners during the real estate boom, amassing a fortune.
By Mr. Soussana’s own account, his customers fared less happily. He specialized in the exotic mortgages that have proved most prone to sliding into foreclosure, leaving many now scrambling to save their homes.

Yet the dangers assailing Mr. Soussana’s clients have yielded fresh business for him: Late last year, he and his team — ensconced in the same office where they used to broker mortgages — began working for a loan modification company. For fees reaching $3,495, with most of the money collected upfront, they promised to negotiate with lenders to lower payments on the now-delinquent mortgages they and their counterparts had sprinkled liberally across Southern California.

“We just changed the script and changed the product we were selling,” said Mr. Soussana, who ran the Los Angeles sales office of Federal Loan Modification Law Center. The new script: You got a raw deal, and “Now, we’re able to help you out because we understand your lender.”

Mr. Soussana’s partners at FedMod, as the company is known, were also products of the formerly lucrative world of high-risk lending. The managing partner, Nabile Anz, known as Bill, previously co-owned Mortgage Link, a California subprime lender, now defunct, that once sold $30 million worth of loans a month.

Jeffrey Broughton, one of FedMod’s initial partners, served as director of business development at Pacific First Mortgage, a lender that extended so-called Alt-A mortgages for borrowers with tarnished credit for Countrywide Financial, which lost billions of dollars on bad mortgages before being rescued in an acquisition.

FedMod is but one example of how many of the same people who dispensed risky mortgages during the real estate bubble have reconstituted themselves into a new industry focused on selling loan modifications.

Despite making promises of relief to homeowners desperate to keep their homes, FedMod and other profit making loan modification firms often fail to deliver, according to a New York Times investigation based on interviews with scores of former employees and customers, more than 650 complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau, and documents filed by the Federal Trade Commission in a lawsuit against the company.

The suit, filed in California federal court, asserts that FedMod frequently exaggerated its rates of success, advised clients to stop making their mortgage payments, did little or nothing to modify loans and failed to promptly refund fees. The suit seeks an end to FedMod’s practices, and compensation for customers.

“Our job was to get the money in and then we’re done,” said Paul Pejman, a former sales agent who worked out of FedMod’s two-story headquarters in Irvine, Calif. He recounted his experience, he said, because “I really feel bad.”

“I had people calling me crying, and we were telling them, ‘You can pay me or you can lose your house,’ ” Mr. Pejman said. “People were giving me every dime they had, opening credit cards. But I never saw one client come out of it with a successful loan modification.”

Mr. Anz, who is challenging the F.T.C. lawsuit, acknowledged that FedMod’s business went “horribly wrong,” but he maintains the company made genuine efforts to help delinquent borrowers. He said FedMod has refunded fees to 3,000 dissatisfied customers, while modifying 1,500 mortgages.

A New Mission

FedMod is among dozens of similar companies that have been accused by state and federal authorities of fraudulent business practices. On the same day in April that the F.T.C. sued FedMod, it brought action against four similar companies and sent letters of warning to 71 others. Last week, the commission brought lawsuits against four more loan modification companies, advancing an enforcement campaign involving 23 states.

Many of the companies formerly operated as mortgage brokers, The Times found. Since October, the California Department of Real Estate has ordered 210 businesses and individuals to stop offering loan modification or foreclosure prevention services, because they lacked a real estate license, as required by the state. In fact, nearly half the people have roots in the mortgage industry or other areas of real estate, according to public records.

Debt Barter Inc. is among them. A loan modification company based in Irvine that was cited by the state in January for collecting upfront fees without a license, it is owned by Sean R. Roberts, who formerly headed Instafi, a mortgage broker that closed $2 billion worth of loans a year at its peak. Since February, customers have filed 17 complaints against Debt Barter with the Better Business Bureau. Most accused the company of charging upfront fees, then failing to lower their payments.

“We can’t please everyone all the time,” said Mr. Roberts, who added that the company had modified loans for nearly 300 of its roughly 500 clients.

In Aliso Viejo, Calif., the Citywide Mortgage Corporation, which previously brokered Alt-A and subprime loans, last year became a loan modification company, USMAC. The company has not received a cease and desist order, but complaints on numerous consumer Web sites assert that it fails to deliver.

“I’m saving homes,” said the company’s president, Scott Gimbel, who claimed a success rate above 70 percent.

Chris Mozilo, nephew of Angelo R. Mozilo, the former chief executive of Countrywide Financial — a name synonymous with the subprime disaster — recently started a new business, eModifyMyLoan. It sells software that homeowners can use to apply for loan modifications.

Chris Mozilo worked at Countrywide for 16 years. “I’m very proud of my career in mortgage lending,” he said. “We helped millions of people achieve the goal of homeownership.”

From its inception in the middle of 2008, FedMod aimed to dominate the loan modification industry, growing swiftly with the aid of a national advertising campaign.

Mr. Broughton, 49, had worked in the mortgage industry since the mid-1980s. As the market ground to a halt in 2008, he founded FedMod with two Los Angeles entrepreneurs, Steven Oscherowitz and Boaz Minitzer.

Mr. Broughton sought to distinguish his company from the unscrupulous ventures that dominate the industry.

“You had a lot of these modification companies that were subprime guys,” he said. “All they cared about was making quick dollars.”

But the partners behind FedMod had their own questionable backgrounds. In the mid-1990s, Mr. Oscherowitz settled an F.T.C. lawsuit that accused his company, Universal Merchants, of falsely marketing the weight-loss benefits of a dietary supplement.

The partners entrusted Mr. Soussana with FedMod’s Los Angeles sales office precisely because he had proved adept at selling the sorts of loans that now required modification. In 2006, Mr. Soussana, then 30, was listed as the nation’s sixth most prolific mortgage broker by Mortgage Originator, a trade magazine, brokering $318 million worth of loans. The same year, he paid $1.8 million for a house near Beverly Hills.

“He was one of the biggest guys in subprime mortgages,” Mr. Minitzer said. “He basically wanted to get back to his old days of 50, 60, 70 guys in his office, and we could help because we were basically taking over the market.”

Bringing in the Law

The three original partners brought in Mr. Anz to gain a crucial asset: his law license. Having a lawyer in charge enabled them to market their venture as a law firm and thus collect upfront payments under California rules.

“Jeff asked me how I could, for lack of a better word, legitimize it,” Mr. Anz said.

The California Department of Real Estate warns consumers that many dubious loan modification companies have organized themselves as law firms solely to allow them to collect upfront fees, even though the lawyers have little, if anything, to do with the services provided. The department cautions consumers against hiring such companies.

In its lawsuit against FedMod, the F.T.C. contends that the company’s advertisements implied it had the backing of the federal government. “If you’re like the millions of Americans out there who are struggling to pay a mortgage, you may be eligible for the Federal Loan Modification Program,” radio ads beckoned.

Aggressive marketing ensured that Mr. Pejman, 22, never lacked for calls when he started at the Irvine sales office in January. He had worked at three wholesale mortgage brokerages. Now, a trainer emphasized he was at a law center.

“Our big sales pitch was that an attorney could do a better job with your loan modification,” Mr. Pejman said. “If you told them these were basically washed-up people from the mortgage industry, or just people sending in paperwork, they would say, ‘Well, why bother? I might as well do this myself.’ ”

He went on: “It was misleading to the client. Attorneys never touched those files.”

Among the 700-plus full-time employees who worked for FedMod this spring, only nine were lawyers, Mr. Anz said, though the company retained a lawyer in every state.

Mr. Pejman and his fellow agents urged homeowners to send FedMod $3,495; the agents were promised a 30 percent commission for fees they took in. Most clients could not come up with more than $1,000 and agreed to a payment schedule for the rest. Assurances of relief from a homeowner’s loan terms were typically extravagant, Mr. Pejman said.

“A big grabber was that your loan will be reduced to 2.5 percent to 5 percent on a 30-year fixed rate loan,” he said. “They’d print out all these mythical success stories for us to read over the phone.”

Under FedMod’s policies, agents were prohibited from making false claims, counseling clients not to pay their mortgages or providing success rates, Mr. Anz said. New clients received follow-up compliance calls to ensure they understood nothing was guaranteed.

But sales agents were told of such policies with a wink, Mr. Pejman said.

“They basically told us, ‘Do whatever you need to do,’ ” he said. “ ‘It’s a sales floor. You’re here to sell.’ People would quote success rates and just pull them out of thin air. People would say 60 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent. To the average Joe in Kansas, that sounded great. But the reality is that 50 percent were immediately declined by the lender.”

What shocked Mr. Pejman was how readily customers handed over their credit card numbers. Sales agents tapped into a deep vein of anxiety.

“I’d hear people say, ‘Would you pay $1,000 to save your home? To save your marriage? Your kids’ education?’ ” he recalled. “I’d hear people say, ‘Yeah, we’re the federal government.’ There were a lot of corrupt people working there.”

In Charlotte, N.C., Joshua Garland telephoned FedMod in March after seeing one of its television commercials. Mr. Garland’s wife had been laid off from her hospital job. He had lost his job as a chef and was now bartending. Their monthly income had plunged from $3,200 to less than $1,000. They were already three months behind on their mortgage.

A FedMod agent confidently described how his company could cut their monthly payments from $1,200 to $532, Mr. Garland recalled. But first, he had to pay a $995 “retainer fee.”

This was nearly as much as Mr. Garland earned in two weeks. Dental bills were piling up for his three children. He was behind on his utilities.

“I told him, ‘We have $1,200 left to make our mortgage payment, and if we give that money to you, we’re going to get further behind,’ ” Mr. Garland recalled. “He said, ‘Go ahead and make the $995 payment, because once you’re under our plan, the bank can’t foreclose on you.’ ”

After several follow-up calls from the agent, Mr. Garland paid. Then, months passed with no contact from FedMod, he said. He left countless messages seeking updates, demanding a refund. His lender foreclosed on his house, scheduling a sale for Aug. 26.

“This guy hounds me for the $1,000, and then as soon as I pay him he disappears,” Mr. Garland said. “I usually don’t fall for stuff like this. I can usually tell if it’s a scam. But this guy, I mean he came with his guns loaded.”

Overwhelmed by Cases

FedMod was drowning in cases. The pipeline swelled by 8,000 clients from December to March, according to Mr. Anz.

Once sales agents took in applications, they passed files on to the processing department, where case managers were supposed to assemble documents and submit them to lenders. But their offices were hopelessly underequipped.

“The owners didn’t want to invest in software, so everything was tracked manually,” said Rachelle Cochems, who took over as operations manager on Jan. 19 and left the company in May after FedMod stopped paying her. “We couldn’t handle the volume we were taking in. The system was broken.”

Each case manager was responsible for as many as 200 files at a time, Ms. Cochems said, making it impossible to keep in regular touch with customers. Some files floated in limbo, because sales agent did not bother handing them over.

“You’re paying the sales agent upfront,” Ms. Cochems said. “So what motivation does he have to get it closed?”

In February, Mr. Anz shut the Los Angeles sales office, uncomfortable with reports that Mr. Soussana had filled it with “unsavory types” from the mortgage industry, he said.

“I’m not a shady person,” Mr. Soussana said.

By March, sales agents were inundated by calls from furious clients who had paid long ago, but not heard from anyone. Some called from motels, their belongings piled in boxes, weeping as they recounted losing their homes.

The agents let most calls go to voicemail, playing the most dramatic messages over speakerphones for communal amusement, Mr. Pejman said.

“Guys would sit there and laugh,” he said. “ ‘This lady’s going crazy,’ that sort of thing.”

The next month, Mr. Anz took full control of the company, banishing his partners and blaming them for “a train wreck.” He ceased marketing, he said, and concentrated on processing the backlog of files.

In April, the F.T.C. filed its lawsuit, prompting credit card companies to freeze their accounts with FedMod. The court imposed a temporary restraining order, barring FedMod from acquiring new customers.

By the time Rana Hajjar began working there on April 13 as a client representative, she found the company utterly chaotic.

“They just handed me 70 files and told me to call these people because they’re very upset,” Ms. Hajjar recalled. “The majority of them had paid three or four months earlier and had never heard from anyone. I was yelled at from today until tomorrow.”

Several times a week, clients called to report that the police were at their door, ordering them out for foreclosure sales, Ms. Hajjar said. When she alerted negotiators, they sometimes called banks and postponed sales, but usually they ignored her messages, she said.

When Ms. Hajjar cashed her first paycheck, it bounced, she said. Over the next three weeks, she never received payment. On Monday, May 11, her manager told her and dozens of other employees to take the rest of the week off because the company had no money for payroll.

She was never called back, later adding her name to a file of more than 120 wage disputes leveled against FedMod with the California Labor Commissioner.

Today, FedMod has only 40 employees, said Mr. Anz, pledging to plow through the company’s 4,200 remaining files.

“We’re doing what we can,” he said. “I’m the bad boy of loan mods.”

Yet as television advertisements attest, many other companies remain aggressive in what amounts to perhaps the last growth industry left in American real estate.
#
Theodore, on July 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm Said:

Mr. Garfield-thank you very much for all that you have done for all of us.

This explanation makes perfect sense to us lay folks.

Thanks again. We do appreciate when you come and talk to us on your LL.
#
JT, on July 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am Said:

Nice
#
angry&not taking it, on July 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am Said:

this statement of ” not in default” is brilliant in its simplicity .
at that point “plausible deniability” by way of – if memory serves me correct that in the loan servicing&pooling agrmnt.. there is wording of
[ certain parties? like servicers or?] “not” required and or even ” prohibited” from ascertaining or investigating the correctness or truth of facts in the loan docs &
SPA , loophole for to the servicers and others relating to any due diligence ??
#
erlinda, on July 20th, 2009 at 11:11 am Said:

thank you atty. garfield for a very good argument. it is a common sense approach. i will be seeing you on july 26, 2009 and i need more info about how to defend yourself from other pretending lender and trustee from stealing your valuable asset. you are a big help for lawyers and homeowners who did not actually understand the process of securitization in mortgages. i was lucky to find out a law firm that understand the process of securitization. i have a hearing coming up in bankruptcy court on august 6, 2009 to lift the automatic stay on my two houses, but my lawyer representing me is ready to attack them. i will let the readers know about the outcome of my hearing.. all we learned from this site will be be use to surprise the pretender lenders and the trustee. there are many hands trying to get in one pot and believe me i will not stop until i defeated the enemy and expose their scam. no doubt in my mind that the one who “SABOTAGE” our economy is the very person we trusted to keep our money and investment and it was the BANKS, WALL STREET AND THE FEDERAL RESERVES WHO INITIATE THE 1% interest to gear up the home buying spree., just like a department store announcing for a big sale of the year. and we as the homeowners and the real investors are the victims.
GrammyG, on July 20, 2009 at 3:56 pm said:

I paid for a Loan Audit thru these folks and still haven’t heard a thing. Payment submitted 07/03/09.
How long do these audits take?
Marcus, on July 20, 2009 at 3:32 pm said:

Did anybody use uslenderaudit.com to do loan audit before?
If so, could you share your experience?
Thanks
Marcus,
S B, on July 20, 2009 at 3:16 pm said:

Abby

I agree that was straight to the heart. I too wish u could go national such as Oprah and help people understand this mess and have an opportunity to be educated on it so they can support those many who have been so tragically effected.

Many people believe it was stupidity on the owners side to have fallen into this horrific scam. But maybe if they knew the victims side then can identify better with the plight and be able to be more supportive. It’s really worse then Identity theft. Because in this case u lose everything for many years and some forever.

I have by profession did a study about the suicides of those who have lost their homes. The numbers are mind blowing. The financial damage is staggering, but the mental health side of the victimazation is even more staggering.

Of all the items a person has connected to them is a roof over their head, a place to call home. Homelessness is by all means heavily on the rise and there is a new homeless of those who have lost their home to these scams. The avalanche effect is massive!

If you were to put together a chart showing the connection of this form of victimazation, you would see how much is connected to having a roof over ur head, a place u can call home. Renters as well have been deeply effected. The entire economy has been slammed to the lowest of lows. And this is one of the worst cases of mase robbery, financial abuse, trust abuse, and then some.

I hope u or some of those angels out there trying to protect us and keep us grounded will one day be able to help others understand the devastation of this experience in hopes we can one day look after each other as a community.
Abby in CA, on July 20, 2009 at 1:35 pm said:

Robyn
I don’t usually cry. I am crying tears of happiness for you. How lucky an angel came to help you (actually many)!!

I am going to pray for you to overcome your cancer and to keep you home. I don’t know you, but by sharing this all you are an angell for all of us!!

I wish you could go on Oprah and explain the plight of
foreclosure victims.

Real Tears from Abby in California
S B, on July 20, 2009 at 1:09 pm said:

ROBIN

WOW that was a great story u shared!!! MAHALO SO VERY MUCH!!

Crazy I sent u an e-mail. Hope to hear from u soon. Went to the Board of Conveyance…and WOW I was blown away but all I saw. Cost me 97.50 to get it all copied.

So now I am at the part of trying to figure out what I am reading and how to present my case. In the next few days I will request the judge remove my attorney from the case. That will be my only chance of going forward.
Scared big time, but I have to try and battle this one out. Reading Robins story was good for my heart because like me she has multiple stress issues to balance. It gave me a dose of the reality that I am not at all alone. I hope I can find my angel in all this mess but at least for a moment in time, I finally think JUST maybe that can happen.

A moment in time of hope can be a life time.

MAHALO ALL
SB
James#, on July 20, 2009 at 9:22 am said:

Robyn Powell:
very cool story! Well done!
Robyn Powell: Thank You Thank You LIVINGLIES for Helping THIS Homeowner Unpack and Live To Fight Another Day (A Model for Those Of You Here Wishing To Give Back Or Spread The LivingLies Gospel), on July 19, 2009 at 3:02 pm said:

Today Wednesday July 15, 2009 was the day I was scheduled to lose my West Palm Beach home to Saxon Mortgage Services. Facing sure homelessness, I had begun to pack, sent my teen son to his father in Iowa and had totally given up fighting foreclosure. Overcome, I felt hopeless, and even wrestled with not attending today’s hearing on their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Though I would not wish it on another soul, “lucky” for me I suffered a brain tumor. If I hadn’t, I might never have met my cancer nurse who I’d prefer to think of as my “The Foreclosure Angel.” Understanding that title is deservedly already taken by esteemed foreclosure defense pioneer April Charney, I’ll call this Palm Beach Erin Brockovich angel my “Foreclosure Nurse” (‘FN’).

Though a pro bono attorney had earlier raised the “show me the note” defense, when he helped me craft a terse answer, it was FN who turned me around and lit a fire under me to not capitulate, to push back on my foreclosure and Saxon. Not just for me, but on behalf of all similarly situated embattled homeowners searching for economic justice across the nation.

I told FN about my plight last Friday. Resigned, I mentioned my foreclosure to her as if homelessness was inevitable, as if it were ‘case closed’ – a ‘done deal.’ FN went home and accessed the same Palm Beach court online database she logs onto to track her foreclosure case. When she saw my case was NOT over, but rather had a hearing on a motion for summary judgment scheduled for today, she swung into action with clear purpose and her signature compassion.

Over the weekend she researched Florida statutes and involved a New England transplant (NET) defending a foreclosure in Miami. We did a three-way call, as I recited my history in exchange for a pep talk. I had nothing to lose. Together they worked up and gave me a packet (in big print) that included 2 pages of talking points and 8 pages of narrative that blended my story with that of Wall Street’s securitization – drawn largely from your LivingLies blog – to hand the judge, and opposing counsel. (Copies available).

Since it didn’t show up on the online docket, FN took off from work during lunch Tuesday (Bastille Day) and in her scrubs stormed the clerk’s office to research my case folder in search of the promised original note. She found nothing.

Today she took off from work again and accompanied me to the 2 p.m. hearing I so dreaded. She not only gave me moral support, and calmed me down, she empowered and encouraged me, otherwise a nervous wreck afraid of courtrooms and judges. After I spoke, she even stood up and spoke up for me when invited to do so by the very judge who’ll one day hear her case.

Saxon and the promised original note were NO SHOWS. I got the continuance I requested to find substitute counsel. Judge Sasser invited me to take the full 15 minutes allotted to explain my situation. FN had provided me speaking points that helped me find my own voice, as well statutory and case law cites she had researched.

Meanwhile NET provided me the running narrative taken mainly from or inspired by this LivingLies site. It felt like I was bringing the judge up to speed on the cutting edge of foreclosure defense, all from a layman Pro Se homeowner’s perspective. This was a good thing, especially since Judge Sasser is head of the foreclosure division.

After my “15 minutes of fame,” Judge Sasser kindly encouraged me to unpack, bring my teenage son back from Iowa, then referred me to a particular legal aid attorney in whom she places a lot of confidence.

Thank you so very much, LivingLies, esteemed Neil Garfield, Brad Keiser, especially Foreclosure Nurse and New England Transplant (you two angels know who you are) and all of you who contribute to this God-sent site. You turned a day I dreaded would be catastrophic into a day of prayers answered, and thanksgiving I’ll relish the rest of my life.

FN and NET spoke of their vision of all that could be accomplished for homeowners in my situation all over the nation, if each person on this site personally reached out to even one homeowner a week, and stood with them against an injustice that insults the very character of our nation. Imagine if that outreach also helped educate foreclosure judges to disallow illegal foreclosures from the outset.

I’m now convinced there’s a bigger picture. Where does one sign up to fight what is a nationwide injustice perpetrated on hapless homeowners?

Now, there’s a vision worth bringing to reality – the American way – from the grassroots all the way up to the corridors of power.

Thank you!

Robyn Powell, Pro Se
West Palm Beach, Florida
livinglies, on July 18, 2009 at 8:30 am said:

Vicki and Maher. The battle is over. I will delete any further references to your disagreements.
VG Diaz, on July 18, 2009 at 5:54 am said:

NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANK FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY AS TO OWNER AND HOLDER OF NOTE, SECURUTIZED TRUST DOCUMENTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS DEMANDED BY BORROWERS
July 14, 2009

In a stunning victory for borrowers, a New Jersey court has dismissed a foreclosure action filed against the borrowers by Deutsche Bank Trust Company America as alleged trustee for a securitized mortgage loan trust after Deutsche Bank willfully, and despite the entry of three (3) separate court orders, refused to produce documents demanded by the borrowers which included documents setting forth the identity of the true owner and holder of the Note and mortgage, the complete chain of title to ownership of the note and mortgage, payment application histories, and documents as to the securitized mortgage loan trust. The Court had given Deutsche Bank multiple opportunities and extensions of time to produce the documents, but Deutsche Bank continually refused to produce any of the documents requested, resulting in the dismissal of Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action. The Court also ruled that Deutsche Bank is not permitted to re-file any foreclosure action until it is prepared to produce ALL of the subject discovery.

FDN attorney Jeff Barnes, Esq. represented the borrowers, assisted by local New Jersey counsel.

W. J. Barnes, P.A. has numerous other cases pending where similar discovery requests have been sent to Deutsche Bank, none of which have been complied with to date. As such, additional requests for sanctions, including dismissal, are expected to be filed in these cases.

Deutsche Bank was also the subject of a recent ruling in a case in New York where the Court denied Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that a purported assignment from MERS to Deutsche Bank was defective and that Deutsche Bank, with an invalid assignment of the mortgage and note from MERS, lacked standing to foreclose. Significant in the ruling was the court’s observation and question as to why, 142 days after the borrower was claimed to be in default, that MERS would assign a “toxic” loan to Deutsche Bank. The court also required a satisfactory explanation, by sworn Affidavit, from an officer of the securitized trust as to why, in the middle of “our national subprime mortgage financial crisis”, Deutsche Bank would purchase from MERS, as alleged “nominee”, a nonperforming loan. The court further inquired as to whether Deutsche Bank violated a corporate fiduciary duty to the note holders of the securitized mortgage loan trust with the purchase of a loan that had defaulted 142 days prior to its assignment from MERS to the trust.

It appears that Deutsche Bank may have done so to take advantage of one or more “credit enhancements” inside of the securitized mortgage loan trust which pay benefits upon declaration of default. These credit enhancements are extremely complicated and multi-layered, and are required by law in connection with the issuance and sale of the mortgage-backed securities “backed” by the trust.

The assignment of the mortgage and note to the securitized trust, which were already in default well in advance of the assignment, would permit Deutsche Bank to both realize a profit through payment of credit enhancement benefits (which effect a pay down of the claimed “default”) while simultaneously permitting Deutsche Bank to institute a foreclosure, resulting in a “double dip” for Deutsche Bank. This is, of course, illegal, but unless competent counsel raises the issue, it goes unnoticed and Deutsche Bank, like so many other foreclosing parties, winds up stealing the borrowers’ property and getting paid for doing it.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.

http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

e-mail: info@ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com
Marcus, on July 17, 2009 at 4:02 pm said:

This maybe helpful to folks in Hawaii. It is a complaint for emergency stay on foreclosure sale.

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?page_id=125

marcus
S B, on July 17, 2009 at 11:20 am said:

Aloha Crazy

I have called in some friends to help us start looking for some of the things we may need and to help answer our questions.

I e-mailed this to u as well. I’ll be in town today and get that other info we talked about. I will also be heading to the law library. A few friends sent me some sites that would pretain to Hawaii Pro Se. I’ll send those your way as well.

MAHALO for the motivation to try and move forward.
I hope I will be able to be as much help to u in return.
Have a great weekend!!

It looks like there may be a recording requirement:

hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ins/main/har/har_178-c.pdf

http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/mers/doc/MERS3012HI.doc

https://www.agentxtra.net/Extranet/singlesource/content/StateLaw/Hawaii/Hawaii.htm

You might get some more info off these sites:

http://hawaii.gov/dcca/main/har
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 17, 2009 at 7:12 am said:

First, Its $2,500 and the balance is outstanding for the lawyers retainer. I am being sued for $1,800 so again, pull your head out!

23 defense is a good book to formulate a defense but not prosecute. (Great reference book and good call none the less)

NACA, HOPE, the POPE and ABBA ZABBA won’t pursue a criminal complaint or lay the foundation for criminal activity. They are there to fight for the rights of those who have hardships.

Hardships have nothing to do with a banks responsibility or obligation to a borrower.

A million man march is not going to divulge the opaque secret lies inherent to a sham trust.

Want a great source of evidence for prosecuting a case. An accountants attestation letter against their client published in a 8K or other filing. it works.

You want a good source for an audit and worthy argument under RESPA for an attorney to argue in court the merits of a SISA loan gone wrong…it wont happen!

Garfield is a sharp attorney who is still trying to piece things togther and I am no further along with a sole argument for restoring homeowners and enforcing a REAL workout. But lenders are none the less cooperating at their counsels recomendation.

Are you working with a lenders servicing agent for a short pay or modification? Forget it.

Peace!

admin@borrowerhotline.com
Crazy, on July 16, 2009 at 8:09 pm said:

Im not sure if the people arguing on this site realize that thousands of people are reading it and are looking for advise. I am dissapointed that the two main states that people on this site seem to focus on is Arizona and Florida. There are 50 states to choose from. A little help in Hawaii would be appreciated. Maybe the two people butting heads can answer a simple question, and do the research.

Is recording a mortgage required in the State of Hawaii in order to commence a judicial forclosure action?
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 5:51 pm said:

“23 Legal Defenses to Foreclosure” by Troy Doucet
is an excellent beginners book for anybody starting their defense.

Marcus,
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 5:43 pm said:

For the serious amongst us who want to take their learning experience to the next level I have created a new section for book recommendations.

* Foreclosures by National Consumer Law Center
* Truth in Lending by National Consumer Law Center
* The Cost of Credit by National Consumer Law Center
* Consumer Law Pleadings by National Consumer Law
* 23 Legal Defenses to Foreclosure by Troy Doucet
* Structured Finance & Collateralized Debt Obligations by Janet M. Tavakoli
If you have other interesting book suggestion please let me know.

http://www.foreclosureprose.com/pro-se-library/
Abby in CA, on July 16, 2009 at 3:08 pm said:

Grammy G

when you are ready, send to

sacramentoterminator@gmail.com

let me know.
GrammyG, on July 16, 2009 at 2:46 pm said:

Abby
Could you review a email I received today. But for now, I don’t want to share it just yet.
Can you email me?
Abby in CA, on July 16, 2009 at 2:38 pm said:

Yes Alina I agree.

Maher has no right to tell anybody on this site to stay off. He has done it to others.

All should be wary of what he has to say. He ripped Vicki off of over $2200.

He is expert and calling people various names and pretending he owns this site and can tell people when to get off of it.

He does it with anybody that challenges him or that disagrees with him or who might not understand him.

Beware Beware Beware
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 16, 2009 at 1:35 pm said:

ALINA

YES THANK YOU ! THERE IS NO ABBY AND YES …THANK YOU ….PLEASE LETS MOVE ON. YOU PEOPLE CONSTANTLY INVITE HER BACK AND LET HER INCITE YOU WITH ATTACKS ON ME. . DONT BUY IN AND RECOGNIZE HER EFFORT TO DISRUPT.

DO NOT RESPOND – AT ALL
Alina, on July 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm said:

Abby and Maher,

I am sorry guys but if you two have an issue with each other, please take it outside this forum. As far as I know, that is not what this forum is for.

I do not know either of you, but I am really getting tired of reading your comments against one another.

IMHO, we are here is to better learn how to defend ourselves and help others in the same situation as ourselves. This backbiting is totally counterproductive.

So please, if you guys have issues with each other, take it someplace else.

Thanks.
Alina
Abby in CA, on July 16, 2009 at 12:57 pm said:

Maher-you are projecting -have you been convicted?

Every name or label you use on others is really what you are!

What?? You are not a psychiatrist? Maybe that will be tomorrow?
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 16, 2009 at 12:27 pm said:

I have answered your questions, tolerated your lies and allowed you to turn this wonderful site into a forum and chatline to seek your own gain. Thanks to you my business has gone through the roof.

$25,000 cash for keys, $ 500,000 reduction in price, $50,000 cash for keys, Contra Costa county Judgement for the defendant – Spicer, Placerville -Judgement for the defendant – Stella Judgement for the defendant – Weunsch…..Bof A offer to compromise, Downey Savings offer to comromise, Rusell v Dutsche Bank pending with no decision 18 months later, Wachovia and GMAC pending settlements as we speak……what is it you do and why do you think you deserve a retainer from me paid to an attorney ….why does Garfield let a convicted person like you advise others. Again, go away – Joke really. Moran
Kevin C., on July 16, 2009 at 11:12 am said:

Crazy pointed out to me, that on all the documents that came from Plaintiffs attorney when I got serverd all. The Mers number and loan number were blacked out. Has any body seen that before. Very strange?

Thanks,
Kevin in hawaii
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 10:22 am said:

Hello Folks,
This is a very interesting document (“Basic Foreclosure Litigation Defense Manual”) from the notorious April Charney in Florida. The paper is well presented.

http://www.foreclosureprose.com/storage/forms/BasicForeclosureLitigationDefenseManual.pdf

Marcus,
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 am said:

This is a long article. You can read the entire article on NYTimes site.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900EFDE143DF934A15757C0A96E9C8B63
—————————————-
Triple-A Failure

By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
Published: April 27, 2008

DRAWING (DRAWING BY CHRISTOPH NIEMANN)

The Ratings Game

In 1996, Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, remarked on ”The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” that there were two superpowers in the world — the United States and Moody’s bond-rating service — and it was sometimes unclear which was more powerful. Moody’s was then a private company that rated corporate bonds, but it was, already, spreading its wings into the exotic business of rating securities backed by pools of residential mortgages.

Obscure and dry-seeming as it was, this business offered a certain magic. The magic consisted of turning risky mortgages into investments that would be suitable for investors who would know nothing about the underlying loans. To get why this is impressive, you have to think about all that determines whether a mortgage is safe. Who owns the property? What is his or her income? Bundle hundreds of mortgages into a single security and the questions multiply; no investor could begin to answer them. But suppose the security had a rating. If it were rated triple-A by a firm like Moody’s, then the investor could forget about the underlying mortgages. He wouldn’t need to know what properties were in the pool, only that the pool was triple-A — it was just as safe, in theory, as other triple-A securities.
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 9:57 am said:

Does anyone have subscription to the Wall Street Journal Online? This article came out this morning.
—————————————————
Mortgage Firms Struggle to Redo Hard-Hit Loans
Morgan Stanley chief John Mack recently made a new friend, he told shareholders in April — a Southern woman who had benefited from the big bank’s stepped-up efforts to modify loans under a new federal program aimed at keeping borrowers in their homes.

“I’m now invited — if I ever visit Memphis, Tennessee — to drive two hours south to have dinner with her and her family,” Mr. Mack said.

But by some measures, Morgan Stanley’s mortgage-loan servicing firm, Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., has a long road to go. An April Credit Suisse Group analysis of how quickly companies have …
Abby in CA, on July 16, 2009 at 9:31 am said:

Marcus- I will try to send the Calif stuff. It may be towards the end of the month.
Abby in CA, on July 16, 2009 at 9:18 am said:

Maher-why did you steal Vicki’s money? The state attorney general is going to come after you if you don;t watch out bro.

Do you merely peruse the internet and “cut n paste”
all the information you post?

Anybody into self-aggrandizing and trying to sell their iffy services can do that, bro.

You seem to have done every job in the world, except maybe be GOD.

So, when will Vicki get all of her money back?
mortgagelies, on July 16, 2009 at 9:11 am said:

Most recent prior work was two years with the Law firm of Gareeb Pham in Los Angeles. I Sat next to the Criminal attorney handling White Collar matters that included the SEC.It was interesting to hear the numbers being thrown out at least once a week….
8 years, 12 years 9 years.

For more MSoliman worship go to:
A Wake-Up Call for Gumbel? – The Washington Post |
CBS execs understandably think that for that kind of money Gumbel should be … a key figure in the spectacular PinnFund USA fraud case, was sentenced to 46

Valley Mortgage Brokers Face 11 Charges – Los Angeles TimesApr 13, 2000 … Rostami, Ross and their business entities, including TriStar Mortgage,
Polo Financial Services and KISS International, had been under …

Billionaire Carl Icahn Backs Newly Formed Mortgage Company …File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View
The business is a natural complement to Icahn’s holdings, considering MGCA? For MSoliman…track record of buying discounted, distressed mortgage assets.

***ONGOING***DISTRICT COURT Platinum Financial LLC advance fee loan fraud, fraudulent transaction, Maria K Politis is listed as the manager on the corporate registration,

The last involves an Government investigation – please “mouth”…get involved. I will testify in Contra Costa County Superior Court in the next week on a case I have worked with Counsel, the Law Offices of M Terbeek, for over one and a half years.
Matter of “Olehy v Sun Trust” et al. WE WILL PREVAIL SO STAY TUNED (Come see me after for coffee and crumb cake LOL!)

Don’t buy 5 properties and place them in names of others if you’re not prepared to face the consequences of an investigation. . . Moron!

So who are you with your wonderful legal advice, as you practice law here on this site?
Careful, your comment have no disclaimer and cite specific strategies reserved only for a
Practitioner licensed by the State. So did you hear about MERS or lost note argument (Wow)!

I mean the way you run off with the mouth….Please, can we see your CV or please
something spanning 25 years and whereby you can document trading over $ One Billion in
Closed whole loan assets. “whole” “Loan” Assets” Someone explain it will you….

My concerns here Ms. Abb’s is for what you’re doing! You cannot even understand the most basic business vernacular ….that blows me a way. How much have you traded as principal. This wacko is a strange mixture of science and religion….LOL. I don’t get it either and thanks for all the calls folks!
Abby in CA, on July 16, 2009 at 8:16 am said:

Maher= admin@borrowerhotline.com What are the case numbers of the two cases you were called to testify in in California–the biggest fraud cases in California history (as you claim)? I’d like to read your testimony first hand.
Vicki M, on July 16, 2009 at 8:12 am said:

To Admin@borrowerhotline, Msoloman, Maher, Sub_prime (or whoever else you chose to be today)

Since you are using this blog to lure desperate homeowners to your website (by including your website in all your postings) -can you show with verifiable proof that “YOU testified in 2 of California’s biggest fraud cases”? I haven’t seen on any of your postings where you can backup what you claim (verifyable) in your supposed court history, let alone all the other discrepencies of your history claims.
I cannot just sit and watch as you continue to scam whatever money is left from the homeowners, as what you did to me.
If you are really trying to help the homeowner, you wouldn’t put up mulitple websites advertising your services, with each of your posts and take their money while doing nothing in return. Let’s see if you help without those websites and alterior motives- then we really know you are trying to help and not just trying to fatten your bank account.
Regarding your post to me yesterday-what couple am I attacking? Most of what you are posting on me I do not understand what you are talking about and is completely untrue.The only person I point at is you, Maher.
I’m only asking homeowners to write what’s going on to our Attorney General, Senators, etc , so action can be for their protection. This is what you should be doing instead of taking their money and not doing anything for them. I’ve gotten emails from
homeowners where you approached them and said to stop paying for an attorney and to see you instead because you could help and the attorney couldn’t. I’ve had other homeowners write me to verify that after handing their money over to you that you then don’t give them the time of day and do absolutely nothing.
I have this evidence, Maher.
Unfortunately for you, Maher, continue fabricating all the stories your mind can dream up while you still can about me (about your history) because there may be only a limited amount of computer usage time you have remaining because I don’t think they allow that when your locked up behind bars. (Maybe they don’t allow internet in jail?). But then, you’ll probably plead ‘insanity’.

To all homeowners:
I’d like to share what I have learned to be helpful for myself (expecting nothing in return) by recommending NACA (they fight against the banks and stop foreclosure process (even if it’s close to sale), to get a loan mod for you – at no charge. http://www.naca.com)
and writing to the President, the Senators, Congressman, and Attorney General (Make them aware of what’s going on. You can find out who your constituants are and their addresses on the NACA website).
Each Politician also has an easy link to email them on their website.
Continue calling to negotiate the loan mod with your bank. They do have more incentive to try and workout with you more now than before. Call often and document. If they are not cooperative, keep a written log of all communication attempts by you. Write to the Banks letting them know you are aware of their deceptive practices in your loan and list them (you know by now what they did wrong to you by reading this site) . Ask who has and is the owner of the Note? Request the loan mod that you demand, keeping copies of this and sending to the politicians and agencies. Make aware to these constituants of your plight so they can intervene and so they see the sheer number of those in trouble and hear the real life stories first hand so they will do something to help us.

Work at not feeding into the fear and worry as this will only bring more troubles for you. I know first hand what a hurdle that is to no longer harbor fear and worry but it can be done, as I was able to do that. Worry and fear does not accomplish anything for you and only hurts you and your family more. I found and use the Release Technique. It works and it turns things around to your favor. (No, I do not get paid to say this) This method actually gives you focus & clarity, rids you of depression and you can see the effects immediately.

My 2nd lender, BofA Heloc, had a history of filing an immediate notice of Default when I was late. They followed up with a foreclosure notice of sale on Nov 08 (postponed)and Dec 08 (cancelled) and filed a new Notice of Default on Feb/09. In June 09 the Trustee said the floreclosure was closed by BofA. In July I recieved a mortgage statement from Bof A (they had stopped sending me regular statements in the past) showing my “Priniciple Balance” was “0″ and the “Current and MInimum Payment Due” was “0″.
I never even talked or wrote to my 2nd lender (I am with my 1st), the only thing that I have done and still do is the Release Technique. I have gotten 2 loan modification offers from my 1st lender, Countrywide, which I’ve declined. ( The 1st offer shaved $800/month off my payment for 10 years) I am currently writing to the Attorney General and others and to Countrywide regarding the loan mods and what I want.
If any homeowner has any question or needs any help-please feel free to email me. I do not charge anything and I am not a business, it is only in my heart to help others. I follow my belief that when you give unselfishly to others you get blessed with more back in return.
Vicki M
cmysmile00@aol.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 16, 2009 at 6:25 am said:

Lenders are wrong with respect to acceptance practices over the years. Their wrong for the difficult fight they are putting up against honest consumers.

But they are taking it on the chin and not publicly attacking back (covert as to lobbying efforts).

I know from past markets however, no one is insulated. My firm 1997-1992 would prosecute borrower fraud hard and fast to make a statement!.

None the less, lenders must deal with what is at hand.

Two cases I was asked to testify in were the biggest fraud cases California history. Both folks are locked up still to this day.

Stay clean and be cognizant….lender bashing today could be the subject of a reversal of focus down the road.
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 16, 2009 at 6:03 am said:

It is not only lenders who use tricks on the back of innocent borrowers; borrowers sometimes are tempted to slightly misrepresent facts in their favor.

However, any purposefully omitted or twisted information on a home loan application constitutes home mortgage loan fraud. If the lender finds out, they may demand full repayment of the loan or may file a charge against you and you consequently go to jail.

Tell tale signs of fraud are arguable with one loan while multiple properties in default are an indicator of bigger borrower problems down the road.
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 4:19 am said:

If you plan on getting an attorney, insist on getting a copy of all filings and documents he/she receives.
Follow your case diligently. Check your docket online at least once a week.
Having an attorney does not mean you must put your guard down. As I have said before, no one has your best interest at heart more than yourself. So be vigilant.

Marcus@foreclsoureProSe.com
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 4:11 am said:

Lisa,
You should respond to the MSJ with an affidavit. That is very important. Let me know if you need a sample affidavit that I used.

As for motions, you have nothing to loose by filing them and it buys you time. I believe the F.R. Civ. Pr. gives you 20 days to respond; I am not sure. In any case file them.
You must be tenacious in your fight. Challenge everything.
Request for leave to file amended answer. If you can afford it file counter-claims. That will turn the table on them.

Good luck.
marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on July 16, 2009 at 3:59 am said:

Hello Abby,
I will be glad to add sections on other state; however I am only familiar with Florida procedure. If someone can provide the content for their state, I will be glad to publish it. I am ready to collaborate with others.
I am currently working on adding a section on TILA with an easy to follow workflow. If anyone wants to volunteer in building the content please contact me.
I am also working on a project to gather the best foreclosure cases around the country and post the full file online. I search for cases that were vigorously defended by top consumer lawyers and scan the case files in PDF for publishing. I think that will be very helpful to other pro se.
Good luck to all.

Marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Lisa E., on July 16, 2009 at 3:00 am said:

QUESTION:

In Florida: Would it be appropriate to file an Affidavit in Opposition of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement, which outlines all the incidents of fraudulent documents and broken chain of Mortgage assignment & indorsement of Note, to include point of discovery-abuse, and concurrently file a Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement?

That would save me the time and effort I was going to put towards filing several Motions to Strike for each of these fraudulent docs?

ALSO: is there a time limit to dispute the validity of Plaintiff’s documents? In my particular case, Plaintiff filed on 6/3/2009 an Answer to my Motion to Dismiss including a doctored copy of my Note and a fraudulent Assignment. I desperately hope I have not waived my right to dispute these two critical documents!

Thank you all and GOOD LUCK!
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
LisaBep at Gmail dot com (trying to reduce influx of spam)
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 11:33 pm said:

Marcus–I really like your pro se website.

I know you are developing it, but it would be terrific if you could include the other heaviest hit states-California, Texas and now it seems Hawaii.

Of course Michigan, what with GM etc.

Great job!!
Lisa E., on July 15, 2009 at 11:09 pm said:

ATTN: Kevin C.

May I recommend that you don’t wait for your court date? If you have the jitters about court, then go one day, plan to spend hours, walking around, familiarize yourself with parking, security checkpoint requirements, location of your courtroom.

ALSO, call your judge’s legal assistant & ask to review the judge’s calendar on several days when you would be available to observe. Then go, watch, take notes and learn! You can watch the actual judge and attorneys and Pro Ses interaction without one iota of nervousness!

I started doing this last month and plan to go back at least twice a month to magically convert the courtroom from an intimidating edifice into a comfortable environment in which to defend myself!

GOOD LUCK TO YOU!
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
LisaBep at Gmail dot com
Marcus, on July 15, 2009 at 6:50 pm said:

“Marcus–I like the ideas. Also, if anyone can create a simple website which supports or informs folks to try to fight, that would be great.”__Abby

Abby,
That’s why I created the site foreclosureProSe.com to help others. The average pro se needs to get a good understanding of the defense process before jumping in. The learning curve could be less steep.
I am also working together with other pro se defendants in my area and sharing information.

Marcus,
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 6:38 pm said:

A friend of mine sent me this info. Might be helpful to someone out there. Lots of fishing things here unfortunately. So be careful.

Here’s some info on what a forensic mortgage loan audit is and does:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-You-May-Need-a-Forensic-Mortgage-Loan-Audit&id=1394630

Things to look out for…loan audit scammers:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Forensic-Loan-Audit—Buyer-Beware&id=2260899

Hope this info helps others.
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 6:07 pm said:

Crazy

Yeah, tomorrow I will go and get those docs. As of trying to get all the stuff from my attorney., I already tried that and got back some boxes of stuff that I am still going through, half of it has cob webs, really.

I’ll call u back when I get the stuff tomorrow and go through it.

MAHALO again for the guidance.
Crazy, on July 15, 2009 at 5:57 pm said:

SB, your case is already at the state level. I dont think you need to refile anything at the state level. I could see moving your case to federal court, but what good that will do is a question for later, after you get those important documents.

In the mean time, you might want to get your entire file from that attorney. You need to see if GMAC actually filed the MSJ because it is not showing up on the court web site. This is critical when it comes to timing, ie..Mot for recon or appeal.

Shoots, TTYL
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 5:41 pm said:

Abby

Hawaii is a beautiful place and has some wonderful people here. Like any state it too has some bad parts.
I have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to give to my community. I have had some awesome support and the best volunteers any non profit could ever hope for. Doing what I do has been a huge part of my dreams and heart. I will continue to do so right to the very end.

I too have tons on my plate to do. This whole truama has cost me more then u can imagine. But I do my best to keep it low key so I can focus on what I know I am best at and that is to give others in need unconditionally. I never wanted to think there would be a time that that possibility would come so close to an end. And as angry as I am for being scammed I am still angrier with myself for not being more cautious.

Even with my deadly choice of attorney. WOW. I keep trying to push myself passed those bad errors and go forward. But it is really challenging.

Aloha and Mahalo!!!
Maybe some day u’ll return home. We sure could use more like u here.
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 5:29 pm said:

SB you have to try–at this point we have nothing else to lose, do we?

Sometime in future, maybe you can help someone, but is already sounds as if you have given a tremendous amount to your community!!

By the Way–do not forget to fax Obama and your senators on this all.

I really resent having to do my own legal work, as if i don’t have enough to do already and then too, I am ill.

NOTE: in the 70s I worked at your Queen’s Hospital, in the lab. Still have very close friends there.
I had just married and we moved there for several years. I processed thousands of the Vietnamese refugees who got out just when the USA left Vietnam.

I love Hawaii and have been back many times.
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 5:16 pm said:

Abby

Can’t seem to say thank u enough for all ur guidance, support, and compassion with such a heart breaking issue.

A friend of mine is helping me on the letter to the judge to have my attorney removed. I really can’t take any more of his cruel and nasty abuse.

I did report him to the Hawaii Bar Assn. But as I mentioned it won’t do me any good. And I highly doubt anything will happen. I have seen their working on other cases and it is really rare that they take any real action on any lawyer. I find that sad for every victim that has to experience such incompentance and abuse.
Too bad we don’t have a real remedy in place for such injustice.

Right now I have got to give it the best I can come up with to last a lil longer in this battle. I have already lost more then I can begin to speak of. I have to try and save what lil is left.

thank u again ABBY!!
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 5:04 pm said:

Search internet for Pierre Augustin’s complaint.
It is federal and he is pro se.

He’s quite the fighter!

Also, many courts publish a ‘pro se’ handbook or guide.

Livinglies might have some federal cases under ‘pleadings’ and search around on Tim McCandless website (he’s an attorney in Calif) but he has some excellant posts, cases etc.
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 4:44 pm said:

Do not know about statute of limitations to file in federal court.

You should file someplace. Start with state court.
As I said, I’ve seen venue changed to federal. Since I do not believe you can have same case filed in both places, you then have to (this is where one of the attorneys can jump in) somehow notice the state court that you are moving it all to federal.

I do not yet know the proper process for that. I just know you can do it.

Lose the lawyer SB. He has made you a sitting duck for the bank hunters!

I’d immediately file a complaint with Hawaii state bar association, attorney abandonment & malpractice.

Again, I do not know your situation. If you were victim of predatory lender and there was fraud or TILA violations and maybe other illegal acts/deeds, then you very well might be able to file complaint in Federal Court.

Search around on the internet and you may find a few existing federal complaints to modify.
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 4:30 pm said:

Abby

Thank u again!!

Is there a statute of limitation that you may know of on filing this in Fed court? Also I was wondering if I filed in State court can I also file in Federal court? Not sure in my case if the damage is already done. What I can possibly undue. One thing my sorry excuse of lawyer did get correct is that I am confused thanks to him.

Spoke with Crazy and that was helpful. I will go to the Board of Conveyance tomorrow and get some of the documents I need. I will also go to the UH law library and see if I can find how to file in state court to represent myself being I have no choice at this point.

Here’s another charming e-mail from my dead beat lawyer. …..DAGGGG Just asked him about the court dates. …………

“Gee, why don’t you go talk to your mirror who is your attorney. ”

“Sorry, no comment on your mortgage legal matters. You get to represent yourself on it. As to what date we go before Judge ….., well, I thought that depended on when I schedule it. ”

Guess this would help explain why I got sued for 48K and lost the MSJ. Unreal!
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 4:10 pm said:

Note – If you all retain a bankruptcy attorney who says, yes, we can stop the foreclosure, there will be an automatic stay, that is true. But, the banks can come to the bankruptcy court with a Motion to Lift the Stay, and they are doing that. Once that is done they can move forward with the foreclosure.

So, you either have to have your BKR attorney file what they call an ‘adverse’ action against the lender (depending on your situation) AND Neil and other attorneys have talked about that in depth on this website, OR you (or your non-bankruptcy attorney) need to file either in your state court or in the regular federal court, the complaint for fraud, TILA, usury etc (relative to your situation).

Typically, BKR attorneys, once they file the chpt 7 or chpt 13 will do very little else except attend the meeting of the creditors with you. They typically DO NOT file anything to oppose the Motion to Lift the Stay.

So, my advice is just because you filed a BKR, don’t just sit there and think things will magically occur or your house will continue to be yours.

Always seek legal counsel

I do think bankruptcy attorneys are great and if you file you may get several months relief from the foreclosure.

You need to take other actions to save your home.
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm said:

To all the guys from Hawaii–if your state laws are old etc…then you all may want to consider filing in federal court. Since federal is national…it may be the best place to file!!

If you already filed in State, you can file in federal. Then, and maybe an attorney can jump in here, one would have to get rid of the state complaint.

There are plenty of federal laws to help with our foreclosures, fraud, TILA (TILA is federal) etc.
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 3:26 pm said:

Kevin sorry… Crazy was on the phone talking to me helping me look up my insane mess. I got ur e-mail and will write u back shortly.

I am trying to look up some stuff. I think maybe for a moment we will be able to try and help each other. I am sure we are by no means alone in this.

Hawaii is one of the toughest places to go through this. I don’t think very many are up to date as the mainland is on these issues. Legal Aid may have some better clue but are very backed up. They only have a few workers handling hundreds of these cases.

Speaking with Crazy gave me some additional info that I need to go and find.

Hang in there.
Kevin C., on July 15, 2009 at 3:15 pm said:

Crazy,
I did not get email from you. You can try again. That would be great we can try and work together. I have filed federal complaint as well, and will be sending in my QWR letter to help with pleading my case in the third circuit court on wed july 22nd for motion to stay foreclosure. Any I have done a little in the fight, just never been to court before and am a bit nervous on what to even say.
Kevin
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 2:41 pm said:

Crazy I know exactly what u mean. The Hawaii laws were created to protect the lenders not the consumers. They don’t have to go to court to take ur house. They don’t have to give u notice either. Our laws are very old and have not been up dated on these issues. I was shocked when I learned about them.
I had to come up with 10K to save my house.

GMAC did every dirty trick in the book to get away with that foreclosure including holding a payment saying because I didn’t put the loan number in the corner they wouldn’t cash it. The guy who I was on the phone with had my ck in his hand reading me the ck number and date. Then asked me what I wanted him to do with the ck. I told him use it for what I sent it for. He turns around and says too late, u’ll have to talk to our legal department. UNREAL.

In the mean while I’m thinking as I was told that GMAC was investigating my claim of the false loan.
SURPRISE! OMG I was so mad, I couldn’t even speak! Just sick to my stomach and still am.

Shoertly after they got the 10k from me they sold the loan to WAMU. It was as if the loan was stolen and being passed off from one thief to the next. The loan was sold so many times. I had to make dozens of calls trying to find out who I make a payment to.

And here I am again in the same boat, rowing with no paddles. It has really made me so ill. When I read of others who are going through the same thing, I find myself breaking down for them because I know what they are going through. I easily imagined seeing all my things out in the parking lot. I still see that happening.

The Community Giver was Taken. Almost as if it’s a badge of honor for these companies. The best part is they can afford the highest paid attorneys. Ehhh 48K for attorney fees and cost. Not a bad take for having to do so little. But they got it granted. Don’t know why or how.
Crazy, on July 15, 2009 at 2:25 pm said:

SB & Kevin,
Kevin, I emailed you from my other email address yesterday but didnt hear from you.

SB, I am currently working with a senator regarding the crisis in Hawaii. Possibly revising the judicial foreclosure laws to be more specific when using the legal system, (667) in the next session.
Right now the banks are using this to their advantage because there is no, and I repeat, NO good case law regarding judicial foreclosures. The next step is to challenge other torts such as Fraud, 480-2, negligence and so forth. The only true case coming out of Hawaii is the keka case which deals with the rules of evidence.
I can think of one possible solution that might work or at least delay, but I will need to see what you are dealing with before I offer my suggestion. If you can email me your original foreclosure complaint I should be able to determine this. If you feel comfortable, you can redact your personal information. Or email me your contact info and I can discuss it with you on the phone. I have been approached by at least 50 different people saying they can save my house, so I am just as weary as you when it comes to this subject.

Aloha
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 2:07 pm said:

Grammy–I read what your attorney wrote.
She seems to be only a bankruptcy attorney and she could have filed somethign to contest the banks Motion to Lift the BKR Stay…claiming the fraud etc by lender. MOST BKR attorneys do not know how to to this.

YOu better act fast. Either find an attorney who can write a fraud, TILA, Usury complaint OR you do it!!
Get it filed asap with court. Call clerk & find out how many copies to bring with you for filing. Always keep one stamped/filed one for yourself.

Next, do a Motion to Stay the eviction until the Fraud, TILA complaint is decided at trial Or sometimes lawyers file a TRO…restraining order..to stop bank from evicting you.

if you go to attorney Tim McCandless website–he is a good guy in Calif–he has some actual case flings and you can downloand and print or maybe edit to sue for your complaint.

You need to look up and add your States’ laws in support of your complaint. Just read how he has done it for a Calif case.
Kevin C., on July 15, 2009 at 2:07 pm said:

Hey guys I am also in hawaii. you can contact me as well.
kcollma@hotmail.com
GrammyG, on July 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm said:

This is what I’m talking about: Received this email from my attorney today, when I asked her if other options where available to us when we filed. Check out sentence that starts with” Please note that you have only paid us” etc, etc. Now remember, it was on the advisement of an attorney that we filed BK, TO SAVE OUR HOME”.My fault, I didn’t ask the right questions.
Yes, you are right in that you can only count on yourself. I’ve been to court pro se regarding UD and will not do that again. Homeowners do not stand a chance in central ca.

First, let me address your question regarding the eviction proceedings. As was discussed with you when you came in and over the phone, bankruptcy only temporarily stays the eviction, it does not stop it forever. no motion for stay is necessary because an automatic stay is automatically imposed the moment your bankruptcy case is filed. In fact, this is the reason you are still in your house today and the sheriff never came to your house to evict you. As was discussed before, bankruptcy would only temporarily stay your eviction proceedings. The creditor can file a motion for relief from the automatic stay (i.e., ask the court for permission to have the stay lifted and continue with the eviction process). Since you are in a Chapter 7 and you are post-foreclosure (i.e., the house has already been foreclosed on) and you are post-eviction (i.e., the bank obtained a writ of possession and issued a notice to vacate), you really have no defenses inside of the bankruptcy. Please note that this does not mean that you have no other options. There are other things you can do in state court. Please note that you have only paid us to prepare your bankruptcy petition and schedules and to attend your 341(a) hearing which we have done. If you need to proceed through state court to try and save your house or stay there longer, you will need to contact the attorney that you hired to help with your lawsuit. You should make arrangements to do this very soon as a motion for relief is scheduled for August 4. As discussed above, you do not have defenses for this inside of the bankruptcy.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Thanks,

Michelle
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm said:

ABBY thank u again….I will work on that asap.

Crazy
I know there is a bunch of us in Hawaii that are going through this struggle in near silence. I have called every attorney I could think of including Legal Aid and they are booked solid. They only have a few workers on this issue. They said the wait time is months.

I think Abby has some good ideas to work with.
I will e-mail u and maybe we can compare notes.
I get the strong feeling the state is some how hiding how bad it is here for how many of us. I rarely see much about this issue in the paper. Doesn’t seem we have many attorney’s here that are willing or able to handle these issues.

I even wrote to Mazzie and explained it all, signed off on some document allowing her office to help, that was last Oct. Never heard back.

I was told my case was turned over to FDIC. I called countless times, Finally got a live person who told me he THINKS the case is with JPMorgan. I have no idea who actually has the loan. WAMU is still in the suit. The other agencies all claimed bankruptsy. It’s more then sickening.

I read this site every day trying to get ideas for how I can fight back. I ended with a few places that just wants money and makes a ton of promises with no delivery. So I am extra caustious about those ads here.

When u feel this beat down u have no choice but to be extra cautious. The last thing I want to have happen is to become another victim to another fraud.
Crazy, on July 15, 2009 at 1:38 pm said:

SB

I am also in Hawaii, I am not an attorney but have been in battle with Countrywide for almost 3 years, gone through 6 different attorneys who had no clue on how to argue the case. I am curious to see what you have done so far, and what stage your case is at. Im guessing your case is in State Court. My email address is: againstchl@gmail.com. It seems difficult to find other people in the same situation, as if we team up to make a move, we might be able to help others.
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm said:

Aloha Abby

Mahalo again for trying to help me with good suggestions. I did call the court clerk and explained the best I could what is happening. I have nothing on the court schedule as of now. My attorney is supposed to schedule a court date by Friday. I will call back then and see if anything is scheduled.

I will try and look up how to release my attorney and try to do an appeal as well as a stay motion to try and get some time for me to learn this stuff as fast as I can.

Right now all I have with my attorney for communication is e-mail snipes, and a refusal to do anything. Our only communication is by e-mail and has been for over a year. I found out about the MSJ against after it was done and GMAC actually won the order. I was shocked.

So I guess now I will make a trip to the law library and see how to do a motion to represent myself and try and do what I can.

MAHALO AGAIN!! THANK U
SB.
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm said:

SB–I finally read thru some on your post to Grammy.
If your attorney is doing nothing on your case until his Motion to withdraw is done, then do this asap.

Write a letter to the judge and tell the judge you want to immediately release the attorney (name) and from this moment on you will be pro se (represent yourself, either on going or until you find another attorney).
Be honest and tell the judge you do not want the attorney representing you if he is not going to do any work on your behalf for the next few months.

Apologize to judge and just say you do not yet know how to do the motion to release the attorney.

The judge should take care of it right away!!

If you can figure it out…then do ex-parte and a Motion to release the attorney. The letter to judge should work fine for right now.

You are a sitting duck with the attorney on your case not doing anything and being a slug about taking himself off case.

You have every right to be upset.
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm said:

SB Aloha–also, you can always call the court clerk (civil) to find out about dates on court hearings etc.
It is in their computer system.

Ask the clerk how you can look online at your case filings. They will give you the information and you can go see all docs filed in your matter.

This can be done from you computer at home.
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 1:08 pm said:

SB -aloha
You can do a Counter Motion for Summary Judgement!! Tell your side and demand that the summary judgement be granted in favor of you.

If you have their papers for Motion for Summary judgement, just follow their format. In Calif we have to do a Notice of Motion, then the Motion, then Memorandum of Points and Authorities etc.

Only, you will need to look up Hawaii laws that support your side of the case!! You can usually find these online. If Federal case, then all the federal laws are online too.

Be aware that if you have an attorney representing you–you may have to file a Motion to go pro se (in other words you can’t file stuff if you have an attorney already representing you)…so the Motion will have to release your attorney.

I would not stand for just email or just phone calls from attorney. Set up an appt. and go in person!!

I’ve lost track. Are you still pre-foreclosure?

Remember–I am not an attorney. I just know what worked for me and I’ve been representing myself.

Also to note–if summary judgement does not go your way, you can file an appeal on the judgement. So start reading how to do that. Usually the state courts will even have instructions and maybe a form to use to file that appeal. Along with appeal, I’d think about doing
a Motion to Stay any eviction until appeal is finished.

We all have to try!!

Often, if a person is pro se, and maybe we don’t do everything just perfectly, then the judge has to look stuff up in our behalf.

Don’t be afraid in court either. Wear a suit jacket and present yourself as looking like a lawyer. Be respectful and don’t speak until judge asks questions etc.

One more tip–learn about ‘ex-parte’ hearings in your state. They are speeded up hearings on motions and things. You may need to use that.
angry&not taking it, on July 15, 2009 at 12:53 pm said:

s b

time is wasting… you need to take the bull by the horns & do this yourself.
no one else has your best interest..

understanding the problem is the 1st step in solving it.
have a look here. http://www.jurisdictionary.com/index.cfm?ReferCode=Google
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 12:25 pm said:

Grammy

You are absolutely correct. This lawyer I have is as bad as the fraud I am up against. I feel as if I am battling a whole gang and then some, including the lawyer who was supposed to representing me. I turned over everything to the Bar Assn who basically said that it may take years before there would be any action taken. And the key word here is IF. Past experience would tell me they rarely if ever do anything.

Here is a sample of the e-mails I get from my lawyer when I ask for court dates or case info.

“There is no date set for Judge …… court regarding my motion to withdraw. It is in my hands to start the process moving. Strategically, therefore, it would be better to talk with your new counsel and see if it would be better to hear that motion sooner or later. Your new counsel, however, is “seriously confused” and refuses to recognize she is now the responsible attorney and therefore it is very difficult to talk with her. I do not have any legal advice to give you about strategy in handling your mortgage case. I hope you enjoy practicing law. I have not enjoyed about 80% of my law practice. I hope you have better success.

I will ask the court for a new date and they will decide when to hear my motion to withdraw. When I get the date, I will tell you. Often they schedule these things one or two months away.

As to any input into your case, feel free to make a list from depositions, page and line numbers. I will not be able to provide any other direction to you for that task. I fear that trying to get your help is far more costly in time and frustration than if I did it myself. If you have any ideas, feel free to write them and I wll incorporate them as appropriate. I will not feel obligated, however, to write back to you very often about those ideas. ”

Then today’s e-mail when again I asked legal questions such as dates times, motions, deadlines, I get this……………

“I will inform you of the date for the motion to withdraw when I get it. I decline to offer you any legal advice or to help you represent yourself in anything regarding your mortgage case. I decline to comment on any assertions you have about my emotions or motivations. ”

I am stuck! I can’t talk to JPMorgan cause I have an attorney who has threatened to withdrawl but hasn’t yet. Has left me getting sued after I was the one victimized by GMAC and now I have to pay 48k to them for attorney fees and cost. After they already ript me off for 10 k to stop the first bogus foreclosure.

As far as I know I wanted to try and get an appeal but may have lost the time window to do so. I’m so insanely stuck in a no win situation. My attorney who has not been dismissed refuses to do anything or give me info to even try and help myself.

Believe me I get it and then some. GRRRRRRRR
GrammyG, on July 15, 2009 at 11:28 am said:

SB,
If you can find an attorney that will talk straight with you is the day I will believe in Santa again…. There is no giving the client all the info that is required in order to save their home.
I’m finding out (too late) that if one more step had been taken in my case, I wouldn’t have the issue at hand. And I paid for services and still can but can I get anyone to give me a straight answer, hell NO.
S B, on July 15, 2009 at 11:10 am said:

TO ABBY

Good work! Wish u were my attorney!
Been looking up some of the links I have been reading here.

My big challenge is the lack of info I have from the attorney I have. I can’t get straight answers to deal lines, court dates etc. Just snipes. Only communication I have with him is e-mail.

I have to figure out a way to stop the GMAC Motion Summary Judgement against me. How do I appeal it? Or is it too late?

I need to get a real contact at JPMorgan that will actually talk to me and work through this BUT not sure that is a reality. They will only talk to my lawyer. And that whole thing is in limbo with his motion to dismiss.
Fully confused and yet trying my heart out to fight back and hang on.

I do want very much to thank each of u for ur comments and links. It at least gives me some ideas and possibilities.

Mahalo
SB
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 9:35 am said:

Maher-you don’t have ADHD. Something else is wrong with you.

Who is a sick cookie?

Why did you steal the money from Vicki?
mortgagelies, on July 15, 2009 at 9:24 am said:

Also, in a prior posting you flat out denied you had ever lived in or been to a middle eastern country.
However you did claim in another resume posting that you graduated in 1978 with a B.S. in Accounting at Cairo University in the Republic of Eqypt!

wow – one sick cookie here. Why am I help out here Really!
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 8:52 am said:

Maher Soliman–wow, I am shocked. How come you never told any of us in your prior postings, especially the one On June 26th, 2009, which seems to be your resume or curriculum vitae, that you were a President and COO (Chief Operating Officer) of a company?

What a well rounded amount of experience you have–amazing.

I think omitting something so important, being a President and COO of a compnay, from your prior postings is questionable.

Also, in a prior posting you flat out denied you had ever lived in or been to a middle eastern country.

However you did claim in another resume posting that you graduated in 1978 with a B.S. in Accounting at Cairo University in the Republic of Eqypt!

You also claim in that same resume posting that you passed the CPA equivalency esam in 1988 in the State of California (code 10260). If anyone bothers to look up that code at the State of California website, it indicates it belongs to somebody else, a woman!

I just must say, you are truly amazing with all the skills and experience you have, why are you bothering to be on this website? Why aren’t you out working for a Fortune 500?
mortgagelies, on July 15, 2009 at 8:22 am said:

Ms. Mas – this is a great point of interest for subject matter / see billionaire Carl Icahn backs newly formed mortgage company -Http://www.eworldwire.com/pressrelease/269

(Ms Mas is not helping any of us here! YOU BE THE JUDGE! …but you are no friend of Livinglies.

This is PROOF and HOPE for ALL and an actual example of a related mortgage issue for all Livinglies investigations:

The case refers to homeowners and her allegations the borrowers have in fact WON their home on a lost note argument!

Overwhelming evidence that Ms. Mas is confusing to try and obstruct the facts in favor of a Lender who resurfaced and unsubstantiated claims coming back at the borrower after an eight year battle

HOMEONWER WON THE HOUSE ACCORDING TO GMAC AND YOU AND COUNSEL WONT LET IT REST – WHY?

Case pending: This matter is the subject of a “quite title” action. The “John Doe” family is trying to reclaim their home once and rightfully so. They have lived through Hell like many of you for nearly eight years.

I was President and COO MORTGAGE GUARANTEE. I am not a party to the claim of quiet title so, I am not a defendant. (But Ill keep fighting in spite of the threats of lawsuits, and defamation and aseeking to destroy my character. Its about the homeowners Ms Mas.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The “lender” referred to herein is MORTGAGE GUARANTEE / a WALL STREET trading firm where I was President and COO.

The mortgage (asset) was acquired by MORTGAGE GUARANTEE (MGCA) – a whole loan aggregator.

The loan originated to the Mr. and Mrs. DOE thru a major market leader (Lender) who at the time was a Wall Street conduit.

The loan in question was undeliverable by the originating lender and classified as an impaired – receivable (not marketable) due to aging, events and circumstances.

MGCA acquired the asset as a successor and assigns. Our financial statements show it as a line item called ASSETS HELD FOR SALE (balance sheet).

MGCA held the asset and later adjusted it to reflect a new receivable under the line item “loans sold”. (Got that counsel).

The loan when held on our books as an asset will be offset by accrued costs or “basis” accounting as a warehouse loan or “debt “itemized” under liabilities and “lines of credit outstanding”.

My lines of credit we were provided by CitiFinancial Group.

The receivable (new loan) was cured of its errors and omissions or impairment through a real and meaningful modification by me and MGCA – NOT NACA and not the lender who sold us the loan (How insulting and low) !

I bought the loan at a discount and funded a new loan (as a refinance) passing on the savings to these GOD blessed good people.

The now loan was sold to GMAC who in fact boarded the asset and was recently acknowledged by Homecomings to be the purchaser from the assignee MORTGAGE GUARANTEE.

Homecomings wants to charge off the loan to a lost note and I agree!

We did sell the asset and recorded a capital loss on the trade. Those facts stand for the Homeowners and not you and your party claiming to own the asset …thus she claims I never purchased or had the rights to sell the asset.

MS MAS – do you realize your breaking the hearts of everyone in a similar situation fighting to keep their home and seeking to possibly quiet title.

Caution to anyone who is assisting her as her motivations as they are not in line with Livinglies!

Who are you! Really? Infiltrator or just seeking to confuse people?

This couple you and your attorney are attacking represent the heart and soul of our efforts on Livinglies.

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com

Stop – please ceases and desist!
Abby in CA, on July 15, 2009 at 7:49 am said:

Marcus–I like the ideas. Also, if anyone can create a simple website which supports or informs folks to try to fight, that would be great.

Does anybody have any radio or TV connections to producers? It would be great if we could get somebody (Neil or Brad?) on to talk about this all.

I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of folks do not know or understand this mess.
bryan, on July 15, 2009 at 2:42 am said:

Thank you Abby for everything…
Marcus, on July 14, 2009 at 6:06 pm said:

“Marcus and MSoliman: One reader has come up with the thought that there ought to be a March on Wall Street. Any thoughts on that? Who could organize such an effort? What collaboration could you get from consumer groups?”__Neil
Hello Neil,
The March is a good idea; however, I don’t know if we can gather enough participant to get the attention of the banksters. Unfortunately, they only understand the language of money.
Here is an idea:
1)Guerrilla Lawfare
Banks have a success rate of over 95% in their foreclosure case because most homeowner do not contest it. With that kind of success rate, they have no incentive to change. One contested foreclosure is costly to the bank.
If the rate of contested foreclosure can be raised by 5% to 10%, the mill will come to a grinding halt.
I propose a grass root movement in which each pro se defendant reach out to at least 10 other homeowners in their county who just received a summon, and form a support group. Foreclosure lists can be obtained from most counties web site for free. The cost to each person will be $4.40 ($0.44 x 10) to mail the letters.
Imagine this process being multiplied by thousands throughout the country. That will get some attention in Wall Street and in Washington.
__Marcus@foreclosureProse.com
Vicki M, on July 14, 2009 at 5:32 pm said:

http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/content/faqs_countrywide.php

Shows info on how Attorney is handling Countrywide lawsuit with homeowners

Vicki M
Crazy, on July 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm said:

I just quickly wanted to touch on the subject “Real Party In interest” ie. FRCP 17(a). Im not going to quoted the entire law, in a case that the debtor was making the arguement of the lender not having standing to sue. This is a very important subject because it might open the eyes of a lot of people.

The argument was made that Countrywide Home Loans did not have standing to sue, and was not the real party in interest. Check out Fannie Mae’s website and click on “does Fannie Mae own your loan?”. I will bet that Fannie Mae owns your Countrywide Loan.

On a motion to dismiss, the judge agreed that there was a standing issue that needed to be raised. Heres the kicker.

FRCP 17(a) allows the ratification of the action by joinder of the real party in interest. ie. ratification of the commencement of the action. and after ratification or joinder, the case will resume as if it had begun under the real party in interest.

Countrywide replys with a declaration from a VP of Fannie Mae, his declaration indicates that Fannie Mae agrees to allow Countrywide to continue the foreclosure process, which clearly goes against the intent of FRCP 17(a) which requires:

“RATIFICATION OF THE COMMENCEMENT”, not the continuance of a foreclosure proceeding. This is Fannie Mae’s way of eleminating any liability from a borrower. Accordingly, the judge allowed the declaration to defeat a motion to dismiss.

The next step is to file a motion for reconsideration and make a new argument. This might interest people, but this is the argument:

Judicial estoppel,

sometimes also known as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position (just being the servicer and foreclosing on the mortgage), and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position (joinder or ratification).

I hope this is a strong enough argument, but we will have to see. Any comments? Does anyone think this will work, or have other ideas?
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 4:53 pm said:

Vicki-great to hear from you again.

I will start reading up on NACA.

If you want to take lead on NACA and march on Sacramento, New York or San Francisco (although I do not know what financial institutions are still in SF) please do so.

I’ve got my handsful right now. Thx
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 4:49 pm said:

Earl and Bryan

http://www.stopforeclosureforms.com/

Even if your foreclosue is moving through the courts or, as in Calif, it is a non-judicial foreclosure state, you can stil take the initiative to file a complaint and then do a motion to stay.

This site has the appropriate forms kits by state!!

Makes it very easy.

Once you have filled out the forms, then call the civil clerk in your county..or go over to courthouse and talk to her through the window…ask how many copies do you need so she can file them, how much does it cost, how do I do proof of service on the defendants etc.

This is if you cannot afford an attorney or your county legal aid group cannot help you.

Even if you have limited income, you can sometimes get court filing fees waived by filing some simple financial hardship papers.

This is what is great about our USA—we can defend ourselves in court, without an attorney!!

People on this website are generally very good about answering questions.
Vicki M, on July 14, 2009 at 4:43 pm said:

Earl,

Go to Naca.com. They have agreements with Countrywide and B of A to help homeowners.
Naca can stop the foreclosure- there’s still time. Do not leave your home- it will be harder to save. At the very least – you may be given more time to move (and maybe money based on Obamas new plan) and offer to pay rent .
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm said:

HUD approved agencies who might help homeowners

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm?webListAction=search&searchstate=TX

it will bring up Texas and current to today 7/14/09

just search then for whatever state you are in.

This is excellant!!
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 4:34 pm said:

Obama foreclosue moratorium ended in March 2009.
Thus in first 6 months of 2009 there were over 1.8 million foreclousres. An all time record!

Something is very wrong

To Bryan–I am not sure of your state laws and process on ‘how will you know’ your property has been auctioned.

Typically, the paperwork is filed down at county recorder’s office within a few days of sale.

In Calif–they scotch taped a 3 Day Notice to Quit ( or leave) on my front door. Then because I did not leave, they filed an Unlawful Detainer suit (eviction suit). I fought that hard until I could get my fraud, TILA, Usury complaint filed in a bigger court. Then I asked the judge to consolidate the two. She did. In my case, the 3 Day Notice to Quit was posted on Halloween in 2008. I am still in my house and fighting and I am MAD AS HE__!!

You might also get something in the mail that will show the new recorded document and who the new owner is. In my case, the bank bought the house from itself at the auction and for a very reduced rate!!

The best advice I can give you is to try to stop the foreclosure. Try to do a loan modification..anything.

http://www.arizonahcc.org/fair.html

This site has some housing assistance information.

Again–call ACORN –go in person to a housing assistance group

I don’t know your situation. If you were a victim of predatory lending….you can get help.

Call Sara Markey at the AZ ACORN group 602-254-5299 and yes…this is the same ACORN we have heard about since Obama ran for president.

They do good work!!

Ask lots of questions.

Also–find out about your county’s legal aide. You can get some free legal work from them to help you.

Start calling!!
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 4:14 pm said:

http://www.afscanhelp.com/how-to-stop-foreclosure.cfm

To Earl—check my just prior post to Bryan. Go to that site and check out the foreclosure forms or kits.

Also, take a look at the website just posted here.

Maybe one of the situations will apply to you.

Call ACORN too.

I will see what I find about Obama moratoriums.
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm said:

To Grammy G–don’t sit back and wait!! be proactive..go meet with attorney or het him/her on the phone and tell him/her you want them to fight the
motion to stay in bkr court. AND tell him/her you want
a fraud, TILA, Usury (whatever is applicable to your loan and situation) complaint filed and that when he/she fights the motion to stay…it should be for the reason that foreclosing entity has not yet proved that
it is entitled to foreclose or have the stay lifted and
you want the stay in place until the trial of the fraud, TILA complaint!!

If you sit and wait..like in my friend’s case…the attorney did nothing!! She thought he was taking care of everythign he was supposed to.

You must be demanding and forceful and stay on top of it all!!
Vicki M, on July 14, 2009 at 4:05 pm said:

RE: Countrywide Loans in California
and all homeowners
On June 25, 2008 Atty General Brown filed a lawsuit against Countrywide for Mortgage Deception and it was settled last year that Countrywide is supposed to work with homeowners with a loan mod. If you are not satisfied that Countrywide is performing an agreeable loan mod workout then the Attorney General wants to hear from you in writing. They want to make sure Countrywide is performing as promised. There are repercussions if they aren’t and the Atty General will reply back to you! You can mail or or go online and the information is here: http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1582&.

The Atty General has also been cracking down on “Foreclosure Consultants” : http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/index.php

Offenders will recieve stiff fines, penalties, ordered to pay restitution and jail time. Consultants were supposed to purchase a $100k bond by 7/1/09. Watch out all you scammers on this site that prey on homeowners. What are you going to do, Maher?

Also Senator Dianne Feinstein wants to hear from you in writing.
She can be reached at : http//feinstein.senate.gov/public. Send your mail to: One Post Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104

There is a specific form she has for you to fill out and mail back.

Go to : https://www.naca.com/members/publicPoliticianList.jsp ,to find who and where to write your complaints to the politicians in your area.

VickiM
cmysmile00@aol.com
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm said:

To Bryan in AZ
go to this website…it is excellant resource for you and any others interested in doing a bit of work to try to stave off a foreclosure auction

get cracking!! try to stop the sale!!

http://www.stopforeclosureforms.com/

this is packed with forms by state etc…
bryan, on July 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm said:

To Abby ~

Thank you for your reply Abby. No courts are invocled in my situation. The bank is simply auctioning off my property September 9. Thank you for the advice to pack up.

How do I know (in my situtation) when, they will kick me off?

Thanks.
Vicki M, on July 14, 2009 at 1:16 pm said:

To GrammyG-

Thank you !

Vicki M
GrammyG, on July 14, 2009 at 12:50 pm said:

First to Vicki M;
Read your response today regarding the stuff that has been written about you. I think you and I emailed a time back. Anyway, you got my attention. I’m waiting to hear from an attorney recommended by Jeff from this website, who is going to help us. I have given him$1000.00 so far and he wants $4000.00 ASAP. This I can do BUT, I need a contract outlining the services the attorney will provide.

Abby’s comment today also got my attention. I’ve been thru the same issues. At this point, Motion to Stay by the lender hearing is set for 08/04/09. Again, waiting to hear from attorney with game plan.
I have found with each attorney that I have spoken to, From San Fran down to Diamond Bar, they really can’t do anything granted, Hackett got us some time doing a BK but there was a missing opportunity that we lost by waiting for help . they talk the talk but it stops there, and the talk ain’t cheap. Besides who knows time frames dealing with legal issues better than attorneys’.
It’s very disapointing when I hear of an attorney and then visit their website and they are all about homeowner rights etc etc. it seems so far it’s nothing but hot air and a waste of valuable time that we as homeowners can’t afford. All I’m asking for is the truth, either you can or cannot help us.
Earl, on July 14, 2009 at 11:40 am said:

I’m in Texas Abby.

Worked in the Call Center in Plano for 5 years.

Vicki thought the Pres may have signed a moratorium for no foreclosures until Sept? Anyone else hear of this and where is the info? As I am due to go to sale Aug 4th.

Earl
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 11:34 am said:

Earl-what state are you in? Calif?
Vicki M, on July 14, 2009 at 11:08 am said:

To Allan
To Maher,(aka) MSoliman,(aka) Mr_Subprime

I apologize for late reply as I just read postings on 6/22, by Allan; and two on 6/24 by Maher.

Maher- I only spoke with you and Brenda- there was no attorney in the picture, there was no mention of any attorney’s name in the contract, you never referred me to an attorney, and no attorney referred me to you.
No one referred me to you, I found you on this blog and (wrongly) thought you were legit, had integrity and that I could trust what you said you could do for the $2500 deposit money you required from me. You and YOUR contract spelled out told me what you could do and I could expect from you- I didn’t plead, request, or ask of anything.
Aside from whatever (false) picture you paint of me (I do not have 6 kids- I have 2, I am not a medical assistant-I am a Dental Hygienist, I do not have 6 houses -I have 3 rentals and my home, and my last name is Mah, not ‘ Mas’), and aside from the false picture you paint of my circumstances/situation and the false relationship you paint of myself with your office- please don’t sway from the fact that you illegally took my money and did NOTHING, let alone nothing that you contracted for. It still does not change the facts I stated in my posting on 6/21.
The ‘San Jose attorney’ you keep mentioning in relationship with me- is he the one that recently took your disposition in a case, with you as the defendant, where you are attempting to claim ownership of a property of that you don’t even own and you only know about it because you are a lender?
Maher -regarding your other 6/24 post- what are the addresses of the homes that have been won back by you, and is is not really because of of the sole efforts of the homeowners alone? Can we call these homeowners for a reference?
Maher either you have a very poor memory or fabricating stories is your second job.
Maher- you didn’t do anything for me. Why don’t you give me my money back? Or, ok- get my foreclosed rental back and on my other houses- cut my mortgages in half like you said you could.

Vicki M
cmysmile00@aol.com
Earl, on July 14, 2009 at 10:58 am said:

Just emailed you Vicki…

Abby… I dare to say in one division where I worked at Countrywide thee was at least a 30 to 40% fraud rate as far as stated income loans are concerned.

Around 2002 or 2003 — Countrywide installed a system called NICE – it recorded every call made by the loan officers at the call centers.

Upper Management routinely listened in to the recorded calls – actually daily. They also had a group that did nothing but listen to calls for compliance issues.

Management was fully aware of what was going on… in fact, rumor has it that one Managing Director was squeezed out of the company because he wanted to ‘clean house’ — instead he was pushed out and it was business as usual.

Keep in mind, that is what I heard – not first hand knowledge.

I can tell you… CW pushed, squeezed and rode their people so hard to produce it was unreal.

In an environment where you have commissioned loan officers… commissioned Realtors – and Appraisers who are paid by the number of appraisals they do… the poor home buyer never stood a chance!

I could write a book about the people I spoke to – who told me that was not the income they told the loan officer… that is not the loan I wanted (after they closed)… and they preyed on the fact that Parents want to provide their children with a home… and most of them would do just about anything to give them one (yes, even state their income a little higher).

I’ll leave it at that for now.

I need to do something about my own foreclosur coming up on August 4th… not sure what to do.

Earl
Vicki M, on July 14, 2009 at 10:31 am said:

To Earl-

Can you please contact me?

Thanks-

Vicki M
cmysmile00@aol.com
Vicki M, on July 14, 2009 at 10:30 am said:

Abby- I contacted NACA for any help on organizing a March. They do this all the time against the Banks, as they are for helping the homeowner. I’m thinking why can’t we at least do this at the Capitol in Sacramento? This would at the very least bring attention to the problems of the California homeowners, and there are many Californians who need this help and I’m sure the turnout would be big.

Vicki M
cmysmile00@aol.com
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 9:48 am said:

To Maher Soliman-re Hamideh. My friend told me she did talk to you. Also, I think the root of the majority of problems discussed on this site and across the nation is that the imploded mortgage lenders–and for fun search for the Mortgage Lender Implode-o-meter at
http://ml-implode.com/imploded/lender_IndyMacBancorp_2008-07-07.html

—did fraudulent activites, else why are they all out of business and many are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Grand Juries? My friend, Hamideh, as well as millions of others were victims of the imploded mortgage lenders, who were out for quick bucks at our expense. They skipped good underwriting practices in order to give out loans to people who were not qualified to have those kinds of loans. Teaser rates were given with mortgage interest resets coming soon in 2 years or less. Sometimes, due to the resets, the monthly payment jumped from maybe $2400 per month to $4500 per month…so did she make her payments, could she keep up her payments—well no!! AND the banks, who are sending money to the investors, refuse to negotiate!! They want the default so they can collect insurance.

All sides of the story needs to be considered.
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 9:38 am said:

To Bryan-The sheriff came right after the judge made her final decision (judgement) and gave paperwork to the sheriff. In California, at Unlawful Detainer (eviction) action, which is very fast, the final result would be a ‘Writ of Possession’ if the UD goes uncontested. In the matter of my friend, she had one bad attorney who did nothing in the UD action and the judge granted a ‘Writ of Possession’ to the bank. Next, my friend got another lawyer who filed bankuptcy but then did not even do the BKR Plan for the creditors meeting and was not even going to show up with the client t the creditors meeting(Hearing). That lawyer also did nothing to contest the Motion to Stay by the bank that foreclosed. There were many missed opportunities in this matter–missed by bad attorneys. The sheriff will barely give you 5 minutes, so the best thing in that situation is to have you stuff moved out prior to sheriff coming. Now my friend only has so many days to get her stuff out and she has to pay fees, sort of like ‘rent’ on the house, because her stuff is still in it. There is one more important thing for you to know—if a ‘writ of possession’ has been issued or similar legal in other states, my friend found out she could ask the court if she could pay sort of a ‘rent’ fee on the home for several more weeks prior to being finally evicted. You have to have the cash on hand.
Abby in CA, on July 14, 2009 at 9:31 am said:

To Neil–over 5 months ago I tried to organize a Homeowners March on Washington DC. I even advertised on Craig’s List for volunteer coordinators–to help get permits etc. I proposed it for a 3 day weekend in Feb. I did not get any interest at all. I think people do not have the money to travel to NYC or DC when they are dealing with legal isses surrounding the mortages.
livinglies, on July 14, 2009 at 7:58 am said:

Marcus and MSoliman: One reader has come up with the thought that there ought to be a March on Wall Street. Any thoughts on that? Who could organize such an effort? What collaboration could you get from consumer groups?
livinglies, on July 14, 2009 at 7:55 am said:

Kevin C. We are way too busy to continue reviewing pleadings unless it produces income to support staff. So we have imposed charges in order to thin out the crowd of requests. If you still want us to review it, write to fdg.clientservice@gmail.com and send a scanned pdf file or word file as an attachment for anything you want reviewed. It would be helpful if you filled out intake form (free) and requested a preliminary document review as well as it would speed up the process. FDG has undertaken vetting of incoming requests to me. Remember to get local attorney at least as consultant because he/she will know things that we do not know. We are not experts in the law of all fifty states although much of what we know is generally applicable in state and federal court.
livinglies, on July 14, 2009 at 7:50 am said:

Kevin C. You are spot on! What started as one document fabrication office and multiplied into dozens because Judges (See Valentin opinion in King’s County case on this blog). The same person purports to be employed by multiple entities, signs with a squiggle instead of a regular signature, and then it gets notarized somewhere else (so far we see the notarizations coming from Fresno). Remember: No matter how much paper they throw at you the question is simple: Do they own the loan or not? And the test is whether you owe them money, not if they have paperwork that appears to give them the right to enforce. Demand original paperwork and don’t accept an allonge that was not attached to the note when it was signed, and then continuing to be attached throughout the securitization process. I doubt if any such “allonge” exists. An allonge is invalid unless attached to the note continuously.
livinglies, on July 14, 2009 at 7:44 am said:

Alina. Go for it. Look carefully at the pleadings in Goodwin.
Alina, on July 14, 2009 at 7:28 am said:

Marcus,

Thank you for the case law. I had Belini v. Washington Mutual, which is a 1st CoA decision related to TILA rescission. This decision is right in line with the In Re: Ameriquest decision you provided.

In response to your question, yes, I rescinded the mortgage and the servicer, “pretender lender,” and trustee all ignored the rescission letters. I sent a rescission letter followed by a default letter.

I filed my federal action within the one year period following their violation of not responding to the rescission letters. I named MERS simply because it was the mortgagee on the mortgage. I knew that I probably would not get any traction as far as MERS is concerned. MERS’ Motion to Dismiss is valid. I really did not have any valid claims against them.

Having said that, I have been studying the Goodwin case (Nevada class action). I may be wrong to not have expanded my claims against MERS and therefore I want to amend my complaint. I believe MERS is/was an integral part in the ability of the players to perpetrate a fraud.

Now I need to know if I need leave of court to amend since MERS filed their Motion to Dismiss. I know in federal court you can amend your complaint once before any responsive pleadings are filed or you have 20 days if a responsive pleading is filed for which there is no need to file an answer. According to the Fed. R. Civ. P., Motions to Dismiss are treated the same as summary judgment motions, which I presume means that I need leave of court. I was hoping someone on this blog would let me know if my presumption is correct.
mortgagelies, on July 14, 2009 at 4:25 am said:

Stanford’s securities class action website http://www.securities.stanford.edu/index.html

Thank you so so so much!

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotlinecom
Lisa E., on July 14, 2009 at 3:32 am said:

TO Maher! I understood all of what you wrote yesterday. A huge THANK YOU! I think you (and likewise we LivingLies readers) will find much benefit, professionally and personally!

TO mr_subprime: I do apologize for my tone yesterday. It’s hard to “lighten up” when I witness (here and in real life) my friends facing immenent homelessness. I am scared for us all, morally outraged. I’ll try harder not to let that spill out here. Oh, and by the way, your post was completely in line with the Objectivists philosophy (survive on one’s own, no need to “dumb down” to help others, aim to pursue only that which is one’s own self-interest). I was attempting to duplicate the tone of reply to Abby and also teasing you a little bit. In closing, thanks for the well wishes! Good luck to you as well.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
LisaBep at gmail dot com
bryan, on July 14, 2009 at 1:50 am said:

Is it common that the Sheriff will only allow you 5 minutes?

When do they kick you out? The day of the auction, before after, when?

And because no set minimum is required for the bidders and they are autioning off in As/Is Where/Is.

Can I have a friend go to the auction and ask everyone not to bid against his $2,000.00 bid?

The thing is, M&I will be auctioning off, a major debt to the bidder who is blind to the fact that it will cost the bidder more than $250,000.00 to remove the unfinished structure? Doesn’t the bank have to disclose the life dangers, and the expense? (Already professionally proven).
Kevin C., on July 14, 2009 at 1:21 am said:

one more question that I may have missed somewhere, how is that so far what I have found just by doing case research is HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WFMBS 2007-AR6, CO/ WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, 3476 STATEVIEW BLVD. FORT MILL, SC 29 29715
, as well as DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF 11, 3476 Stateview Both have the same address? Am I missing something here? Is this another one of the Bankfraudsters way to get around the trust or assigment of mortgage? Just currious
Thanks
Kevin
mortgagelies, on July 14, 2009 at 12:31 am said:

Comments: Well today was a sad day for my friend Hamideh.

Lenders, Lawyers, processors and writers….you are judge jury and executioner. LOL (relax okay)

Did she make her payments? If not what did you expect? I called her at 1:00 am to help out. But no answer….what did I expect that late.

Sorry but tone it down with the accusations… Processors are not out to screw the world (literally or figuratively).

There is a way to get her back in but it will take a colossal effort. I have two clients who did it. There truly my heroes (you both know who you are). The also cut their payment down by almost half.

One attorney for the bank called and told me the good news. I thanked him and then informed him of our goal of pursuing receivership against the “parties” in trust. He said…whaaaaaaaaaat!

Their not anyones friend. . . .

I am so swamped and don’t know how I will find the time….but I will help.

Call me 310-765-7388

admin@borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2009 at 10:29 pm said:

Earl–thanks for the post. I know I provided all my financial docs and had assumed the loan processor used them. I recently discovered she did not!! She inflated my salary to an amount I have never made. The typed in $$ amount was so small on the forms, which are congested & packed with information, that I never picked up on it. The closing was done in my home by a notary and she was rushing me.
Earl, on July 13, 2009 at 10:23 pm said:

Maybe I need to be a witness myself… I can remember attending a ‘sanctioned’ training seminar when I worked as a loan officer at Countrywide — the person giving the training told hundreds of us that there was no reason for anyone not to qualify income wise when they were going reduced doc (stated).

Keep in mind… this guy was sent by the home office to train all of us how to sell a Pay Option Arm.

Now I find myself in foreclosure by the very same company where I worked.

But yes… it was standard practice for many loan officers to ‘jack up’ the income in order to make people qualify – doing reduced doc, fast and easy loans… in fact, I know of one CW office in IL where the Feds supposedly went in and shut down the office for doing fraud.

Criminal activity everywhere – and for what – a buck.

And now what?

Many of us will find ourselves on the street.

Earl
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2009 at 10:19 pm said:

Well today was a sad day for my friend Hamideh.

At 9:15AM the sheriff showed up and told her to get out.
They gave her 5 minutes to gather a few clothes and her elderly & ill Iranian mother.

She went to her attorney’s office crying. Tracy, her attorney, said, as if to rub salt in the wound, that he never wanted to take her case in the first place!!

Yes, and that attitude showed with all his paltry filings.
Today he wrote something to make an attempt to prevent the Sovereign Bank from hurrying to sell her home pending trial in fraud case.

Countrywide did her original loan, and yes…they
inflated her salary to $22,000 per month. I think she may only make less than $5,000 per month.

Now we all know why the scoundrels did this!! Because they already had the investors and the investors’ money just waiting….then the Countrywides merely went out looking for victims.

—all of us
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2009 at 10:10 pm said:

Yes–Maher–most excellant information.

If you want an eye opener go to Stanford’s securities class action website http://www.securities.stanford.edu/index.html
and read some of the securities consolidated lawsuits.
There is a wealth of information.

Read the New Century lawsuits. You will notice CW (confidential witnesses) who were former employees and they detail how frequent it was for them to ‘fake’ salary data in order to push through the loan processing!! Like they plugged in to the underwriting system that a landscaper made $20,000 per MONTH!!

The former employees discuss how this was never challenged. In fact it almost sounds like it was appreciated as they all then got bonuses.

Remember–the inivestors were on the other side of this PONZI so the lawsuits at the Stanford Law securities clearinghouse is how they are dealing with this mortgage mess.
S B, on July 13, 2009 at 10:04 pm said:

Byran

So very sorry about ur situation as well. Thank u for the well wishes. It is heart breaking to read so many horror stories. The homeless population continues to grow across the USA.

I am amazed at how few answers there are for those who have been scammed.

I gave away anything of material value to me in hopes that when they do take my home there won’t be much to take.

I have 3 awesome dogs who also do wonderful work in the community. They visit many hospitals and people throughout the community. They are a pure joy.
I know the time will come for me to let them go to great homes. It will be as hurtful as losing my children. Can’t imagine life without them by my side.

They are certified, lisenced and insured to the work they do. I hope they can continue to make their visits to those in need. The way they lift the spirits of so many is more then a person can hope for. The smiles with each visit is amazing. Some hold them so tight. I know they miss their own pups. I fully understand. I am so thankful I got the chance to share them with so many others. I know if I was in a hospital, or nursing home it would mean the world to me.

The hurt in time will find me peace. I lived out my dream. And for that I must always keep in my heart and not be greedy to want more. It’s a powerful life lesson.

I hope things work out for u some how. I really do.
Hang in there.
bryan, on July 13, 2009 at 9:52 pm said:

One more thing MS.

My credit score (I think) was 400, with annual $12,000.00 income, and YIPPIIEEE $700,000.00 loan.
bryan, on July 13, 2009 at 9:45 pm said:

MSoliman, Thank you for that post. I understood enough of it to tell you and the world proudly, that I use to own my property free and clear, and I easily, and happily survive on my income of $12,000.00 a year, and I have everything I ever wanted which is.., my 5 acres. Wow, your post makes me feel good because, when you only make $12,000.00 a year, how did I ever qualify for a $700,000.00 loan?

Though, the contractor did in fact embezzle my loan money and never built me a house. I don’t care too much about ever having a house, anymore. He and the bank stole that dream.., I just want to keep my 5 acres. I haven’t lived in a house for 8 years. But at least I have my shed and broken down R.V. to keep the coyotes, scorpions, rattles snakes, etc… from eating me and my dogs, at night.

Do I need to know what these mean RESPA? FTC? FCRA? MERS? These are not in my dictionary.

If you want to see where I live in the desert, type in my address 13401 East Walts Way, Vail Arizona in Google Earth, if you zoom in, at the intersection, where in small words on the road with my address you can clearly see NO HOUSE, but to the right you can zoom in and see my shed. I wished it was live so I could wave to all of you. Next, scroll to the right, passing the big dirt road that goes from top to bottom or North to South, travel a way into the desert there, and somewhere out there if you look really close, you will see my future.

Thanks again. MS.

And to the person in Hawaii I just said a prayer for you, and I will say more. I did everything you did too, only here in Tucson, area. Don’t move here because no one will help you. And here in Arizona Legal Aide won’t even put you on a list, unless you speak Spanish. They advertise on their web site they help with Civil matters and Foreclosures, but not once in many attempts did they ever even read my foreclosure papers or listen to what happen to me. Every single governmental agency has turned me away and sent me to the dead end of Legal Aide.

And Marcus thank you for that link.

58 days left, before M&I Marshall and Isley Bank illegally forces me to live in the desert. I’m going to miss my shed a lot. But I’m going to miss the computer more.

My two favorite sayings are; Sleep like a moon rock, and God Bless Us Everyone.
mortgagelies, on July 13, 2009 at 9:33 pm said:

Here is your problem with the press release . . .

The two-page letter signed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -WAY OUT OF HIS LEAGUE AND QUESTIONS SURROUNDING INTEGRITY.

and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan ABSOLUTLY WORHTLESS AND CLUELESS

…urged banks to hire more loan counselors – ARE THESE APPLICANTS NOT WHO THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO JAIL “AUDITORS”

and open new call centers
CANNOT -VIOLATION HERE OF 1122 AB

Some large banks, in turn, pointed out that they have put a good-faith effort into the program. WHAT THE …PLEASE!!!!!! STOP IT PLEASE !

MORTGAGELIES: Let’s turn it all over to the SEC and be done with it.

Prediction- new Treasury Secretary Curley “G”
By year end – Your out of here! (Greenspan and Welsh won’t even comment)!

“What a fool believes”
(M. McDonald-Doobie’s)

Help me please…I cannot take much more!
admin@borrowerhotline.com
JT, on July 13, 2009 at 7:36 pm said:

To mortgagelies,

Where is the statute/case law that says that. I am in FL or is it Federal.

Thanks,
John
Kevin C., on July 13, 2009 at 7:16 pm said:

Aloha Neil,
First of all I have to say thank you for all of your help and this great site. However I am trying to represent my self pro se, I do have a federal compliant filed, However I did not get it filed until after the summary judgment was granted. Now I have given a copy of my federal complaint the third circuit court judge here in Hawaii as well. However in our state a commissioner gets control of the property after summary judgment to facilitate open houses, and auction the property. Well 3 days before I was able fly to Honolulu and file my complaint that I was still trying to put together she comes up to my house and tells me who she is and she would like to see the house. I told her no way, that I plan to file a federal complaint etc. Any way I am would like to know if you had the time to verify what I had written looks like it will have enough teeth to vacate the judgment and stay the foreclosure pending trial. If you could please contact me at kcollma@hotmail dot com. With email address I could send you what I have done so far. The court granted me a order setting hearing to stay foreclosure, date July 22nd. I would like to know if what I have done will be ok to file the day of the hearing, of should I just leave it alone and show up at court and plead my case?

Thanks
Kevin
Marcus, on July 13, 2009 at 7:07 pm said:

MSoliman,
Now you’re talking….this is the kind of post you should write more often.
Good job.
mortgagelies, on July 13, 2009 at 5:50 pm said:

Abby;

This is not a chat forum. Call me and lets review the findings together. The information I provided you has been reviewed by securities attorneys and accountants CPA big four auditors.

I have been grilled by an attorney general who said to keep up the fight. Garfield could have dropped me a long time ago over a soured client. I am pleased to know a member of the Fla supreme court.

I have met John Kerry to discuss the problems. I met Dianne Feinstein and asked for assistance.

I have (KKop Esq) put before certain lenders of America our take on things….B of A for example.We are proposing putting one of the largst banks in America in bankruptcy.

Why are you interfering.

Mr Subprime….thanks but leave it alone…they will turn on you next.

http://www.foreclosurewebpage.wordpress.com
mortgagelies
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com
http://www.borrowerhotline.com

Thanks!

MSoliman
Maher Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com

“I told Mortgage Bankers everywhere in 2005-2006 this business will never sustain itself….for that I was run out of the business.

Now I have to deal with this!
mortgagelies, on July 13, 2009 at 5:31 pm said:

Listen people, writing style aside-

We are good, very good at what we do. That is to discover evidence of fraud. We fight lenders to free a home from the unlawful obligtion a lender is attempting to enforce.

YOU MUST QUALIFY FOR THE LOAN:

This is fact number one. We are now filing claims against the Errors and Omissions carrier and submitting documentation. Lenders just love us!

SUFFICIENT INCOME TO QUALIFY:

The Mortgage debt to income ratios are the calculations underwriters use to determine whether a borrower can qualify for a mortgage.

Debt to income ratios are used to determine if you have the capacity to repay your mortgage.

There are two calculations. The first or Front Ratio (28%) is your housing expense-to-income ratio. This is to say your proposed mortgage payment (principle, interest, taxes and insurance) divided by your gross monthly income.

The second or Back Ratio is your total monthly (36%) obligations-to-income ratio. This is your gross monthly payment including Mortgage PITI divided by your gross monthly income.

The only tricky part in determining your debt to income ratio is understanding what is and is not included in your total obligations and what can and cannot be included in your gross monthly income.

Only 1 in 50 ever fit within the guidelines. This is somthing that must be fought first and foremost.

We can provide you a list of necessary underwriting things needed to enforce the claim when you are totaling all of your monthly payments and your annual income.

USURY IS TIED BOTH TO APR AND . . .

“THE BORROWERS ABILITY TO SUFFICIENTLY CARRY THE MORTGAGE THEY WERE GIVEN.”

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Marcus, on July 13, 2009 at 5:05 pm said:

Alina,
Check this federal ruling
http://www.websupp.org/data/NDIL/1:05-cv-07097-845-NDIL.pdf

Have you rescinded your loan?

Marcus
Alina, on July 13, 2009 at 3:03 pm said:

Like I said, I was not counting my chickens. Just got a message from an attorney for the servicer and the trustee. She is requesting an extension and said she just got the complaint.

MERS filed a Motion to Dismiss. I figured they would since my claims are more directed to the other parties than to MERS.

For any Florida attorney out there, can I file an amended complaint without leave of court even though MERS filed a Motion to Dismiss?
Alina, on July 13, 2009 at 2:24 pm said:

Marcus,

Thank you, but I am not counting my chickens yet. Defendants can still file a Motion to Set Aside Default.

I would be happy to send to you a copy of the federal complaint.
Marcus, on July 13, 2009 at 2:10 pm said:

Hello Alina,
I would love to get a copy of your federal complaint.
Good job.
Alina, on July 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm said:

I have an unusual situation in that I filed a federal lawsuit for rescission against all the parties that are players on my mortgage. My complaint also had claims under RESPA, FTC, and FCRA. None, with the exception of MERS, have answered. Answers were due last Monday, July 6, 2009. I have requested the Clerk to enter a default against them. MERS requested a 5 day extension so their answer is due today.

My question is this, since the remainder of the parties have defaulted, how do I calculate the damages for a Motion for Default Judgment? I requested punitive damages as well as civil damages for each violation in the complaint. The punitive damages are the item that I am having the most computing.

Another thing, since they never responded to the 3 QWRs I sent, I do not have a full accounting of what was actually paid out on the loan.

Thanks.

Thanks.
Marcus, on July 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm said:

U.S. Treasury says banks moving too slowly

WASHINGTON – July 13, 2009 – The U.S. Treasury chastised some of the nation’s banks while admitting a program to help borrowers stay in their homes is progressing at a snail’s pace.

The program in which the government will back lenders’ efforts to renegotiate mortgages has so far helped 270,000 homeowners, far short of the 4 million the program was designed to help, the Treasury said in a letter sent to banks this week.

The two-page letter signed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan urged banks to hire more loan counselors and open new call centers. Some large banks, in turn, pointed out that they have put a good-faith effort into the program.

JP Morgan Chase said it had hired 950 counselors, opened 27 lending centers to help troubled homeowners and modified 87,000 loans. Bank of America said it had “worked diligently” on helping homeowners. Wells Fargo & Co. also released a statement defending its efforts, The Washington Post reported Friday.

It is an issue that has long been rife with finger-pointing. Banks have been reluctant to shave profits from viable loans in a market already spoiled by rising foreclosures. Frustrated homeowners point to banks as confusing the issue by selling their mortgages to firms far removed from the corner bank. Some homeowners just point to the economy that cost them their jobs and, contrary to bureaucratic reasoning, some have been begging banks to foreclose on their properties to stop them from sinking deeper in debt.

The Treasury, meanwhile, took months to carefully craft a program that helped only homeowners who were in serious trouble. Turns out, some of those were in trouble so deep they preferred walking away from their loan obligations, anyway.

With job losses mounting, foreclosures are sure to continue, but the Treasury vowed to press on.

The letter said it would release monthly reports that include details on the banks’ efforts. Borrowers who were denied a chance to modify loans would be given a “second look,” through a program run by the Federal Loan Mortgage Corp., the letter said.
mr_subprime, on July 13, 2009 at 1:36 pm said:

Abby, sorry for the typo. And no one is telling you what to do or where to go. Lisa, you need to lighten up a little. I’m just saying you will need to invest the time to learn and understand the issues presented. Objectivist? Slanted? Hardly. But Good Luck just the same.
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2009 at 12:19 pm said:

Mr. Subprime–is this really Maher witha new id?
It must be, you continue to misspell ‘Abby’ the same way.

Again, I am not attacking Maher Soliman. Merely pointing out that he discusses things at a very high & complex level.

Most of us are grinding away at a lower level, the basics.

Thus, do not tell us what to do to try to understand Maher.

Big, Big turnoff.

Also, don’t ever tell Abby to get off this blog (prior Maher post).

and Maher, didn’t you just try to help Hamideh?
Rik, on July 13, 2009 at 11:26 am said:

Hi All,

A simple question, I think.

I am reviewing my county recorded documents, and the original docs have PUD (Planned Unit Developer) rider.

When I refinanced my house this document was omitted. Does this negate the rider?

Thank you in advance for your help,

Rik
Lisa E., on July 13, 2009 at 11:13 am said:

mr_subprime,

Listen up!

Your Objectivist slanted admonishments serve to obscure your message.

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
mr_subprime, on July 13, 2009 at 8:35 am said:

Abbey, listen up! Maher is indeed on another level. Don’t look to him to “dumb it down” for you. Read, learn, read it again, understand it! These ARE the pertinent issues to be addressed. DEDICATE YOURSELF to YOUR OWN WELL BEING!
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2009 at 7:17 am said:

RE: M. Soliman
Maher, your contributions to this site are typically
way over the heads of most of us. You are hovering at 30,000 feet and most of us are maybe at 5,000 feet.

If you could explain in simpler, clearer terms that would be helpful.

I am sometimes intrigued by what you have to say but the length, wordiness and convolutedness of your postings make me just skip them.

Hopefully, you do mean well with the information you post and your intentions are not to intimidate or create fear in those of us who are now forced to deal with a
new dragon–big banks, court systems, state laws, foreclosure, unlawful detainer, SEC, securities–COULD THIS BE ANYMORE COMPLEX??

Everyone working to save their homes and lives on this site has had to overcome fear and put their noses to the grindstone and become ‘quasi-experts’ in law—take a breath and pat yourselves on the back!!

I try to help at least one who is in a less fortunate position than I am–on a daily basis, even if it is just encouragement.

I am hoping KARMA is good to all of us.
Abby in CA, on July 13, 2009 at 6:55 am said:

Hawaii-Mahalo
good luck in dealing with Chase. I never got anywheres with them. House foreclosed.

I still would call and argue with state bar.

If you want your attorney off the case, you can file a legal document with the court asking judge to remove him and keep you as a pro-se (represent yourself).

I’d also yell at your lawyer…malpractice lawsuit if he does not straighten this out.

NOTE: you can file bankruptcies on your own without a lawyer. All paperwork online. It is a maize, but it can be done. Usually chpt 7 is cheap to file with a bkr lawyer.

Good Luck
mortgagelies, on July 13, 2009 at 5:55 am said:

A registrant is anyone offering to sell stock privately or shelve. Depending on the situation the registrant can be forced to place its structured investment (Pass through Trust) platform and Special Purpose Entity (SPE) it manages, into receivership after the credit market problems have slashed the value of the SPE and trust assets in half. Receivership is a type of corporate bankruptcy in which a receiver is appointed by bankruptcy courts or creditors to run the company.

The responsibility of the receiver is to recoup as much of the unpaid loans as possible. Being in receivership is not an enviable situation for a company. Oftentimes, receivers find that the best way to pay back loans is to liquidate the company’s assets, which effectively puts the company out of business.
The investment banking capital partner can bail out the trust with additional capital if seeking to fight this move by the creditors.

I contend that the rules and definition for an impaired asset under GAAP and FASB criterion should have collapsed the value of the assets way prior to this proposed triggering “enforcement event”. Under the rules governing the registrant, a receiver would then have to be called in.

The action will be a severe embarrassment for the bank and parent or “parties” that no doubt had 18 months to address the problems with what will be the first of hopefully many asset backed mortgage trusts headed into receivership.

These Enron disciples take an absolutely ignorant approach slicing the assets up between investors, while planning on taking (who knows what), something in the billions for itself for its own equity stake. The receiver’s job is to realize the best value possible, which is usually achieved by selling assets. However, the management can open discussions with a receiver, once appointed, to discuss alternative arrangements to provide liquidity”.

Receiver is a person appointed by a bankruptcy court or secured creditor to run a company for a short period of time in a manner that will ensure as much debt is paid back to creditors as possible. The main purpose of a receiver is to use a company’s assets in a way that will most effectively pay back creditors. Depending on where a receiver is appointed, there are numerous restrictions on how he or she runs a business. For instance, in many jurisdictions a receiver can run a company only for 14 days.

In turn, a receiver’s main function is often to:
Liquidate all available assets.

When a receiver is appointed, the company is said to be “in receivership.” We don’t know for sure the degree of retained interest the Federal Savings Banks maintain in the assets I believe they house. The transfer of the beneficial interest is all a subsequent event with MERS hanging out there as a nominated beneficiary waiting to take directions.

Pundits who acknowledge that selling the assets where there are few buyers, would not realize the best value possible are missing something. You the consumer who is due a modification or short sale based on the same inclination . . . of value agrees.

Understand the undertaking to press a registrant and platform into receivership…I have. Foreclosure are primary limited to SISA or SIVA assets only. If more than one asset is behaving in such a way (delinquency) month in and month out then classify the asset as impaired. Classify them under all as toxic waste by products of traditional acceptance and lending practices.

Dispose of the waste in their entirety as a group of assets sharing common characteristics. I assure you the receiver will find reasons supporting derecognition and for classifying asset impairment not properly reserved and now must be written down. According to GAAP all long term assets are subject to constant review when circumstances and situations change such that an indication of the value of the assets carried is likely not recoverable.

A write down to the true asset market value is FAR from something void of establishing market value where there are few buyers. I know of a few hundred thousand foreclosure victims who would eagerly bid their properties back in liquidation. It meets the sprit and objectives of TARP. Furthermore the borrower MIGHT JUST BE VIEWED AS SOMEONE WHO CONTRIBUTED ITO BRINGING THE CDO INVESTMENT TO THE TRUST. Borrowers are the only sane market makers I am aware of motive to pay top dollar on a discount and allow the appropriate “party and balance sheet” to realize the best value possible. In other words it’s a win. The degree of discount may be a problem for homeowners seeking to participate in liquidation.

Some kind of maneuvering could perhaps allow the Trustor (borrower) to be considered a creditor.

THE KOPSOL THEORY:
Consider the concept whereby a borrower becomes a creditor and the consumer homeowner is integral to the registrant by posting their

1) Personal guarantees
2) Rated credit score
3) Underlying collateral and
4) Received dividends
5) using their home as a margin account

The dividend are forgiving the second like an accreting bond and six to 12 months of payments (missed accrual) then a modification agreement. Or was that really a Reverse Repurchase agreement disguised as a “modification”?

Either way its something that would require a 1099 at year end to show consideration by the parties….WAIT A MINUTE!

Loan or investment . . . what did the homeowner receive?

We are not sure!

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.comTHE
mortgagelies, on July 13, 2009 at 4:08 am said:

Response

Never would I look to promote myself at the expense of others. What you don’t understand here will likely NOT get you any ADVANTAGE from the opposition. I am sorry! I have no understanding for a medical vernacular and therefore I won’t practice medicine; to say the least on myself. I listen to Kop all day (we share satellite office space) and whoosh …what a vocabulary!

Ps. When NG wants to talk the talk its all I can do to stay with him so… (Compliment). I will try here again in a minute with something I know is very important.

My apologies and write me for further explanations.

MS
admin@borrowerhotline.com
mortgagelies, on July 13, 2009 at 4:07 am said:

Response

Never would I look to promote myself at the expense of others. What you don’t understand here will likely NOT get you any ADVANTAGE from the opposition. I am sorry! I have no understanding for a medical vernacular and therefore I won’t practice medicine; to say the least on myself. I listen to Kop all day (we share satellite office space) and whoosh …what a vocabulary!

Ps. When NG wants to talk the talk its all I can do to stay with him so… (Compliment). I will try here again in a minute with something I know is very important.

My apologies and write me for further expanations.

MS
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Marcus, on July 13, 2009 at 3:44 am said:

“MSoliman=Mortgage Lies, As a simple working mom, trying to survive in the face of a dramatic reversal of fortune brought on by an untenable mortgage loan, I am eagerly seeking information and knowledge which assists me and other foreclosees. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand most of what you write. ” __Lisa

Lisa,
I feel the same way. Sometimes, I feel as if MSoliman purposely tries to confuse people. Is that a marketing tactic on his part? Maybe, maybe not. However, it does reflect bad on his professional credibility. His posting are completely incoherent to me. I presume most readers feel the same way.

Marcus@foreclosureProse.com
S B, on July 13, 2009 at 3:35 am said:

Aloha Lisa E

Thank u so much for ur support, understanding and compassion. It was me last year making the same pleas. I am amazed I am still here. But the clock keeps ticking faster. And it is certainly wearing me down.

I have no idea where I will go to be able to move on. Every week I see the beautiful faces telling me thank u, giving me their warm smiles of appreciation and in my heart it kills me each time to know that I will soon be letting them down. I will be one less place they can come to for unconditional support and a warm moment of hope.

My life has been all about helping others. I have lived that dream to the best of my ability. For that I am so thankful, yet I feel guilty because in a selfish way I don’t want to lose that dream of doing all that I have been able to do for others.

All the years I have used my own earnings to fund the ability to help others. I just have the toughest time trying to imagine my life differently. But it is now.

Since I was a kid that was dream to help others. It was my way to survive some horrors. I lived that dream in many ways. I kept my promise to make a difference. I won many awards doing what I do but they meant nothing to me compared to getting to do what I do.

Every day I feel like I am living two lives within. One that lives the dream of my heart and the other in constant pain that soon it will be all gone.

I know that I am a victim but that doesn’t settle down the pain of the reality that I wasn’t wise enough to know it was a scam. The only reason I even thought to refi is because I believed it would be a way to keep my program alive through some tough times. I tried to straighten it up as soon as I realized that something was wrong.

I have been quietly teaching my great volunteers how to do the program in hopes it can continue on without me when that comes. The needs out there are bigger then ever, certainly bigger then myself.

Our lines are really long, many elderly that can barely stand. Some have stood in the rain with walkers just to get a bite to eat. The images are forever inbedded in my heart and soul. But I try not to show that side.

I’ve always been the toughest fighter for those who were not able to be their own voice. For that I have paid some mighty dues. It was worth it. If I was to leave tomorrow, I would take with me knowing I did my best and gave my best. No one not even the scammers can take that from me. I lived my dream.

I read this site every day in hopes that there may be an answer. And maybe one day there will be.

MAHALO again for the kind thoughts u have shared.

S B
Lisa E., on July 13, 2009 at 2:46 am said:

Neil,

Thank you for your advice! I will work diligently on your suggested tactics. I am honored that you took the time to read and respond!

Marcus, I’m going right this second to your link to “Affidavit Opposing Motion For Summary Judgment”. I so appreciate your input and hard work supporting your fellow Titanic passengers.

MSoliman=Mortgage Lies, As a simple working mom, trying to survive in the face of a dramatic reversal of fortune brought on by an untenable mortgage loan, I am eagerly seeking information and knowledge which assists me and other foreclosees. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand most of what you write. I am so interested in the concepts you so clearly understand and are generously willing to impart to us here on this website. Keeping in mind that we are a hoard of stressed defendants. Remember that none of us here are industry insiders, are aware of Wall Street slang, or have your obviously superior level of financial acumen. I hope I’m not being too bothersome by requesting of you: Is there any way you could use simpler language so we can gain from your postings in the way I am sure you intend? Again, maybe it’s just me as I’m really over my head.

Have a good day all,
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa E., on July 13, 2009 at 2:28 am said:

S.B.

My heart aches for all of us caught up in this terrible scam that steals people’s HOMES and LIVES! This cloud of spiritual crisis that has covered our country fills me with a moral outrage for all of us felled by unbridled, unfettered love of money (aka: greed).

I think I remember your posts from last fall about your non-profit in Hawaii and your fears of foreclosure. Please, despite all else, remember that you have, can, and DO make a difference. Your posts here may assist another. Your calls and filings may open the eyes of some judge. Your prayers and oppositional energy may affect the relentless foreclosure tidal wave in a way you can not imagine.

Do not let this; this inhumane, corporate-driven, govenmental triple-branched acquiesced, home-stealing time in history define you. Fight on. Formulate a Survival Plan B. Release some of your anger which is clearly eating you alive. Accept your place among the vast number of likewise victimized. Do not quiet your voice, but quiet your mind, heart and soul in some rejenerative activity that gives you back some sense of inner peace.

I will keep you in my prayers. I sincerely wish there was something, anything, I could do to bouy you up.

Fondly,
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
S B, on July 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm said:

Aloha Steven Kop

Mahalo for taking the time and your kakua, offer of help. A true heart of Hawaii. I had met with Majorie many years ago. I was a supporter of hers as well. I checked with Majorie back then and she stated clearly she would not be interested in taking cases like mine.

Understanable because it does have many political pieces to it. Something I am not at all akamai with. Truthfully my knowledge of politics has been very limited. I do know many but rarely am I involved on any personal level. Certainly to my disadvantge now.

My focus has always been on those in the community who are the neediest. Such as elderly, veterans, etc. I’m a giver by heart not a taker. So this makes it all that much tougher on me.

Majories firm is very high end. Way out of my affordability. Also her firm is more political oriented. Hard to explain here but I am sure she understand what I mean.

I have even spoke with Ed Kubo our recent AG. Wonderful man by all means. I wrote a letter to our Congresswoman Mazzie Hirono back in October and signed a document of release as her office requested. But haven’t heard a word since.

I contacted the FBI as well and gave them all the info on the scams. But nothing back on that either. I tried to go to the UH law library to look up what I can.

I went to Legal Aid as well. The waiting list is very long especially on foreclosure assistance.

I just went to the web site Abby suggested and to my surprise there was only ONE left I hadn’t called to request assistance. I will call that person on Monday.

Odd I was always the one to give out hope. Hard to believe it is now me who needs it just as much.

For now I will continue giving to the community the best I can, until I cannot.

Mahalo Again for your time and effort of reply.
Steven K. Kop, on July 12, 2009 at 9:29 pm said:

S.B. ~~~ of those who are now not among us, my family lies at rest in the shadows of Diamond Head Memorial or Punch Bowl. My family name originally was “Kwok.” My mother was a “Pang” and was related to the Lee family. We are kama’ aina.

My former sister-in-law is the former Hawai’i AG Margery Bronster, now in private practice.

While I am not admitted to practice in Hawai’i, I have appeared in the USDC Hawaii and the USBC Hawaii pro haec vice.

I would be “hau`oli” to assist you in any way I can, including an introduction to Attorney Margery Bronster.

Aloha nui loa’
S B, on July 12, 2009 at 8:57 pm said:

Aloha Abby

Mahalo for the guidance. I did contact our Hawaii Bar Assn. Truthfully wasn’t worth the effort. Not sure why or how they remain an agency. Very rare will u see them ever enforce the bar rules or wthics violations.

The rugged part for me is my attorney jammed my cases up so bad no other attorney wants to go near it for fear of malpractice. Can’t afford the time or resources with that.

I have a non profit that has been a huge help to the community for over 20 yrs. Most likely once I lose the house, I will lose the ability to keep up with that as well. That’s what breaks my heart the most. Can’t even deal with that reality at all.

There so many companies involved in this scam it left my head spinning. Last I was told FDIC had the loan. Then I was told JPMorgan has the loan. They won’t talk to me cause I have an attorney who hasn’t been released from the court yet. They will only talk to him. And of course his statement to me and them is he has NO opinion.

Recently they sent me a letter A K A paragragh from CHASE claiming
“certain assets of Washington Mutual including the servicing right to my loan, therefore the my letter was forwarded to CHASE HOME FINANCE a subsidary of JPMorgan. The matter is currently in litigation. Please have your attorney direct all communications on this matter to CHASE counsel.”
CARLA BRANTLEY
EXCUTIVE RESOLUTION GROUP.

No foreclosure notice yet. So now I have to go find Chase Legal Department. And HOPE they will talk to me.

May have no choice but to go bankrupt. Sad part is I worked really hard many years to build a great credit history and in the worse scam of my life, I will lose it all. Just counting days at this point.

Wish ALL these scam agancies would end up in jail but by the time and IF that should ever happen it will be too late for me and all those we serve. Leaves me disgusted and ill to the core.
Hard to believe I was scammed that bad. And worse to have an attorney who eagerly would throw me to the wolves with no thought. Total incompentance. Not a thing I can do to stop it or even prevent it from happening to another soul. SICK!!!
Abby in CA, on July 12, 2009 at 7:55 pm said:

Hawaii-Mahalo–I’m not an attorney and you should keep trying to find one. Have you spoken to any bankruptcy attorneys? I don’t know your situation or where you are with foreclosure, but bankruptcy will put a stay on the foreclosure and may give you a few months of breathing room to get things sorted and perhaps find a good attorney to help with foreclosure.

Many of us on this site have had to learn an awful lot and defend ourselves in court as a pro se.

If you want to file a complaint about your attorney who sounds like he abandoned you, check online for your Hawaii State Bar. You can probably do it there.

Also, a good resource for checking licensing on your potential attorneys is the state bar website and also
Martindale-Hubbell at http://www.martindale.com.
At martindale you can also lodge a complaint about your attorney.

Also, check on this site for Neil’s list of ‘Attorneys Who Get it’…and you will click around until you see the spreadsheet. You are still on your own with the ones listed. Some folks have said several are merely bankruptcy attorneys.

You have got to have a list of interview questions for the potential attorneys.

Find out exactly what services they will provide to you.

Like I said, many of us are defending ourselves.
Marcus, on July 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm said:

Abby,
A national bank still need to register in a state before it brings a suit in that state. At least that is Florida Statute.

Marcus,
Marcus, on July 12, 2009 at 7:01 pm said:

Lisa,
You should file an “Affidavit Opposing Motion For Summary Judgment”.
You can use this sample:
http://www.foreclosureprose.com/storage/forms/AffdvtOpposingMFSJ.pdf

You can also ask the court to allow you to amend your answers. I know you learn a lot since you filed your initial answer. I just posted a sample pleading you can use for that.

Marcus (Pro Se)
Abby in CA, on July 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm said:

Marcus-

National Banks are controlled by the OCC

go here to read

http://www.occ.treas.gov/aboutocc.htm
Abby in CA, on July 12, 2009 at 6:55 pm said:

To Marcus:

U.S. Bank is really U.S. Bank National Association or U.S. Bank, N.A. and that means that they can do business is ANY state. It is a national bank.

Hope this helps.
note: it is also a subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp.
S B, on July 12, 2009 at 6:52 pm said:

I have 8 days to go to court with an attorney who has thrown me to the wolves. He is removing himself from the case AFTER the fact he got me sued by GMAC for 48 K when they are one of the compnaies involved in the big scam.

Can’t find an attorney in Hawaii to help. Been every where and called everyone I can think of plus. NOTHING.

Get these letters and calls offering me help for 3K plus.

Anyone know how to handle this n the Hawaii side?
Tried my representatives. Never heard back since last Oct. alomst a yr ago.

It’s more then my house I will lose.
Any guidance for the court date coming up in 8 days would be be very much appreciated.

MAHALO
Marcus, on July 12, 2009 at 6:46 pm said:

“The US Bank as trustee for the owners of mortgage backed securities series 2007-1234 is neither an agent nor a trustee. And there is no trust.”__Neil

Neil is absolutely right. The plaintiff name is very misleading. It gives the impression that USBANK is foreclosing on behalf of the trust, which is not true. You have to attack USBANK directly; don’t focus on non-existent trust.
It seems like USBANK has a deliberate policy not to register in all States. You have to attack their standing to bring a suit in a state where they deliberately refuse to register.
Marcus@foreclosureProse.com
livinglies, on July 12, 2009 at 8:48 am said:

Lisa E> If you sent them the DVL letter and it looks like you did, and if you sent them the QWR, and it looks like you did, then if that was done separately out of court you can bring it in court with a simple motion — it would say that they have a statutory duty to answer the questions, that the number of questions is not governed by local rules of procedure but rather by the statute itself and until they answer the questions they should not be allowed to do anything and you can even ask for bond until they produce credible proof that they own the loan. Credible proof means a competent witness with real knowledge of the events and processing of your loan, not just someone that says well this was sent to me by so-and-so and it is part of our business records now. That is not laying a proper foundation. Keep their feet to the fire and don’t accept the burden of proof on matters that are exclusively within their care, custody and control. Your burden is to keep asking them for answers and asking the Judge for help. As you might ahve noticed in another comment. If they want to say that a picture of the original documentation without a competent witness is sufficient then offer them a picture of the house and call it even.
livinglies, on July 12, 2009 at 8:27 am said:

MSOLIMan: Forcing the trust into receivership might be a good idea — or even forcing into involuntary bankruptcy. But be careful here. While the Trustee maintains that a trust exists and that the trustee has powers over the subject matter (res) of the trust, my analysis indicates that by the very nature of a REMIC, whose last word is “Conduit” there are questions about the existence of this “Trust.” First since the SPV is REMIC and a REMIC is a conduit and must be a conduit to maintain its non-tax status (thus preventing double taxation of the investors) Thus the SPV, often referred to as a Trust does not exist as a trust. By definition there can nothing in it. It serves as a distribution tool and the indenture of each and every bond purchased by investor contains language of conveyance in which it is the investor and not the SPV/Trust that will supposedly own the underlying mortgages and notes. Adding to the conclusion is the fact that most indentures admit that the attached list of underlying mortgages and notes are not real but will replaced with real ones whenever the CDO manager gets around to it. Adding to that confusion is the fact that the conveyance is from a party who does not own the loan in the first place and you end up with an empty “Trust.” That leaves the possibility that a second trust was created equitably or legally by granting the Trustee powers to act on behalf of the owners of mortgage-backed securities. Careful reading of the indenture leads one first to conclude that some powers to represent the investors exist but then later, deep into the indenture, are restrictions on that power that transform the agency to a contingent agency. Thus no trust seems to exist and even the power of agency is contingent, based upon specific express written consent from the investors and their agreement to pay costs and fees and their agreement to hold the Trustee harmless. The US Bank as trustee for the owners of mortgage backed securities series 2007-1234 is neither an agent nor a trustee. And there is no trust. The ONLY party, as I have repeatedly said, who can seek to enforce the obligation (probably without the help of the non-negotiable note executed by borrower and probably without the help of the mortgage or deed of trust) is the hedge fund or pension fund that bought the security. But none of them are doing so and there are some pretty good reasons for them doing so.
L.Fitzgerald, on July 12, 2009 at 4:06 am said:

When I stated ” Gigantic Criminal Organization ”

We have to include our own Politicos & Congress members , who sleep with the enemy.

Wall Street Fat cats wine & dine & make heavy contributions

for their reelections.

So laws are changed to protect their Gang of course, not the people..

So we have The Mafia & Cosa Nostra running the USA Tax Payer’s Bank. ..

Well in a grand scale of things ..

the whole system is corrupted.

We the “people” have lost control of our Representatives and Senators..

LF
mortgagelies, on July 11, 2009 at 11:46 pm said:

Gigantic Criminal Organization ?

What! What about the senators who repealed the Glass Stiegel Act. How is it a crime when the government allows you to operate u checked?

Admin@borrowerhotline.com
mortgagelies, on July 11, 2009 at 10:09 pm said:

Bryan

Escrow accounts are a hot topic with RESPA. Escrow accounts cover balances set aside for taxes and insurance. This is one part of RESPA where the legislation has teeth.

msoliman
forclosureinfosearch.com
mortgagelies, on July 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm said:

Angry&not taking it,

Taking what! The abuse by lenders and the courts that give you something to every day to Wake up too?

Comingling profits, tainted revenue, jimmied asset portrayal and distorted earnings, from opportune journal entries that benefit from timing including opaque and secretive financing arrangements. It’s all unlawful and giving them a big advantage over you. The media likes to stick with a winner.

The role of the mortgage servicer is a fiduciary where acting with an advantage under SEC regulatory guidance and FDIC authority. Servicing agents cannot have undue influence over the collections efforts.

Payments collected or accrued should not wrongfully influence foreclosure activities. That is not what servicers are intended for. The SEC in its enforcement of the registrants mandate for integrity and disclosure will not tolerate any tampering with earnings. It’s zero tolerance.

These “Lenders” executives are not Harvard MBA’s and leading blindly. They are likely an average age of 50 and not qualified to work through this mess. Wall Street has abandoned them …. [Wall Street’s intelligence level ….Whoosh! That I would not face off against].

These guys are cooking the books and you must read there financial statements or recent 8k and scrutinize the presentation of earnings and assets. Pursue the financial statements and question the integrity of the accounting practices they employ.
Sec. Geithner need to become aware that people don’t want you to tell them how complicated the job is…they want you to do your job by finding a solution.

Here we go:

Force the trust into receivership
2) Confiscate the cash reserves set aside solely to preserve the ABS Platform till NIM residual “excess” certificates are available to the majority shareholder – the Federal Savings Bank The FSB will likely pledged the stock (NIM) to the Government as collateral for payback.
3) USE THE RESERVES FOR WHAT THEY ARE INTENDED. TO PAY DOWN THE MORTGAGES TO MARKET VALUE.
We are not gaining an advantage but losing it with time. New accounting standards and revisions to GAAP by FASB INFLATE THE VALUE of their inventories TWO TIMES UNDER THE NEW RESOLUTION FOR FASB. GAAP AND CHANGING GOODWILL ACCOUTNING RUILES. Thanks Geithner
When working with a big name a Billionaire in NY on the subject matter, he broke it down for me . . . the Bankruptcy strategy! He undertook a new take over and liquidation plan for WorldCom. In June 2002, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
lawyers filed civil fraud charges against WorldCom for what would later be estimated at: OVER $9 BILLION WORTH OF ACCOUNTING ERRORS. He sought to net $ 4- $6 billion by liquidating the assets and satisfying the creditors at pennies on the dollar. This while providing the Japanese something they wanted badly (Cable in the Ocean? ) .

More importantly he was there to END THE MADNESS!
The Press finds you boring…$80 million in lobbying funds and what do you bring to the table…”Good Looks”?

Learn how to read a balance sheet and buy a MERS employee a cup of coffee.

“MERS is a critical ally to the legal defense or attack as a plaintiff. They provide a potentially significant opportunity where MERS is a reference point to block future transfers. File an adversary proceeding against Countrywide Home Loans, alleging that Countrywide engaged in bad faith.

Seek an injunction and for me U.S. Bankruptcy Court is my first choice – the U.S. Trustee’s (UST) adversary proceeding for failure to possess a claim upon which relief never could be granted to the debtor as the lender has alleged. What ever the venue and jurisdiction argue the foreclosure is not justified the debtor has a right to seek an injunction to stop the sale.
Find a Taliban insurgent if a fight is what you’re looking for friends. Stop attacking the attorneys.

In every attorney is a “Livinglies Citizen” just begging to jump out and help? But they need to know something more about the case and it is how to make a difference! Read the balance sheet and read the applicable line items affected by “subsequent” events and where such are not being asterisked.
Good Luck!

MSoliman
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
mortgagelies, on July 11, 2009 at 5:00 pm said:

Angry&not taking it,

Taking what! The abuse by lenders and the courts that give you something to every day to Wake up too?

Comingling profits, tainted revenue, gimmied asset portrayal and distorted earnings, from opportune journal entries that benefit from timing including opaque and secretive financing arrangements. Its all unlawful and giving them a big advantage over yuo. The media likes to stick with a winner.

The role of the mortgage servicer is a fiduciary where acting with an advantage under SEC regulatory guidence and FDIC authroity. Servicing agenets cannot have undue influence over the collections efforts.

Payments collected or accrued should not wrongfully influence foreclosure activities. That is not what servicers are intended for .

The SEC in its enforcement of the registrants mandate for integrity and disclosure will not tolerate any tampering with earnings. It’s zero tolerance.

These “Lenders” executives are not Harvard MBA’s and leading blindly. They are likely an average age of 50 and not qualified to work through this mess. Wall Street has abandoned them …. [Wall Street’s intelligence level ….Whoosh! That I would not face off against].

These guys are cooking the books and you must read there financial statements or recent 8k and scrutinize the presentation of earnings and assets. Pursue the financial statements and question the integrity of the accounting practices they employ.

Sec. Geithner need to become aware that people don’t want you to tell them how complicated the job is…they want you to do your job by finding a solution.

Here we go:

1) Force the trust into receivership
2) Confiscate the cash reserves set aside solely to preserve the ABS Platform till NIM residual “excess” certificates are available to the majority shareholder – the Federal Savings Bank The FSB will likely pledged the stock (NIM) to the Government as collateral for payback.
3) USE THE RESERVES FOR WHAT THEY ARE INTENDED. TO PAY DOWN THE MORTGAGES TO MARKET VALUE.

We are not gaining nan advantage but losing it with time. New accounting stabndards and revisions to GAAP by FASB INFLATE THE VALUE of their inventories TWO TIMES UNDER THE NEW RESOLUTION FOR FASB. GAAP AND CHANGING GOODWILL ACCOUTNING RUILES. Thanks Geithner

When working with a big name a Billionaire in NY on the subject matter, he broke it down for me . . . the Bankruptcy strategy! He undertook a new take over and liquidation plan for WorldCom. In June 2002, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawyers filed civil fraud charges against WorldCom for what would later be estimated at: OVER $9 BILLION WORTH OF ACCOUNTING ERRORS. He sought to net $ 4- $6 billion by liquidating the assets and satisfying the creditors at pennies on the dollar. This while providing the Japanese something they wanted badly (Cable in the Ocean? ) .

More importantly he was there to END THE MADNESS!

The Press finds you boring…$80 million in lobbying funds and what do you bring to the table…”Good Looks”? Learn how to read a balance sheet and buy a MERS employee a cup of coffee.

“MERS is a critical ally to the legal defense or attack as a plaintiff. They provide a potentially significant opportunity where MERS is a reference point to block future transfers. File an adversary proceeding against Countrywide Home Loans, alleging that Countrywide engaged in bad faith. Seek an injunction and for me U.S. Bankruptcy Court is my first choice – the U.S. Trustee’s (UST) adversary proceeding for failure to possess a claim upon which relief never could be granted to the debtor as the lender has alleged. What ever the venue and jurisdiction argue the foreclosure is not justified the debtor has a right to seek an injunction to stop the sale.

Find a Taliban insurgent if a fight is what you’re looking for friends. Stop attacking the attorneys. In every attorney is a “Livinglies Citizen” just begging to jump out and help? But they need to know something more about the case and it is how to make a difference! Read the balance sheet and read the applicable line items affected by “subsequent” events and where such are not being asterisked.

Good Luck!

MSoliman
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
Lisa E., on July 11, 2009 at 3:13 pm said:

Hello and an Update!

I’ve been without internet access for a little while. I’m sure everyone here has awaited my long overdue update with bated breath! No worries, I’m back! I see I have hours of reading to catch up here.

To refresh: I’m Pro Se in Florida, was served on 2/18/09 by Florida Default Law Group for US Bank as trustee for JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S2. After abject panic and fear and consulting with unaffordable attorneys, there ensued a 5 month back and forth of filings between my own clueless self and FDLG attorney.

Here’s the docket dialogue thus far:
1 PL:Foreclosure/Lost Note Complaint
2 DF: Motion to Dismiss
3 PL: Motion for Extension of Time
4 DF: Debt Validation Request
DF: Discovery: Documents, Admissions, Interrogatories
5 PL: Response to Debt Validation Request (vague and dodging)
6 PL: Motion to Default (PL did NOT serve DF with this filing!)
7 PL: Response to Discovery: Answered only 6 Admissions, Ignored all else
8 COURT: Notice of Default Not Entered (YAY!)
9 PL: Affidavit of Reasonable Attny Fees
10 DF: Notice of Failure of PL to post a non-resident cost bond
11 PL: Posted a non-resident cost bond
12 DF: Motion to Deny Demand for PL’s Attorney Fees
13 DF: Discovery: QWR
14 DF: Notice to court re: PL did not serve DF with PL’s Motion to Default
15 PL: Affidavit of Amounts Due and Owing
16 DF: Motion to Strike PL’s Affidavit of Amounts Due and Owing
17 PL: Response to DF’s Motion to Dismiss including “found note” & withdrawal of Re-establishment of Lost Note
18 PL: Affidavit of Amounts Due and Owing #2
19 PL: Motion for Summary Judgement including a Hearing to tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs

I’ve been a little BUSY!

Now, with the Motion for Summary Judgment my feet are in the fire (OUCH). I’m trying to delay by doing a Motion for Extension of Time with grounds being that PL has not fulfilled their duty to produce adequate discovery in order for me to defend myself and concurrently file a Motion to Compel with Request for Sanctions.

I’ll be reading and catching up here all night. I’ve been thinking and praying for all my fellow foreclosees.

Any and all suggestions (and prayers) are greatly appreciated.

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
LisaBep at Gmail dot com
Marcus, on July 11, 2009 at 3:05 pm said:

Folks,
During your discovery, don’t forget to ask for these very important documents

1) Certificate of Non-recoverability
2) Loan Purchase Agreement

A certificate of Non-recoverability will be issued when the trust write off the loan as non recoverable.
Loan Purchase Agreement strenghtens the case that the note was a non-negotiable instrument since a separate sale contract was involved.
Has anyone been successful in obtaining these documents?

Marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on July 11, 2009 at 1:24 pm said:

Hello All,
I have just added two new documents:
1) An Affidavit Opposing Motion for Final Summary Judgment
2) Interrogatories.
If you need them you can download them from http://foreclosureprose.com/pleadings/
If anyone has sample pleadings they would like to share, please send them to me and I will make them available for others.
As pro se, we need to organize our collective efforts in order to maximize the result.
marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Steve, on July 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm said:

I have a question and hope someone can advise me.

We have seen how the banks are screwing us and its time we screw them back. What if, we (homeowners) request from the banks statement of settlement to pay off the mortgage. Once we receive the statement match it with paper work we have and if it does not match, cry foul and stop paying the mortgage payments, because 99.99% the note will not match. Is it possible to do so???? Views welcome. Thanks
bryan, on July 11, 2009 at 11:59 am said:

M&I Bank paid out $8,400.00 in taxes/insurance which I already paid, I want them to prove, taxes and Insurance got paid I want to see the policy, and receipts. Who got the money? Who got the Tax money? (I know the contractor got the money) And because Ins./taxes was on the same line item of my construction loan, I want a breakdown between the two.

Will this work the same as Provide the Note?
angry&not taking it, on July 11, 2009 at 11:01 am said:

its time this country wakes up…
the news = main stream media has be bought & paid for by the corporate america [read the banksters or as i like to call em wanksters ] for at-least 50 years.
they should change the “EMERGENCY BROADCAST WARNING” to=
” this only a test .had this been an actual emergency would have been lied to and like right “now” you would still have no idea what the hell is going on!
this concludes the lies of the EMERGENCY BROADCAST system.

the news [ hahaha the joke] will NEVER cover any thing honestly that does not benefit their owners interests & advertising.

& yes you are correct [no monthly payments] after foreclosure has started.
they will only except your 1st born & entire arrearages plus fees to date .
Dan Edstrom, on July 11, 2009 at 10:35 am said:

L Fitzgerald,
Shoot me an email …

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
L.Fitzgerald, on July 11, 2009 at 10:22 am said:

To :angry&not taking it

Good advice…

As far as I know ..once your sued with a foreclosure you are [ defendant ] not supposed to send any more mortgage payments …

Many good lawyer blogs have advised to open a bank savings account and start depositing your monthly money there if you can.

LF
L.Fitzgerald, on July 11, 2009 at 10:14 am said:

To : angry & not taking it,

Thank you for words. I want to give parts of my experience and ideas to others…

as I have received ideas from this Blog ,and Neil .

I can feel the tide turning to our side . I pray that the foreclosure plague is contained very soon.

What ticks me most is the way CNN, Fox, and other news shows ..don’t invite people like Neil to blow the cover off the Wall St. Banksters ..

These shows give the wrong advice to most of the Time…like

” call your lender .. They are waiting for your call to help you..”
or the advice I hate the most……” The Banks don’t want your home…they want to help you ”

So much B.S. I like to see some of these news shows, but when their financial wizards start talking ..I don’t listen to their B.S.

The internet has helped immensely …the real news is available there…..

L.F.
angry&not taking it, on July 11, 2009 at 10:01 am said:

L.Fitzgerald
ah…. you have hit the target….
NEW answer to at 30 second rocket docket question…
are you delinquent …NO your honor I AM NOT DELINQUENT.
a homeowner may be able to use the “lost note receipt ” statment. hahaha
just kidding…
better tho is to just state ‘NO I am not delinquent . [previously you had been paying the wrong party all along , when you found out you then stopped paying the WRONG party!. the true party never came forward so why would i keep paying these thieves??

and YES YES YES the judges belong right along side of the bankturds & lawyers from both sides of the case if injustice is the order of the day - so be it...
NOW you [homeowners] Dish it out!
L.Fitzgerald, on July 11, 2009 at 9:53 am said:

To Dan Edstrom ,

Thanks for your advice .
I’ve been into…. Edgar … looking for the 10K or 8 K
of my original lender . I haven’t found it yet .

What is the info. you found that will help your case …in general terms.

I’ve seen the Pool service agreements , but have not found my name in any list. .. And if I did find my name ..what does that mean… that it was sold ?
paid for ?

Thanks
LF.
angry&not taking it, on July 11, 2009 at 9:44 am said:

L.Fitzgerald.. well laid-out info!
i applaud your tenacity & fortitude .
this country needs more people like you [ i will not go without a fight]!!!

BT – is another homeowner at livinglies -he is also VOICE that will not be quieted.
you guy’s are my brothers in arms!
L.Fitzgerald, on July 11, 2009 at 9:43 am said:

Criminal Organization ::

Remember the most important factor ..in my opinion ..when you are a defendant of a foreclosure .by the Big Wall Street Banksters is that ..

your are dealing with a Gigantic Criminal Organization …

Question every document , they present , Don’t believe anything that they print , or say. They are the ones who have to prove that they can foreclosure.

Do your own research into your Public Property Records …check your Lien for any assignments …Check the State Dept for info on the Plaintiff’s organization.and for officers names..etc.
.
They are a Criminal Organization… and any Judge or attorney who assist in these criminal act should also be prosecuted as accessories to these criminals.

That repugnant question by certain” Rocket Docket Judge’s ” …

” Are you delinguent in your Mortgage payments . Are you still Living in the House ? ” Guilty !! Guilty !! as charged !

30 seconds and the Criminal act is finished !

These Judges should be fired and accused of commiting the Crime of Grand Thief .

The Foreclosing Mills spiting out millions of diffective and fraudant foreclosures should be Arrested and accused of Grand Theif .

I hope to be alive to see all these dirt bags wearing orange monkey suits with hand cuffs .

They can play poker with Mr Madoff … their heroe for a 100 years too.

LF
Dan Edstrom, on July 11, 2009 at 8:58 am said:

L Fitzgerald,
Just a note of what else you might be able to check. I am not a lawyer, this is just what I did on my case …

My loan was securitized so I went through the SEC filings (I didn’t know what I was doing so it took me 3 months to find my loan in the mass of SEC filings). The SEC filings list the assignment and assumptions of the pool of loans. They did NOT match the assignments on the back of my note. So now I have a note saying one thing and SEC FILINGS SWORN UNDER OATH saying another.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
L.Fitzgerald, on July 11, 2009 at 8:32 am said:

Don’t Believe any Signatures or Stamps on any document :

I f you’ve read my previous comments …You know I have a beef with Defense attorney’s who don’t get !

You know who they are by their mind set ; ” The Bank is Right ,You can’t win ” or ” You Lost , It’s too Late !! ”

My foreclosure attorney has presented a what seems to be the original note . I saw it in the Circuit Court records..

It has 2 stamps and 2 signatures …

1) ” Without Recourse : Pay to the Order of ——-ABC Bank ——- from …..

Joe Blow Vice President for XYZ Bank .which is is signed by the Vice .President. J.Blow .

The second stamp :
2) ” Pay to the Order of .. XXX Bank .. without recourse by Jane Girlo Vice.President. . from ABC Bank. which is signed by Jane Girlo Vice President .

At its face value it shows …. first : an endorsement of XYZ Bank ….. to ….ABC Bank .

Then a second endorsement of ABC Bank ….to…. XXX Bank .

So XXX Corp is the Holder of the Note ! they got it from ABC Bank …who got it from XYC Bank { original mortgage]

So my Original Mortgage note lender was ….XYZ Bank . Now it belongs to the XXX Bank… Right !!!???

On its face value ….XXX Bank…. has the right to foreclose my house based on the Promissory Note Negotiable Instrument under UCC.rules .

1 ] My first contested arguement is that the Promissory note is not a ” negotiable instrument ” and it also needs chain of Title assignments ,notes, bonds, bills of exchange, contracts, attached ..as per Fla.R.Civ.P Rule 1.130 [a]

2 ] my second contest :

I researched the Florida.,and Michigan
[ Bankters business State ] …Corporate State Returns for both Banks
From the date of my original loan XYZ to the date of my foreclosure.

I found the List of Corporation Bank Officers who are in charge : CEO, Directers, President and Officers .of my original Bank XYZ .and the Bank ABC..
To my surprise I could not find a Vice President Joe Blow , nor could I find a Vice President Jane Girlo ….in their respective
Bank Corporation .

Conclusion : These stamps and signatures can not be accepted at their face value . They must be verified for their authencity before they can be accepted as proof.

Most Probably they are fake stamps [ purchased at Office Max for $ 10.00 each ] and the Vice Presidents can be fictious names
or the name of the Cleaning Lady who washes their office.

Sounds outragious doesn’t …Well I’ve seen Corporation papers filled out by a outlaw lawyers who sets up the paper work..and then has his legal secretary and office clerk sign in as the… Corporation President , and Treasurer . to hide the real crooks.
The lawyer later claimed that there was a urgent rush to finish the Corp. paperwork.so he used his employee’s names.to finish …bla..bla..

Where did I see this done ?? While I was working as a IRS investigator for tax fraud many years ago.

Corporations were our worst tax offenders …crooks ,scam artist, and bad people would set up a Corporation as a shield for their
criminal acts. We as IRS officers would have to find the real criminals behind the Corporate veil ..and bring them to trial.

This Promissary Note that the Plaintiff is claiming as absolute evidence has a high % chance of being fabricated.

I am a Pro Se and this is not legal advice. I am sharing my experience as a IRS investigator , and only offer my case as an example to teach you .that .Not everything you see is real !!

Put the burden of Proof back on the Banksters… !! Question everything !! and do your own investigation !

My advocacy attorney told me …” you see those 2 stamps and signature …that proves the Corp .Bank has a good case against you .” Give up !

The only thing these stamps and signature prove is that The Bank Corp. must prove they are authentic !!

The previous job background of a lawyer determines how he sees the proof and defenses.

I can fill a table of Financial Reports, Corporation Tax Returns, Profit and Loss Statements …with evidence of fraud all over ,
but if my lawyer ..has never previously worked with business or accounting, auditor …He will never see the evidence because he does not know or understand Finance ,Business, nor Accounting documents

If a lawyer was a policeman before becoming a lawyer ..I can respect his past experience , and it will help him become a much better attorney in the criminal area .

The same to Finance, Accounting, Auditors, etc.

If a lawyer’s only experience was as a full time student until he/she graduates . That’s it ?

Mom & Pop foot the whole career bill ??

Thats a very weak lawyer !!

Beware of his advice !!

L.F.
Bryan, on July 11, 2009 at 4:17 am said:

I have a few questions buried in this. LOL

My situation is construction; M&I Marshall and Isley Bank is Auctioning off my property on September 9, 2009. Because it is not possible to find an attorney in time, I am forced to file my own lawsuit. Can I file only two allegations, keeping it simple just to get a case number, and then immediately file a motion to stop foreclosure and the auction, asking the court for enough time, allowing me to get through all of my Registrar of Contractors hearings and appeals, which will then go into there own lawsuits, and appeals.., about 6 of them, (against the contractors and sub-contractors)?

The reason for needed time is; my evidence of the un-built dangerous/deadly defected structure itself, is needed for all hearings and lawsuits, and the results of those hearings and lawsuits are needed to sue the bank. If the court participates with the bank, allowing them to get rid of my BEST evidence, then I won’t have my evidence for any of my hearings or lawsuits. I need to get through all of those before, I can really focus on suing the stars out of the bank. (Yes, I know. Priority is stopping the bank.) If I am granted an extension of time, can I add all 42 of my allegations against the bank, later? And what about produce the note, when should this fit in? I realize I can’t do that without filing a lawsuit first, which is my toughest struggle. I’ve already written out my motion for stopping foreclosure, and auctioning, and asking for extended time, and my plea on the same draft, heck, it only took me the last 13 hours for a total of 8 pages to do it too.

Entertainment for those who read what’s happening to me.

The contractor not only took my loan money and did not build me a house, but he sued me and M&I Marshall and Isley Bank, for more, and he wanted full possession of my property. Well, the bank got out of it because they are a Sr. Lean holder, but doing so, they screwed up again, BIG TIME. Their argument to get out of the lawsuit from the contractor who is still hungry for more, admitted to the court this. “On Dec. 2006, we recorded our lean against Ramsey’s property, and the contractor didn’t start working until August 2007, 7 months after we recorded the deed of trust”. Why in the chicken feed did M&I Bank give out the money in January 2007? The contractor was fired in August, for abandoning the job, and not producing. Let me rephrase that, on the first draw of money, he bought a Corvette, on the second draw he bought a boat, on the third draw he built a swimming pool, and on the fourth draw he built himself a beautiful large Ramada next to his pool, and a motorcycle. Want to hear mental torture? He lives down the street from my 5 acres and I got to watch him take my $50,000.00 and my construction money and gift himself.

Well, the bank got out of the lawsuit, but only tonight.., 2.5 years later … did I discover they admitted to the fact they gave my loan money to the contractor prior to August of 2007, for work not done.

It doesn’t make sense to me, with my overkill and overkill of evidence, not one attorney in Arizona is willing to help me. The evidence just keeps flowing in.
For those who do not know me, I am able to write but I am incompetent as a reader, and I am mentally handicapped. Because of that you would think, the courts would throw out M&I all together. After speaking with 9 different attorney’s on the phone today, well yesterday, explaining my handy-cap, they said, “those days are over.”

Also with the left over construction money in the contractors pocket, roomer says, he is going to bid on my property. I did read something yesterday, fraud is a 30 year time in jail, and 1 million dollar fine. I wonder if that applies to a bank? How can a bank go to jail? Although, there are 6 of the contractors invovled with this White Collar Crime.
bryan, on July 10, 2009 at 2:06 pm said:

I want to publically say THANK YOU to MSOLIMAN.

Also, thank you, Tim Phillips for Ronald Ryan attorney information, however for those who live in Tucson, and are facing foreclosure do not call Ronald Ryan unless you want to file bankruptcy.., that’s all he does.

Thank you everyone for your support…

I will keep you posted, if I can.
Marcus, on July 10, 2009 at 10:27 am said:

The point I was trying to make is that you need to be the driving force in your case whether you’re doing pro se or represented by an attorney.

A coach does not need to be a great ball player in order to be a good coach.
mortgagelies, on July 10, 2009 at 9:32 am said:

Obama may or may not know….Geitner does know? This is starting to smell like Watergate. The Street took more capital from the world without firing a shot. Now tax payers have to recover it…with a discounted modification or short sale?

Please. Why replenish AIG with a Billion? (Over collateralization and MI)

Do a short sale at 85% of value ….or 65% of value at trustee sale in foreclosure with AIG subsidiary making up the balance to 100%

The FSB’s never lost the loan and the ABS Trust is one big illusion (for coverage purposes). Want to see Gov. Pre-emption first hand? Look at what Bernanke and Geitner did to GAAP and FASB with regards to Combinations, good will, write downs and classifying assets.

http://www.borrowerhotline.com
Marcus, on July 10, 2009 at 8:08 am said:

Mortgage Firms Prodded to Modify More Loans

By RUTH SIMON
Wall Street Journal

The Obama administration is pressing mortgage-servicing companies to step up their efforts to modify troubled loans under its housing-rescue program, the latest sign of frustration with the pace at which mortgage companies are reworking troubled loans.

“We believe there is a general need for servicers to devote substantially more resources to this program for it to fully succeed and achieve the objectives we all share,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said in a letter to 25 mortgage-servicing firms.

The letter was sent Thursday to the chief executives of companies that have signed contracts to participate in the government program, which provides financial incentives for mortgage companies and investors to reduce borrowers’ payments to affordable levels.

More than 270,000 borrowers have received modification offers under the program. But housing counselors complain many borrowers are waiting for help as mortgage-servicing companies get up to speed. The administration has said its program could help as many as four million homeowners.

The administration has “started to see a significant ramp-up” in modification activity, the letter said. But it added, “there appears to be substantial variation among servicers in performance and borrower experience.” It called on mortgage-servicing companies to beef up staffing and training, and to provide “an escalation path for borrowers dissatisfied with the service they have received.” Freddie Mac, which serves as compliance agent for the program, will be developing a “second look” process in which it will audit a sample of rejected modification applications, the letter said.

The letter also called on mortgage companies to suggest ways the administration can improve the program’s design.

Housing counselors say they have been disappointed by the lack of progress under the administration’s program. “We are not getting anywhere near the level of resolutions we expected,” said Bruce Dorpalen, national director of housing counseling for Acorn Housing Corp., which works with financially troubled borrowers. “The real issue is that generally the servicers are not up to speed.”

Often, housing counselors “must educate the staff of the servicers about their own program,” said Maeve Elise Brown, executive director of Housing and Economic Rights Advocates in Oakland, Calif., which counsels homeowners. “Homeowners on their own are not able to navigate the system.”
mortgagelies, on July 10, 2009 at 4:39 am said:

L.Fitzgerald

Be prepared and you will do fine. The courts appear prejudiced against pro per filings. There are a lot of opportunists out there jumping on board, really!

Your matter if heard late in the day won’t benefit from a day of “Vegas Craps” pleadings with UCC 1 filings by borrower, lost note gibberish, RICO and PONZI allegations, using Miranda rights as a cause of action and motions filed and heard (called up) in advance of the matter. It is driving these Judges into the silly farm.

A wrongful foreclosure claim seeking something for nothing and a poorly written pleading are strike two and three. Even worse is getting the Judges favor and as he smiles he say’s . . . “What are you looking for?”

And the Party waiting for this moment is clueless.

Good luck…
L.Fitzgerald, on July 10, 2009 at 3:06 am said:

I agree …its always favorable to have a pro-homeowner lawyer defending one.

If you’re broke and facing the Foreclosure Dragon , and there’s no other alternative …one has to protect oneself
even with a fork …

In a criminal case …I would not face the court alone.

I am confident that I’ll be able to handle the hearing as Pro Se
..I’ll be nervious as hell …but I’ll try it with my head up high..

I’ve been studing through the web hundreds of legal web sites..Living Lies is still the Mother of all sites…

I’ve picked up so much information ,and hints , that I think I have a fair chance of getting a Vacate in Judgment .

Should I fail , I will seek and file an Appeal . My main defense
is failure of the Due Process in Law. My Foreclosure Dragon is the Florida Legal Default Group . They ” rocket docketed ” my foreclosure ,without giving me notice of a hearing .

I’ve read somewhere ..that if the F.D. Group stated to the court that it notified me…that’s it ….the court believes it as mailed and true , and that I have no defense.

If this turns out to be true ….I have a two headed Dragon to defeat. My Justice system & the Plaintiff’s.

One lay person fighting against …..the Lawyer sweat house machine of a Legal foreclosing mill , the deep pockets of a Wall Street Scam Bankster , and my own Justice system..

Three against one …that’s a fair fight alright . As I’ve wrote in an earlier posting ….and if on top of those odds …you add a
Wall Street Big Bankster Loving… brainwashed defense attorney …and the fight gets even more interesting ..

Four against one ..That’s fair isn’t not.

LF.
mortgagelies, on July 9, 2009 at 8:06 pm said:

Observations:

(C) How few good lawyers there are out there.

* After 25 years in the busness and I think I know more than most counsel. None the less thay would CRUSH me in a court of law.

(C) sanity to the judicial system.

*It’s bad, I agree. real bad.

(C) No one can defend your interest more than yourself.

*Hmmmm I don’t know about that, example:

Sound arguments regardless of the facts, SarBox, FASB, GAAP, SEC Guidelines, Exceptions to RESPA, Case Law where it does not exist, Threat of sanctions for bringing or poorly prepared complaint, the intimidation factor, Federal Court….Yikes!

“A person who represents himself in court is a fool for a client”.

msoliman
Marcus, on July 9, 2009 at 7:16 pm said:

Fitzgerald,
I hear you. It is disconcerting to see how few good lawyers there are out there. Some transformation must be taking place in law schools. I believe pro se litigants are the ones bringing some sense of sanity to the judicial system. My advice to all: learn the law. No one can defend your interest more than yourself.
Good luck in your fight.

Marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
L.Fitzgerald, on July 9, 2009 at 3:44 pm said:

To: Mortgagelies and the public,

Thanks for your advice…we will keep fighting tooth and nail .

What saddens me in this Mortgage Foreclosure S.N.A.F.U. is the atitltude of the Legal advocacy lawyers ..

I know its free …for people that are broke and down on their financial luck.

I lost my business a couple of years ago too.

My experience with 3 advocacy lawyers and their office manager Esq. is very disappointing and sad .

I think that their work experience before becoming lawyer’s was very poor. If they worked at all.. Dad and Mom paid their school for the last seven years .

These 4 persons have a Pro-Wall Street Bank mentality .
I show them decent proof of fraud and mis leading documents, and they don’t get interested .

I get so angry at them ,because they are SNAFU lawyers.
The law school they went to brainwashed them into adoring the Wall Street Banksters .

I was advised to call the homeless shelter to make arrangement’s
I told him that I will stick it out and not leave my home . He told me that I will be arrested , and gave me the telephone of a public defendent .

The advice above was given to me by my first advocacy lawyer.

My second advocacy lawyer who replaced my first because the first was of a promoted to another town.

I never got to know my second .

My second advocacy lawyer did not answer my faxes for 2 weeks I sent different faxes three times requesting advice on my case ,I was desperate with the upcoming court issues.
Guess what she did…She withdrew and reported me to my case Judge in a motion to withdraw .

She terminated as my lawyer because she didn’t like my letters , and found them repugnant and some other riducious things…unreasonable ,and groundless . bla bla …

I never had the honor of even speaking to her once.
Later she withdrew her withdrawal ..when she saw that she made a mistake taking that action.

So I spoke to her manager ..another Lawyer ..she was on the Banks side and protected her staff against me.

After she finally understood my arguement , she transferred me to the best negotiater she had in the Advocacy

This new lawyer was the worst I have ever had the honor to exchange ideas with .

He was a Banker Lover too. They have every reason to foreclosure you.he said .. By the way ..after the sale you have to move out or get arrested ..

I have just fired him for being imcompetent ,and have as

evidence his violation of three [3] Rules of Peofessional

Conduct for Florida Lawyers ,and violation of four [4] Ethical

Guidelines for Settlement Negotiations

You have to see my files and notes and defenses I have had to keep up ..

to protect myself from my supposed Advocacy Defense lawyers.
My files are thicker than a fat telephone book.

And my files on the Plaintiff’s case are just as thick.

I am fighting against two enemy at the same time…isn’t that so much fun..

I have spent more time defending myself from these advocacy lawyer than they have defended me from the foreclosing plaintiff’s.

Who pays their salary’s …I wonder..?

Again its sad …because I am a senior business man , I’ve had retail shops, and I was a Tax Collector for the IRS.once.

So I’ve dealt with white collar crooks ,liars, money laundry criminals , scams, corrupt Corporations., dishonest accountants, CEO’s and many other honorable persons.

So I am a old warrior and can see B.S. a mile away …

But I feel for the average Joe ..hard working , honest ..but who is less educated in the scam and white collar criminal field … Because they reach for help …..and they will request help from the Advocacy lawyer’s who will take them by the hand and walk them into the slaughter house.

The average person will be convinced by these defenders to just give up….The Banksters won ..you have no hope ..

By the way here’s the Homeless Shelter phone number so you they can set you up.

Who pays these advocacy lawyer people ?/?

I feel for the innocent good folks ..that are not really defended .

God Bless them and soon ,…

when the SH_ T hits the fan and the Genie is out of the bottle …..and class action suit are filed against these CRIMINAL Banksters ., there’s hope that all the folks who loss their homes will be compensated. ..

That’s my prayer to God…. That the whole bunch of greedy
S.O.B.s are sent to the 8×8 foot room right next to that Madoff guy ..so they can comfort each other .

I am fighting against this Injustice till the end ,and then some..

LF.
Joan W, on July 9, 2009 at 1:07 pm said:

My neighbor lost his job 5-6 mo ago & was unable to make mortgage payments; foreclosure sale was scheduled for 6/30/09 but has been postponed till 8/21.
Multiple letters had been sent to the lender asking for a complete accounting of his securitized “loan” account, citing non-disclosure violations, asking Chase to produce the note, etc.; the Trustee was also challenged in writing as not having “legal standing” to foreclose. Property is in Gatlinburg, TN.
Unfortunately, my neighbor was unexpectedly hospitalized 2 weeks ago & died this AM. I feel confident that the extreme stress was a contributing factor. His wife is totally unfamiliar with lender violations & the concept of legal foreclosure defense. Furthermore, she does not have financial resources to pay for legal services. Do you know of an attorney who “Gets It” who might be willing to try to save this lady’s house on a “pro bono” basis. She desperately needs help!
Any information/assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
I am knowledgeable as to actions taken, documents sent,
etc. and will be acting as contact person.
mortgagelies, on July 9, 2009 at 12:24 pm said:

Neil,

I should have done this a long time ago but tried to be a gentlemen in a war strewn with corrupt political insurgents…..and for those with families and who I thought were gentlemen and friends….

They are the ones LIVINGLIES, not us…Remember…I was one of them! I loved getting people out of their homes on Thanksgiving and laughing about their meritorious allegations and empty bank accounts.

“Equitable distribution . . Something for Nothing” ….keep them believing that and we stay in business.

msoliman
mortgagelies, on July 9, 2009 at 12:15 pm said:

Calls coming in and we are overloaded.
So Listen. . .

Here is what you need to know!
1) The loan never leaves the FSB …got it.
2) The ABS Trust is the coverage or “Take-out”…Got it.
3) They never expected this velocity of “prepay” speed…Got it.
4) EVERYTHING IS DONE SUBSEQUENT EVENT AND WAS NEVER ASTERIKED ON THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Nothing is delayed …it’s all a subsequent event. We may need to unite and all ralley together….Neil any ideas?

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
mortgagelies, on July 9, 2009 at 11:52 am said:

Fitzgerald

You have their attention…there’s no turning back. Now take them OUT! WHAT ARE YOU SAYING HERE!

We have come under repeaded attack and we are still here..standing and winning back homes. Attorneys from Virginia, NY and California have attacked us…they come at us once a month and then they hang up quietly…..We are still here and I survied another attack from a Nevada Law firm…they joined our efforts!

We are still here and another woman today is in her home after being thrown out. She was in a Motel with father and a family of five. And now back in her home for $900 a month. DO YOU GET IT…NOT ONE DAY IN COURT!

We know what we are doing! Read the article “WAMU and the Milionaire DeadBeats”. See David Black on PBS Bill Moyers show. Ask us for the latest results.
See the movie “Wall Street”. Remember “Enron”?

“Make the arguments”. They have violated SEC criterion and that could be a criminal act. I sat next to an SEC criminal attoreny for 2 years…hows that for a resume. Day after day and week after week…8 years, 12 years, 7 years….plea bargains….accountants CEO’s and attorneys – no one insulated!

They have violated GAAP and FASB FAS 140-2 and the SEC rules for 1122 AB under countless sub sections.

Are you Perry Mason ? Get your home back and be done with this mess.

Attack them by piercing their heart with the RIGHT arguments. Forget MERS, (Get an injunction) and go after the “Depositor” Forget the ABS Trust…make them and the MasterServcer your allies through Joinder of the parties. Attack where they are most vulnerable.R*E*C*E*I*V*E*R*S*H*I*P! Forget my bad grammer!

People – Call it! Its called the FSB under FDIC control.

Your an American and some Foriegn national investor wants your money (Home) ! Wake the Flunk UP!

Attack and dont wait…Do it NOW!

admin@borrowerhotline.com
L Fitzgerald, on July 9, 2009 at 7:15 am said:

Mr Garfield,

Our house has been posted for sale on August 4, 2009, (this is the fourth notice of sale !)

On March 18th we had a Court hearing on a “Motion to set aside Judgment” based on undue process, fraud, etc. etc. The Plaintiff counsel did not appeared. The Judge requested verbally, that we deposit at the Court Clerk, two months payment equivalent of what we usually would pay in our mortgage and continue the hearing later. His ruling stated: To be continued ex parte. Our plan is to pay not two months, but in full with a Reverse Mortgage we qualify for and have enough equity to pay, but has to be to the right lender.

The pretender lender has not filed lien nor evidence of note assignments.

The only liens are second mortgage who voluntarily dismissed and removed les pendins and the first mortgage lien and loan originator who is out of business and dissapeared. We filed chapter 7 and trustee discharged everything , but liens remain in Property records.

Second hearing was scheduled March 31st, but our legal aid attorney suggested we offer settlement with a reverse mortgage. Plaintiff agreed, cancelled the sale requesting we cancel the pending hearing as well.

30 days passed and Plaintiff never responded to the offer of settlement. Legal Aid assigned us another attorney who is not too cooperative and acts more on the Plaintiff’s side.

Plaintiff Requested a sale for August 4th. Our attorney says there is no days open for hearing up until October or Nov. in order for us to request an emergency hearing before the sale date.
We send e mails, faxes, phone calls to our attorney and to this date he has not answered, putting our house in jeopardy.

We want to fire this attorney and continue Pro Se.

What happens if we don’t get our hearing before the sale date? We are almost sure the Judge will dismiss our judgment..

.Thank You
VG Diaz, on July 8, 2009 at 7:49 pm said:

Baltimore vs. Wells Fargo Moves Forward
Carrie Bay | 07.08.09

The city of Baltimore launched a relentless campaign back in January of last year against one of the nation’s largest banks, Wells Fargo. Baltimore is suing Wells Fargo under the Fair Housing Act for reverse redlining, meaning the bank allegedly targeted black neighborhoods in Baltimore for predatory residential mortgage loans.

The city’s attorneys cleared a major hurdle in the case last week, when a federal judge denied Wells’ motion to dismiss. Judge Benson Legg of the Maryland Federal District Court said the court plans to move forward to the next stage of litigation and discovery in the city of Baltimore’s lawsuit.

The city contends that Wells Fargo’s lending practices from 2000 to the present have resulted in particularly high foreclosure rates and vacant properties in some of its most vulnerable, at-risk communities. The city of Baltimore claims damages of tens of millions of dollars stemming from the vacancies, including decreased property tax revenues, increased police and fire department costs, and the cost of boarding up and managing the vacant properties.

Cara Heiden, co-president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, said in a press statement from the bank, “We continue to believe that this lawsuit lacks merit. We welcome the opportunity to set the record straight and demonstrate the many controls we have in place to ensure fair, responsible, and nondiscriminatory lending for all our customers.”

The bank said that while the city claims Wells Fargo is responsible for its many revenue-related problems, it also cites in the lawsuit that less than 1 percent of Baltimore’s 33,000 foreclosures were associated with Wells Fargo. During the same period of time, the bank says it made $3.5 billion in home loans, most of which were prime mortgages.

Heiden added, “We have responsibly made homeownership possible for Baltimore borrowers using the many controls we have in place to ensure race is not a factor in the pricing and products we offer.”

However, according to a New York Times report last month, a former subprime loan officer with Wells Fargo substantiated the city’s accusations of discriminatory and predatory lending practices at the bank. The employee told the paper that she and her colleagues at Wells systematically singled out blacks in Baltimore and suburban Maryland for high-interest subprime mortgages. Judge Legg specifically cited statements from this employee and one other loan officer in last week’s ruling as “sufficient proof to proceed” with the suit.

The Baltimore-Wells Fargo faceoff prompted a Congressional hearing in late June to examine accusations against lenders of deliberate racial steering into subprime loans. New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney opened the hearing by saying, “Today, almost 1 in 6 subprime mortgages are in foreclosure compared to 1 in 40 prime mortgages in the United States.”

Maloney went on to say, “Evidence continues to come to light that many of the subprime borrowers who had pay stubs to prove their employment — and may have qualified for prime loans — were steered into more costly no doc loans by some lenders.”

The National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has also filed a class-action lawsuit against more than a dozen banks, including Wells Fargo, charging premeditated racial discrimination in their mortgage lending. The NAACP claims that during the subprime boom, black homebuyers were more than three times more likely to be saddled with an alternative, nonprime loan than white borrowers with comparable credit scores and income.
Ian, on July 8, 2009 at 7:40 pm said:

My servicing co. recently paid my real estate taxes, I always pay them one week before the deadline. I do not have an escrow acct. Is it legal for a servicing co. to do this unannounced? they have added the tax amt plus fees to my loan and are upcharging me. Also, at one point my homeowners insurance lapsed. Five months later I reinstated it. The servicing co. found out about it later still, and is demanding pmt for the 5 months during which it wasn’t paid. Is this legal?
mortgagelies, on July 8, 2009 at 5:04 pm said:

http://www.borrowerhotline.com /

The subprime mortgage meltdown of 2007 has led to an onslaught of foreclosures and it forced many banks to initiate cash for keys policy as standard procedure.
A standing offer of $20,000 cash for keys is subject to a counter offer of $25,000. I believe its forthcoming. Last big check was $50,000 [L.Lopez Wilshire Servicing Corporation. Contra Costa County.]

Here are the issues:

Obama’s TARP and Short Sale Relief Housing Act includes provisions for ensuring the borrower receives a meaningful workout and opportunity to preserve homeownership. No Obama cash for keys program I am aware of at this time.

The two biggest problems banks face when taking back a home in foreclosure are (used to be) the condition of the home and getting rid of its occupants.

This is why cash for keys is a quick and easy solution for many banks. I told you my belief is the asset never leaves the bank. The transfer of assets is an illusion. But the structure and obligation (obligor) by the parties and registrants prohibits maintaining any controlling interest in the asset sold. We know the trustee sale is a controlled sham and and as for cash for keys-

To date , GMAC is represented by an employee and thats a big mistake.

admin@borrowerhotline.com
livinglies, on July 8, 2009 at 9:31 am said:

MSOlimon: Are you saying you turned down $25,000 actual cash offer for keys? If so please send more details for post on blog.
livinglies, on July 8, 2009 at 9:25 am said:

Dear Admin at borrower hotline: I think the idea of establishing a receiver and requiring the pretender lender to post bond to even defend the case or pursue foreclosure is a great one and it is being used successfully to make the pretender lenders back off. We’ll see if the receivers are appointed and exactly WHO is required to post bond. WHEN THEY ASK FOR BOND AND EVEN IF THEY DON’T TAKE THE INITIATIVE AND DON’T LET THE “NON-JUDICIAL” STATUS STOP YOU. THE PARTY SEEKING THE INITIAL AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF IS THE PRETENDER LENDER EVEN IF YOU FILED SUIT. PART OF YOUR SUIT SHOULD BE AN EMERGENCY PETITION FOR TRO AND FOR THEM TO POST BOND. THE BORROWER HAS THEIR HOUSE ON THE LINE AND THE PRETENDER LENDER HAS NOTHING AT RISK, WHICH IS THE POINT OF YOUR DEFENSE. UNTIL THEY COME IN WITH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LOAN THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO POST BOND TO APPEAR IN COURT, TO MAKE CLAIMS, OR EVEN TO DEFEND AGAINST YOU CLAIMS BECAUSE THEY ARE CLOUDING YOUR TITLE AND RENDERING YOUR TITLE UNMARKETABLE.
Earl, on July 8, 2009 at 9:12 am said:

How can “Produce the Note” work in Texas?

I’m currently facing foreclosure August 4th, was thinking of using Produce the Note until I found this bit of info:

“Certified copies of public records are usually automatically considered authentic under Texas Rules of Evidence 901(7) and are exempt from hearsay typically under Texas Rules of Evidence 803(14).”

Took info from this site – change x’s to t’s – did not want to give them a free link:

hxxp://carylippincott.blogspot.com/2009/02/austin-lawyer-texas-courts-and-produce.html

Any ideas? Loan now with BOA – was originally with Countrywide and then as we all know BOA purchased CW.

Thanks,

Earl
Marcus, on July 7, 2009 at 6:22 pm said:

Foreclosure Attorneys Dirty Trick
By Marcus Aurelius

In most foreclosures, the plaintiff will initially claim that the original mortgage and note are lost and/or destroyed.
The attorney will file Count II for reestablishment of lost note. Don’t buy it; they know where the note and mortgage are.

They’re hoping to steamroll the process and that no one will object. Once a summon is served with a count for reestablishment of lost note, a defendant should immediately file a motion to dismiss since the original documents are missing. Once the motion is filed, the original mortgage and note will miraculously appear and the attorney for the plaintiff will move to voluntarily drop count II. They are testing the water; so should you.
They will schedule a hearing for the judge to hear your motion to dismiss. A few days before the hearing, they will come up with the original mortgage and note. This will throw off most pro se defendant.

Don’t panic. Immediately file a voluntary dismissal of your motion. You don’t want to go to the hearing with them dangling the original documents in front of the judge. After that you can file for another motion to dismiss or file your answer.

Marcus (info@foreclosureprose.com)
VG Diaz, on July 7, 2009 at 10:22 am said:

Does anyone has a Motion to Compel Answer to QWR or deem admitted that may share?

My email is vgdiaz@earthlink.net

Thanking you in advance.
VG Diaz, on July 6, 2009 at 5:46 pm said:

Does anyone know how to stop a foreclosure in a non-judical state (Nevada)?

Borrower has never been served with any type of documentation, and a notice was placed on his front door from a real estate agent informing him that the property has been foreclosed.

Can anyonoe give some tips?

Thanks.
James, on July 6, 2009 at 9:01 am said:

July 5, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Bernie Madoff Is No John Dillinger
By FRANK RICH

THE judge condemned Bernie Madoff’s crimes as “extraordinarily evil.” The New York Daily News, whose publisher was a Madoff victim, chose “The Pariah” as its front-page headline and promised that the dastardly villain would suffer “everlasting consumption in the jaws of the devil.” The Times declared that the Madoff case, by attaching a human face to a financial meltdown that produced fear, panic and loss, had “put an entire era on trial.”

But for all this rhetorical thunder, Madoff’s 150-year sentence still seemed an anticlimax, as if the trial of the century had ended without a verdict. There was no national catharsis. The news landed with something of a thud. On the most-watched network newscast, “NBC Nightly News,” it received second billing to Day Four of updates on Michael Jackson’s death.

Madoff, it turned out, was no Public Enemy No. 1 to rival John Dillinger, the Great Depression thug at the center of Hollywood’s timely release this holiday weekend, “Public Enemies.” In the context of our own Great Recession, Madoff’s old-fashioned Ponzi scheme was merely a one-off next to the esoteric (and often legal) heists by banks and bankers. They gamed the entire system, then took the money and ran before the bubble burst, sticking the rest of us with that fear, panic and loss.

The estimated $65 billion involved in Madoff’s flimflam is dwarfed by the more than $2.5 trillion paid so far by American taxpayers to bail out those masters of Wall Street’s universe. A.I.G. alone has already left us on the hook for $180 billion. It’s hard for those who didn’t have money with Madoff to get worked up about him when so many of the era’s real culprits have slipped away scot-free. Already some of those same players are up to similarly greedy shenanigans again now that the coast seems to be clear.

Washington had no choice but to ride to their rescue last fall to prevent even greater systemic catastrophe. But that rescue is tainted. As the economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote in this month’s Vanity Fair, “In the developing world, people look at Washington and see a system of government that allowed Wall Street to write self-serving rules which put at risk the entire global economy — and then, when the day of reckoning came, turned to Wall Street to manage the recovery. They see continued re-distributions of wealth to the top of the pyramid, transparently at the expense of ordinary citizens.”

Not just in the developing world, but in America. Look at what we saw last week alone.

To beat out the implementation of new regulations, banks are rapidly jacking up checking-account charges and credit card fees, even for those who have paid their bills on time. As Eric Dash of The Times reported on Thursday, the institutions that received the most bailout loot are often the biggest offenders.

That would include the too-big-to-fail Citigroup, which has so far received $45 billion in taxpayers’ money, along with guarantees on $300 billion in toxic assets, to mitigate its reckless risk-taking during the reign of such obscenely rewarded (and now departed) executives as Charles Prince and Robert Rubin. While taxpayers will soon own some 34 percent of Citi, it is not only increasing our credit card interest rates (to nearly 30 percent in some cases) but raising its own base salaries (by 50 percent) to work around Washington’s new restrictions on bonuses. New rules may come and go, but loopholes remain eternal.

We also have learned, from The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, that Goldman Sachs, another bailout recipient, is on track to pay its employees an average of $700,000 each in 2009, which, incredibly, is a bit higher than its compensation average in the pre-crash year of 2007. In a scathing and controversial new article in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi accuses Goldman of having earned such rewards by engineering “every major market manipulation since the Great Depression.”

What’s uncontroversial and indisputable is that Goldman alumni have played key roles in both the Bush and Obama administrations’ responses to the current crisis — even though Goldman has a big stake in the outcome. The dense revolving-door conflicts of interest are appalling. Goldman is howling about Taibbi’s article, but the bottom line was articulated last week by the economic blogger Felix Salmon of Reuters. He wrote that he couldn’t “think of a single government regulation over the past couple of decades which has remotely harmed Goldman Sachs” as opposed to the many that “have done it a world of good.”

Goldman also rules at the New York Fed, a supposed monitor of Wall Street. Until May the Fed’s chairman was serving simultaneously on the Goldman board; he resigned only after The Wall Street Journal reported that he was also still buying Goldman stock during his Fed tenure. At least that other failed watchdog, the Securities and Exchange Commission, has now cleaned house. But Politico reported last week that its new chairwoman, Mary Schapiro, had been the star draw at a lavish June banquet for the S.E.C. Historical Society, an independent organization that sold tables for up to $7,500 to “law and lobbying firms that do business with the S.E.C.” Among the buyers: Standard & Poor’s, a credit ratings agency that enabled the subprime bubble by giving its approval to wildly speculative derivatives.

It’s against this grand backdrop of business-as-usual at the top of the pyramid that we learned at week’s end that the speed of job losses is accelerating again. The government also reported that Americans who still do have jobs now have an average 33-hour workweek, the lowest since tracking began in 1964.

The Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis is rapidly facing its own stress tests. We will soon learn the ultimate fate and stringency of the regulatory package sent to Congress, including the consumer-protection agency the banks want to maim or kill. The stimulus’s ability to put Americans back to work remains an open question. Should we have a jobless recovery or, worse, a second-wave recession like the one that blindsided F.D.R. in 1937, it will be as catastrophic for the Democrats as it will be for the country.

Barney Frank seems to understand the political dynamic better than the White House. He told bankers back in February, “People really hate you, and they’re starting to hate us because we’re hanging out with you.” If the administration wants to be reminded of how quickly today’s already sour mood can turn rancid, Michael Mann’s haunting “Public Enemies” could not be a more apt refresher course. The casting alone tells you where the audience’s sympathies will lie: Dillinger is played by America’s reigning male sweetheart, Johnny Depp, while his G-man pursuer, Melvin Purvis, is in the hands of the thorny Christian Bale.

“Public Enemies” doesn’t make a federal case of parallels between its era and ours. It doesn’t have to. But it’s instructive to revisit the actual history. In the book that inspired the film, the journalist Bryan Burrough writes that Detective magazine polled movie theater owners during Dillinger’s yearlong spree of 1933-34, and found that in terms of drawing audience applause Public Enemy No. 1 beat out F.D.R. and Charles Lindbergh. Roosevelt ran with it. As Steve Fraser writes in his cultural history of Wall Street, “Every Man a Speculator,” F.D.R. “likened his Wall Street villains to ‘kidnappers and bank robbers’ eluding capture” in his 1936 re-election campaign. He knew Wall Street manipulators were the real targets of the public’s ire.

Another look at this much-chronicled past, “Dillinger’s Wild Ride,” by Elliott J. Gorn, a professor of history at Brown University, is the first to be published during our own hard times. In it you learn that ordinary law-abiding Americans even wrote letters to newspapers and politicians defending Dillinger’s assault on banks. “Dillinger did not rob poor people,” wrote one correspondent to The Indianapolis Star. “He robbed those who became rich by robbing the poor.”

Gorn writes that the current economic crisis helped him understand better why Americans could root for a homicidal bank robber: “As our own day’s story of stupid policies and lax regulations, of greedy moneymen, free-market hucksters, white-collar thieves, and self-serving politicians unfolds, and as banks foreclose on millions of families’ homes, workers lose their jobs, and life savings disappear, it becomes clear why Dillinger’s wild ride so fascinated America during the 1930s.” An outlaw could channel a people’s “sense of rage at the system that had failed them.”

As Gorn reminds us, Americans who felt betrayed didn’t just take to cheering Dillinger; some turned to the populism of Huey Long, or to right-wing and anti-Semitic demagogues like Father Coughlin, or to the Communist Party. The passions unleashed by economic inequities are explosive because those inequities violate the fundamental capitalist faith. It’s the bedrock American dream that virtues like hard work and playing by the rules are rewarded with prosperity.

In 2009, too many who worked hard and played by the rules are still suffering, while too many who bent or broke the rules with little or no accountability are back reaping a disproportionate share of what scant prosperity there is. The tepid national
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 4, 2009 at 8:30 pm said:

Sean

Fraud claim? More than meets the eye here Sir! Contract fraud for forgery? Deceptive or illegal endorsements? Who are the parties to a matter of a fraudulent act? Case law for fraud?

This instance of lender fraud (allegations) wont get your home back . . . but will establish arguments for a criminal complaint (doubtful) and civil action –

Where are you claiming this has caused your loan to be impaired and how are you damaged in foreclosure with a likely outstanding accrual beyond 4 to 6 months?

Rescind and start foreclosure over again?

There is a good doc review company in San Diego who can render an expert opinion and testify! Or there are plenty of private investigators out there.

But whats it got to do with a delinqunet balance due a secured lender?

Now…consider the reasons why this occurred…that is what you need to discover!

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Sean, on July 4, 2009 at 12:09 pm said:

In the foreclosure, the lender attatched a copy of the original note. On carefull examination of the signature it is quite obvious that someone signed over our signature. The copy submitted to the court clearly shows that the lender electronically removed the second signature because my signature is not even legible anymore. Can anyone explain what this is called so I can look up case law. It doesnt sound like forgery, it might fall under the catagory of alteration but I cant find anything.
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 4, 2009 at 12:28 am said:

THE LOAN SHUFFLE PROBLEM
By MSoliman
July 4, 2009

As financial firms bought, bundled and sold mortgages to third parties, often multiple times, something got lost in the shuffle. A big concern is the purchase and sale of the assets represents nothing more than a paper shuffle.

The problem is for the FSB or REIT to avoid liability and make genuine the appearance of different holders (in due course) who claim to be the owner. According to a Los Angeles based analyst, Maher Soliman, “out one minute we see the case revolving around a plaintiff being told to pay one person, then we had another. You don’t know who the mortgage company really is.”

In a class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, the plaintiff argues the mortgage holder and others moved to foreclose before they actually had the paperwork. “Research shows that 15 to 30 percent of foreclosures are affected by this problem. In these cases, the lenders DON’T have the legal authority to foreclose at the time they begin the foreclosure process”, said Soliman.

An attorney representing one of the defendants in a case we are involved in claims, “Many of the factual and legal allegations in the complaint… are false and inaccurate.” He, like so many other attorneys acting in a similar role immediately move to file a motion to dismiss the suit.

Asking foreclosing lenders to produce documentation is a growing legal tactic being used around the country claims the defendants. Attorneys for the plaintiff’s with whom we are engaged (NLS) caution this tactic must be supported by the claims or else it is not always a permanent solution. It can none the less buy struggling homeowners something that can help – MORE TIME.

MSoliman
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm said:

We are engaged with Attorneys who are seeking information from borrowers in foreclosure where Sun Trust either originated or serviced the subject loan.

Call MSoliman Nationwide Loan Services Call Toll Free 877-732-7653

admin@borrowerhotline.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 2, 2009 at 3:03 pm said:

M. Terbeek Esq. …..got love this Guy Nor Cal.

DATELINE: Semi victory in CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. M Terbeek Counsel and MSoliman Expert for Plaintiff in prelim. Hearing /order to show cause. Plaintiff seeking TRO intending to file for Injunction. Counsel hopes for an outside chance to consolidate cases prior to the UD being filed in holdover matter.

Defendants are a no show! Judge (get this one) continues the matter for ……one year…? (I choked upon hearing the courts order). More to come on this strange and unusual situation.

MSoliman
admin@fordclosureinfosearch.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on July 2, 2009 at 2:59 pm said:

M. Terbeek Esq. …..got love this neither guy nor cal.

DATELINE: semi victory in CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY of. . .. Counsel and Expert and present for prelim. Hearing / order to show cause. Plaintiff seeking a tro intending to file an injunction with outside chance to consolidate cases prior to the ud being filed in holdover matter. Defendants are a no show! Judge (get this one) continues the matter for ……one year…? (I choked upon hearing the courts order).

More to come on this strange and unusual situation.

MSoliman
admin@fordclosureinfosearch.com
Marcus, on July 1, 2009 at 7:22 pm said:

Counter-claim to use in Florida agains pretender lenders:
Violation of F.S 559.72(9)

Florida Statute 559.72(9) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist;
Allan (with a response to Abby, Marcus and Maher), on July 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm said:

ABBY, interestingly in Florida, the lawyers must likely have crafted the consumer rights against lawyers. The bar provides little information about complaints on file.

Worse is that a FL lawyer can just up and sue a consumer who accuses him/her of dereliction of duty, according to a litigant I know. Chilling effect?

MAHER, Neil is right and clearly sees a trend unfolding. I believe, if my ADHD impaired memory serves, I contemporaneously posted the Moyers/Black interview here AND the link to the video of it.

You’re totally right, Bernie is a Picker by comparison. 150 years in jail will not make up for lax regulation assured the banksters and defrauders by legislators and the lobbyists who put the special interest before the common good.

Let’s hear it for whistleblowers, rendered virtually impotent the past 8 years. What iniquity do you propose we expose? How can we go about documenting it? How shall we fund this venture?

MARCUS: The world has not heard from you, lo, it feels like centuries. You were quite the just Emperor, so how might we explain the evil acorn Commodus you fathered?

I’ll never forget what you once said that seems so on spot for our times, “We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that. ”

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Abby, on July 1, 2009 at 9:34 am said:

RE: Marcus guidance on attorneys.

Additional advice–each state has a state bar organization and they typically have internet website.

Go there and check the status of the attorney’s license to practice.

Usually you just type in the attorney’s name and information should come up on whether his/her license is active and good, inactive or suspended OR it the attorney might be practicing law WITHOUT a license. Also listed are past actions on the license.

Also, check Martindale Hubbel website to learn
area of expertise of the attorney and where he/she went to school etc.

http://www.martindale.com/

You can also input a lawyer complaint at this site.
GrammyG, on July 1, 2009 at 9:07 am said:

Abby
Thanks for the info
Abby, on July 1, 2009 at 8:37 am said:

To Grammy G

Try Tim McCandless, ESQ. He is licensed in Calif and has done great work with pre-foreclosure and post foreclosure. He is out of Victorville, but does travel, even as far north as Sacramento.

If you have money and can get him…he is great.
I have a friend of a friend in the Bay area who used him successfully with their case.

Keep fighting for your home.
GrammyG, on July 1, 2009 at 8:20 am said:

Marcus
I’m at the point where I’m running out of time. I have been fighting for our home for over a year. During this time, we have spoken to a dozen attorneys’ between SF and LA. I will admit during this time we had little or no money to fight with, but the tide has turned for us. But at the same time, our house has been taken back by the bank, we filed Chapter 7 and can only find one that will review our loan docs.
Where we live, it’s either to far or the attorneys’ just don’t want to get involved. Trust me, at this time, money is not our problem
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on June 30, 2009 at 8:23 pm said:

Want to throw a Mortgage trust into receivership?

Don’t let attorneys tell you the investors woes are not related to a borrower. The investor has the SEC on their side with badges and firearms drawn at the lender. Borrowers have HUD fighting for them and a big feather that is used to tickle a lenders feet ….whatever.

If the accounting rules and regulatory mandates of the comission emphasize saving the investors at all costs, then assume borrowers and liquidation of assets (homes) and not a meaningful workout are the cost of maintaining compliance and to avoid jail!

ACCOUNTING FOR CERDITORS FOR IMPAIRMENT OF A LOAN: Loan loss provisioning is a focus for regulators of community banks thrifts and accounting for trusts. Creditors wont ignore factors and information obtained in the evaluation of the loans collectability.

Do readers, spelling “B” fools, and ADD victims remember the stellar profits Wells and others posted recently? Loan-loss reserves are capital that a bank sets aside to offset potential losses from loans or other receivables that aren’t paid. By setting aside money for loan-loss reserves, a company lowers the amount of its quarterly profit.

However, when the actual losses occur, the company has set aside funds to be able to cover the anticipated losses. As the economy weakens, companies typically increase their loan-loss reserves.

A persistent mortgage related accounting problem is proper determination of loan loss provisions since reserves are not necessarily calculated according to rule vs prudent judgment. Therein lays the possibility for manipulation by either understatement in order to manage reported earnings or other wise biased perceptions about the thrifts or banks performance.

FASB determined that some mortgage loans carried on the books as assets are specifically identified for necessary evaluation. “Stated Income Stated Assets” loans are an example with an adjustable rate that has or is due to recast.

These assets may be individually impaired while other loans remain non impaired individually pursuant to FAS 114.

FAS 5 : Studies show up to 80 percent of these stated income loans are likley impaired. So, as a group the “Stated Loans” loans shere specific characteristics that indicate that there would be a probable loss in a group of loans with those characteristics. Loans in the second category would fall into FAS 5.

These poor loan characteristics or risk factors must be specifically identified to support accrual for losses. The loss must be accrued even though not yet probable and where they will have reached a point where it is probable the amounts (losses) are recognized as non collectable.

What does this mean. There is no where near the amount to cash necessary to reserve for the problem loans we see on (someones balance sheet) for which people are struggling to try to keep their homes. ….That means foreclosure, not a meaningful work out or settlement, is the only option.

Want to throw a Mortgage Trust into receivership?
msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on June 30, 2009 at 7:52 pm said:

Hire an expert –
Cash for keys offer today / matter of borrower v GMAC Homecomings;
Northern California
Offer $25,000.

Offer – Refused! Going to trial!

MSoliman
secondarytradedesk@yahoo.com
Marcus, on June 30, 2009 at 6:27 pm said:

How to Find a Competent Foreclosure Attorney
By Marcus Aurelius

If you can afford an attorney, it is advisable to hire one to defend your foreclosure. The big “if” of course is affordability. Having said that, we should keep in mind that all attorneys are not created equal. An incompetent attorney can be cost you money and your case; there are enough of them to be wary. Here is some advice in finding a good foreclosure attorney.
Once the initial foreclosure complaint is filed by the plaintiff, your name and address will become public record and will be available for mass mailing. You will certainly receive numerous solicitations from local attorneys. Armed with the solicitation letters, go to your county clerk web site and do a party search on some of the attorneys in your list. Some counties’ system allows you to do searches by parties; some systems do have that functionality. Once you’re able to pull a list of cases with the attorney as a defense council, check the docket entries. Has the attorney been fighting vigorously for his/her clients?
By reviewing few cases, you can determine how good an attorney is.
Has he files any pre-answer motions?
Has he filed any affirmative defenses and counter –claims?
Was he persistent in his discovery method?
What is his win/loose ratio?
If you want more information beyond dockets review, go to the court house and request to see the files you’re interested in. Read the pleadings filed by the attorney. You can even make copies to take home. Once you feel comfortable with an attorney competence, then you should make the jump. There is no guaranty, but at least you made an educated guess.
livinglies, on June 30, 2009 at 1:35 pm said:

msoliman: patience. Not everything is as it is appears. The glass is now more than half full. Keep plugging. You won’t be sorry.
secondarytradedesk, on June 30, 2009 at 12:45 am said:

Allan;

The man is correct. I compile notes through out the day, weeks and months…and then share them. I work 24 hours straight at times…..use these notes to paste together “raw” information. It is not meant to be a literary project … just facts.

I am sorry as there is no excuse for spelling.ADHD is something you know a lot about?
secondarytradedesk, on June 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm said:

People. The horses are loading and its post time…race to begin. Pick your horse and buy your ticket then dont look back.

The Fed Savings Bank never relinquished the loan. Everything is done as a subsequent event. This opens the door to fraud on a massive scale unheard of in modern times. FAS 140 and AB 1122 with auditor attestation reports everywhere and no respect for GAAP of basis accounting. Their only means of not reserving for losses is foreclosure. So the homeowners loses. There never ever was a chance at a work out. Are you listening.

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time! These are my peers do not forget….We need a Whistle Blower…People, just one WB and we bring down the white collar lies.

Just one person fearful of doing the time

“Bernie is a Picker compared to this”….and “Indy Mac will cost more than the entire bail out of 1989 and FIRREA legislation”.

msoliman
msoliman@ borrowerhotline.com

Go to U Tube and watch (search) Bill Moyers / PBS / David Black. (it’s bad…real bad).
877-732-7653
VG Diaz, on June 27, 2009 at 7:53 pm said:

Have anyone heard of a Florida Statute hat provides Lost Note Affidavits have no standing unless the loan is over 20+ years? if so, can you please the F.S.?

Thanks.
Lynne, on June 26, 2009 at 10:14 am said:

Lisa,

Try http://www.theforeclosureproject.org/ –

Lynne
954-240-2003
Abby, on June 26, 2009 at 8:11 am said:

Lisa-none of us are ‘deadbeat financial failures’…we’ve been robbed and it was planned!

It has happened to thousands, if not millions of people in USA.

I was an executive who became ill and they preyed on me! AND I don’t mean ‘pray to GOD pray’…I mean
preyed as in predatory!

Whatever you do, don’t let them get that judgement…

Try to get a Motion to Dismiss that someone has written and filed down there.

Or maybe someone from this site can send you one for you to use as a template.

Good Luck…but act fast!!

Chin up.
VG Diaz, on June 26, 2009 at 7:44 am said:

June 09, 2009 – For immediate release:

Attorney General Martha Coakley Reaches $10 Million Settlement with Subprime Lender Fremont Investment and Loan

Thousands of homeowners protected from foreclosure
View accompanying media:

Supporting materials
Press statement audio and transcript
Press statement video

BOSTON – Today, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office entered into a settlement with Fremont Investment & Loan and its parent Fremont General Corporation (“Fremont”) to resolve the Commonwealth’s lawsuit against the California-based lender. Fremont has agreed to pay the Commonwealth $10 million in consumer relief, civil penalties and costs. Fremont has also agreed not to foreclose upon unfair loans without certain protections for borrowers or originate unfair loans in the Commonwealth. Those protections against foreclosure, which have been in place since the Superior Court issued a Preliminary Injunction in March 2008 are now permanent and also apply to the loan holders and servicers who acquired the Fremont loans since the injunction issued.

“The American dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare for many borrowers because of predatory lending practices. We have vigorously sought to hold companies accountable for these practices, and today we have taken another important step toward achieving that goal.” said Attorney General Coakley. “With the $10 million we have obtained through this settlement, we have an opportunity to provide consumers and the Commonwealth with additional relief from the predatory lending practices that have besieged our state and nation. We will continue to hold companies responsible for their role in the foreclosure crisis.”

Under the terms of the settlement, Fremont has agreed to pay the Commonwealth $10 million, including $8 million in consumer relief, $1 million in civil penalties, and $1 million in costs, including attorneys’ fees. The consumer relief funds will be used to redress the negative impact of mortgage foreclosures, predatory lending practices, and to provide relief to Massachusetts borrowers.

Additionally, the settlement makes permanent the terms of the preliminary injunction granted in February 2008. In that preliminary injunction, the Superior Court held that certain Fremont loans were “presumptively unfair” because by their very terms—short term interest rates followed by payment shock, plus high loan-to-value and high debt-to-income ratios—were likely to lead to default and foreclosure. For those loans, the court established a notice and objection process before Fremont or its assignees or servicers could initiate foreclosures. Under this process the Attorney General’s Office receives:

30 days’ advance notice for loans that are either (1) ‘not presumptively unfair’; (2) vacant; or (3) not the borrowers’ primary residence.
45 days’ advance notice for loans that are ‘presumptively unfair.’
If the Attorney General’s Office objects after initial notice then the parties have 15 days to resolve their dispute. If the dispute remains then Fremont must seek court approval to foreclose. After the notice and objection process, Fremont may only proceed with a foreclosure to which the Attorney General objects if Fremont requests and receives approval from the Superior Court. In considering whether to allow the foreclosure, the court will consider, among other factors, whether the loan is unfair and whether Fremont has taken reasonable steps to work out the loan and avoid foreclosure. Fremont also agreed not to originate unfair loans.

The Attorney General’s Office filed suit on October 5, 2007, in Suffolk Superior Court against Fremont and its parent company, Fremont General Corporation based on the defendants’ unfair and deceptive loan origination and sales conduct. The complaint specifically alleges that the company was selling risky loan products that it knew was designed to fail, such as 100% financing loans and “no documentation” loans. The complaint further alleged that the company sold these loans through third party brokers and provided financial incentives to these brokers to sell high cost products.

As a result of the lawsuit, up to 2,200 Fremont-originated loans have been protected from unrestricted foreclosures, because the preliminary injunction allowed foreclosures to proceed only after the underlying loan was analyzed for unfair, ultra-risky loan criteria. Although Fremont originated about 15,000 loans in Massachusetts from 2004 through 2007, only 2,200 of those loans remained “live” when the lawsuit commenced. Even though most of the 2,200 loans had been transferred to new holders and servicers, the Superior Court’s preliminary injunction required that those holders also were restricted by the court’s order.

The enforcement action against Fremont is a central part of Attorney General Coakley’s initiative to combat predatory lending. The settlement follows the unanimous decision from the state’s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in December 2008 which affirmed the Superior Court’s order barring Fremont from foreclosing on any structurally unfair loan without court approval. That decision confirmed the fundamental aspects of the Commonwealth’s case against Fremont, namely that a lender’s failure to reasonably assess a borrower’s ability to repay his or her loan and the use of loan features that predictably lead to foreclosure is unfair and deceptive in violation of Massachusetts law. The SJC further affirmed it is unfair and a violation of the Massachusetts law to originate loans in such a manner that would lead predictably to a borrower’s default and foreclosure, even if such loans are underwritten with the assumption that borrowers could refinance out of the loans.

Attorney General Coakley has undertaken a multifaceted approach to combat the foreclosure crisis and predatory lending. This initiative includes Attorney General Coakley’s latest inquiry into the role of securitizers—those who bundled mortgage loans and sold them as mortgage-backed securities or other investments—and recent $60 million settlement with Goldman Sachs for its role in securitizing subprime loans, including subprime loans originated by Fremont. The Attorney General’s Office has also sued Option One and its parent H&R Block, alleging unfair, deceptive and predatory lending practices, and obtained preliminary injunctions against those companies. The Office also promulgated consumer protection regulations, effective in January 2008, governing mortgage lenders and brokers. In addition, the Attorney General’s Office has also brought civil and criminal actions against local lenders and brokers who engaged in fraudulent lending activity, or who perpetrated foreclosure rescue or loan modification scams.

This matter was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Jean Healey, John Stephan, and Shannon Choy-Seymour of the Consumer Protection Division, Financial Investigator Christine Murphy, and Assistant Attorney General Christopher Barry-Smith, Chief of the Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau.
Marcus, on June 26, 2009 at 4:19 am said:

Lisa,
As long as you have a motion to dismiss pending, you don’t have to file an answer. That alone can buy you weeks if not months of additional time.

Marcus (Pro Se)
Lisa E., on June 26, 2009 at 2:44 am said:

Thank you Abby!

I will review your recommended links in depth.

Yes, I sought out and met with a legal aid attorney. Due to the clamoring for legal aid help with foreclosures, I was able to procure a 10 minute meeting and brief legal advice on filing a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Strike. The very competent and kind, but vastly overwhelmed, attorney stated she could offer more assistance if I were “elderly”! Not much I can do about that!

I will look into ACORN. I hadn’t thought of that before.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to post back to me! I feel much less like a “deadbeat financial failure” since I’ve come to this site.

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Allan (with a question for Maher Soliman), on June 25, 2009 at 11:58 pm said:

Greetings, Maher,

I continue to read your postings, Maher, despite your sometimes third world syntax, challenged spelling and grammar, and distracting meanderings, because you had an inside view of what got us collectively into this mess.

I cannot gainsay, every once in a while offer up a most valuable golden nugget.

You have knowledge we all could use around here, in the grassroots, and out on the ramparts. The problem is in your delivery, and in how you are perceived when you engage in public exchanges.

From your many disjointed comments, you sometimes convey the impression you have ADD (which I recognize as someone being treated for it), or are on meds (I’m on those as well). Either that or the schools you attended never required you to hone your written or other communication skills as a predicate to graduation.

Care to try this again? “Inquiring minds want to know.”

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com

PS BTW I deliberately left one or more mistakes (e.g. ellipted word, or other) in the above for you to spot. Now you’ll appreciate the agonies of a proofreader or copywriter)
Abby, on June 25, 2009 at 11:54 pm said:

Lisa

more good information
http://www.foreclosureuniversity.com/studycenter/foreclosurelaws/florida.php

seems like one attorney is saying, of course, you must file a timely answer, OR you can file a motion to dismiss, but you better have solid facts/reasons to do this and have the Florida law to support it in your motion

Did you try to call your local ACORN office or legal aid? sometimes they can help for free..
Abby, on June 25, 2009 at 11:40 pm said:

to Lisa

read the information on Florida order to show cause etc. This is a great summary of Florida procedure.
Try not to let them get a summary judgment….

http://www.foreclosureuniversity.com/studycenter/foreclosurelaws/florida.php

If you can access and view any Florida cases online in the same venue as your forelcosure proceeding…ask the civil clerk if they can tell you how….then find other foreclosure cases and see what they did…you might even find a good template for your defense….
Lisa E., on June 25, 2009 at 10:38 pm said:

Quoting Marcus from below: “My strategy is to file many motions in order to test the water. I then send QWR to get more info. I then follow with interrogatories to tight the rope. If there are still unknown, you file your admissions. Only then I will feel comfortable writing my answer. You want to make sure your T’s are crossed and your I’s are dotted when it comes to answers. Because once you miss a defense, you can’t use it again.”

I agree 100%! Of course, having started this process without a freaking clue, I’ve made mistakes, filed things a little bit out of the above order. I rue the day I filed my inadequate productions with little understanding. There is all kinds of clever trickery in the law.

Marcus, one thing that must be addressed is that there has to be SOME sort of Answer to the foreclosure complaint in a judicial state (specifically Florida there is 20 days). I don’t know how to answer that complaint and still maintain the right to other defenses. I made some errors in this regard. Maybe a motion for extension of time would work? I squandered my 20 days in paralyzing abject fear, followed by a scramble to consult attorneys whose $3,500-$5,000 retainer fees were out of my financial reach.

Now, I am armed with growing understanding of the issues, broader information base, an online go-to support site, empathetic sorrow for my fellow “foreclosees”, and sense of an injustice being done to my fellow countrymen.

So, GOOD LUCK everyone! By the end of all this, my posts may actually sound like I know what I’m talking about!
Alina, on June 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm said:

I just ran across this article from WFTV.com – Channel 9 news:

Bank Locks Woman Out Of Her Own Home

Posted: 6:31 pm EDT June 24, 2009Updated: 1:22 pm EDT June 25, 2009
OSCEOLA COUNTY, Fla. — Eyewitness News found an Osceola County homeowner won her battle in court to save her home from foreclosure, but the bank wouldn’t listen.

Ana Chavez used to live on Kilimanjaro Drive until the Bank of America changed her door locks in violation of a court ruling.

A judge told the bank that if Chavez does not get her keys by noon Thursday, he’s is dismissing the foreclosure lawsuit and the bank will face more penalties.

In the meantime, the bank couldn’t explain why it took over a house it did not own. Homeowner Ana Chavez is fighting to save her home from going into foreclosure. She is hoping to modify her loan and Chavez thought she was one step closer when a judge ruled in her favor last month.

Bank of America asked the judge to set a foreclosure sale date on her Kissimmee home, but the judge denied the request. Despite the judge’s ruling, the bank decided to take over Chavez’s home.

“What they did is illegal. We have a case open and they are not suppose to do that,” said Chavez.

Ana Chavez had been away from her home for a couple of days. When she came home she tried to get into her house, but all the locks had been changed.

The bank hired a locksmith, changed the locks and refused to give Chavez access to her home. The bank’s attorney even called the bank and said there was a mistake, but those calls were ignored too.

“I thought this was never going to happen me I was very upset. I think this is terrible,” said Chavez.

Attorney Adam Sudbury says he hopes the punishment sends a message to the banks.

“These banks and these attorneys they steam roll over people like there is no tomorrow and unfortunately for them sometimes they run into a road block,” said Sudbury.

Judge James Stroker wasn’t happy with the bank’s actions and has now ordered Bank of America to turn over the keys to her within 24 hours, pay for Chavez’s attorney’s fees and the bank may also have to pay for her living expenses.
Marcus, on June 25, 2009 at 2:36 pm said:

Abby,
I am not an expert in banking laws, but I will venture to say that being federally chartered does not trump state right to protect it citizens. A national bank still has to comply with the law of the state in which it is doing business. I just checked Florida sunbiz.org web site for Wachovia, Deutshe Bank and Bank of America. They are all registered; however, USBANK is not.
I went to California Secretary of State web portal (http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/), all three institutions are registered except USBANK. So what is going on with USBank?
This is question to ask in Interrogatories.
Allan (with a question for Marcus), on June 25, 2009 at 12:57 pm said:

Marcus,

Greatly appreciate your strategies on how to get as much discovery before filing an answer.

You state,”Because once you miss a defense, you can’t use it again.”

Hmmmm, what if you’re able to convert an overlooked ‘defense’ through a counterclaim?

Also, what if you only discover you have a defense AFTER you’ve uncovered new evidence? For instance, you failed to plead ‘satisfaction’ or ‘payment,’ but discovered later (after filing your answer) your ‘lender’ was reimbursed or paid off.

Can one ever, when asking the court for leave to amend an a pleading, add an overlooked defense?

Esteemed counsel Neil? Any other counselor ” who gets it”? Care to weigh in?

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Abby, on June 25, 2009 at 10:17 am said:

Marcus
is that true for Calif as well—even if Bank is nationally chartered, it has to register as a business entity in Calif?
Thank you
Marcus, on June 25, 2009 at 10:14 am said:

Alina,
I don’t think you can use F.S 736.0205. The plaintiff is a bank not a trust. The trust is irrelevant in this instance, because they are not bringing the suit in the name of the trust but as themselves. There is a big difference.
I think F.S 617.1502 applies to federal banks too. Any entity doing business in Florida should be registered with the state.
I checked sunbiz.org and Bank of America for instance has an active registration. However, USBank registration expired and did not renew. So whether it is a federally chartered bank or not, it still must register with each state where you’re doing business.

In my opinion, answers should be filled as late as possible. You need to get a full picture before you can write an effective answer. My strategy is to file many motions in order to test the water. I then send QWR to get more info. I then follow with interrogatories to tight the rope. If there are still unknown, you file your admissions.
Only then I will feel comfortable writing my answer. You want to make sure your T’s are crossed and your I’s are dotted when it comes to answers. Because once you miss a defense, you can’t use it again.
Marcus
Alina, on June 25, 2009 at 7:22 am said:

Marcus,

Thanks, but the trusts are not corporations and neither are the trustees. The trusts are business trusts. The trustees are usually banks (FSBs, to be exact). In my case, it is a national bank that operates under federal laws not state laws.

This FL statute does not apply in my case.

Florida Statute 736.0205 does apply. I cited the wrong statute in my answer, but the case law cited follows 736.0205. I am working on amending my answer.

Alina
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on June 25, 2009 at 7:14 am said:

THE B&C MARKET WAS EMERGING AND THAT WAS A TURNING POINT THAT KEPT ME FROM AN MBA. WE TRADED PAPER FLOW BACK THEN TO GE, TEXTRON, SEARS AND FORD MOTOR CREDIT.

October 2008
By MSoliman

I graduated with a business undergraduate from CSUN, Los Angeles. Later, from 1988-89 I attended the John Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA. I left UCLA early and with that my desire to be a CPA. The departure from graduate school was to devote myself to a evolving new industry sector of finance that was up and coming called B&C lending (sub prime consumer debt). I would eventually start my own company.

My first job out of school was automobile financing underwriting leases for high end automobiles while at a small thrift in Pasadena ran by a guy with expensive suits and a cool tan named Angel Mozilo. About that time (1985) Countrywide stock was re-listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol CFC. I worked next to Angelo Mozilo.

After leasing some high end automobiles to on air talent for ABC news, I befriended the general manager Tom Van Amberg. We spent long hours talking about business, television and air time sales. It’s what I wanted to (TV spot sales) do more than anything, but as things worked out I left Countrywide to take a branch manager position at an S&L or thrift as we would say. I followed Angelo over the years while he kept focused as he went on to grow his business plan in “A” paper mortgages and become a market leader. (If only I knew then what I know now).

I took a position with TOPA a Los Angles based thrift under ownership of a CPA and Attorney named John Anderson (named for the UCLA Graduate School). Anderson has a fairly good sized law practice and CPA firm in addition to owning the thrift (Forbes 400 member). I took over a thrift branch office for a guy named Mike Sawyer (who later became the President of SAXON Mortgage). TOPA was a hard Money lender that would not acknowledge being a hard money leader in the western United States. It was here that you learned to underwrite a tight file BY THE BOOK! At TOPA, we rookies used to have a saying that was “make a mistake, and you will lose your collateral”. There were internal auditors everywhere, and you never wanted to cross them.

Funny, your first loan origination (underwriting) is similar to first date or first time alone driving a car. My first taste of acceptance was to a real estate mortgage investor who bought notes named Schneider’s. The request was a hypothecation and what a way to start a lending career. What a novel idea, “borrowing money against debt owned and pledged as an asset by a lender” (remember this commentary).

I wrote lots of loans to people in trouble who needed a last chance effort to repairs the fiancinial problems they were having. Hard Money, B&C, Sub Prime, Non Agency whatever. We made money if they paid; more if they were delinquent and the most we earned was if we took back the home.

A few years later I joined an investment banking firm under the direction of a politically influential Director, Steve Gold. I was not as qualified as other players there but Gold was a sucker for UCLA and respected few with the exception of John Anderson. CFG was the largest Investment banking firm (commercial RE) in the Western US. After three years, and structuring over $100 million (underwritten ) my last year for the likes of TWC and BALCOR, I left CFG. Gold was cigar chomping Rolls Royce driving tough guy who wore three thousand dollar suits. He was a real hard driving abusive man – that used his “BY THE BOOK” management style to win at all costs. I will never be able to thank him for all that abuse – you learned to underwrite and survive or you left. (underwriting a large commercial deal is costly and if it does not sell -you are out of there).

During this time I met many investment bankers and owe my move towards Wall Street to my brother in law, a Chicago Business School MBA. It was around 1987 I believe, in October when their were rumors of the market suffering from to much excess.

My Street (not yet buddies) contacts were talking that Thursday before the market was to nose dive. I was given information the market would dump early big time Friday morning and then rally late. With every cent I had (unbeknownst to my wife at the time) I showed up at the stock broker counter an hour after it opened and all hell had broken lose.

Electronic trading at Charles Schwab had shut down (this is before legal government stops were ever put in). I called out an order to sell on margin 10,000 shares or 100 contracts of GE calls (futures betting the market will go up).

I sold paper (loans) to GE and they were a blue chipper so why not. The market soared downward till close Friday and I could not take much more and learned my first lesson about derivatives…what a bummer!

But I bought Barons and started to read about futures…and I read all weekend. By early morning Monday the market plummeted again. The crash of 1933 was no longer a major history item. But by late Monday, I saw some market fundamentals changing rapidly and knew something was up.

The smart money was eyeing a recovery and the news was singing a different story of hope. The stock chimps were yelling the computers went down again (due to excessive over night institutional buying (orders) and volume trading at the bell). As everyone was buying I yelled out my order to liquidate the GE position (shares). As I was selling my position a woman next to me was buying the same contracts on GE. I believe I was the last order taken, written on back of an envelope in pencil by the clerk under siege and a tremendous rally. , For every contract I bid $250.00 dollars per lot. For my effort and sleepless nights I sold at ($8.50 Bid $ 8.125 Ask ) . My adventure into derivatives, futures and options netted me around $50,000.

I later (1990) rejoined John Anderson and the management at TOPA as a vice president. I moved fast from CFG upon rumor he was taking over a popular thrift by the name of Bel Air Savings in Century City. By 1992 things were not good however and there I witnessed first hand the wrath of regulators, derecognition and classifying of performing assets.

The regulators were there enforcing new legislation called FIRREA. I saw past clients go to prison in the FIERRA debacle. I also watched the regulators slowly close down the thrift.

[SIDE BAR: Regulators look and act like employees at first glance look more like zombies in suits and you never get close you get to them. They will walk in and out of anyone’s office, won’t say hello, interrupt meetings, they do as they want and call the shots...and they won’t talk small talk. After a $1 billion dollar year and highest return on assets in the nation we suffered losses the following year. The losses were due more to a classifying of assets and management not willing to make a massive capital call thanks to regulators. Bel Air assets were sold and we all were forced out of jobs as the thrift closed its doors 1993.

Thereafter I accepted a position for a company and did an "A” paper stint selling receivables to Prudential. I was trading Jumbos for Weyerhaeuser Mortgage for a year before leaving to join a sub prime (then B&C paper) outfit in Los Angeles. I replaced a guy named Steve W. as a national sales manager (flow loan originations). Steve went to Weyerhauser to start a sub prime deal under the new name of WMC.

The new position was a turning point that kept me from an MBA. We traded loans on flow (one at a time) to GE, Textron, and Sears and Ford Motor credit. Everything was covered meaning cooperative underwriting and a take out commitment needed to fund a loan.

My Mentor there was a strong business man named Dennis, ex president of Countrywide Home Loans. I knew more than he about sub prime credit but the guy was pure corporate America. He could take over Coca Cola or IBM and make it profitable. Another great mentor I never got along with and was lucky to know.

I cannot confirm this but I will graciously take credit for underwriting the first ever "uncovered" sub prime loan. While at the firm I refer to , I wrote acceptance uncovered or with no investor pre-approval . I felt if we underwrote BY THE BOOK to the buyers (Credit Company Investor) criteria then we did not need a pre approval. It worked and production and sales to insitituional investors soared. There I learned the art of common sense underwriting; before a FICO score ever came into play.

SIDE BAR: As for acceptance and underwriting - I was always a sucker for certain credit profiles. Say for example a physician . . . regardless of credit problems I could never turn down a union, state, federal or county employee. Look at the void and vacant stare of a check out clerk at a major market. They hate their jobs and hate what they do. But there not going anywhere due to the union guaranteed compensation and perks. They are like postal workers that make the best of their sentence here on earth - they cannot quit. I could never turn down a union employee as they may have late PAY’S but never ever seem to default. NOTE- Late fees are a big part of the APR you never hear about in the sub prime press.

After a few years of underwriting sub prime paper, I met an ex Bear Sterns “Mello-Roos” bond underwriter and trader who is credited with brining to market the first ever Sub Prime Real Estate Mortgage Insured Contracts or REMIC’s. He previously had underwritten his own deals for Bear and was truly an analytical genius with little if any street smarts. (Mello-Roos District is an area where a special property tax on real estate, in addition to the normal property tax, is imposed on those real property owners within a Community Facilities District. These districts seek public financing through the sale of bonds for the purpose of financing public improvements and services.[2] These services may include streets, water, sewage and drainage, electricity, infrastructure, schools, parks and police protection to newly developing areas. The tax paid is used to make the payments of principal and interest on the bonds.)

John Dew was “BY THE BOOK” and spoke (Wall) Street talk…it was hard to understand for a long time. (Sound familiar). He had left Bear to underwrite an early REMIC for First Alliance, who was in bed with Lehman Brothers. Brain Chisick (CEO) of First Alliance is an industry icon and friend to this day who I respect. He was a pioneer in sub prime securitization model we know today thanks to thanks to John.

First Alliance grew but later ran into problems which laid the ground work for future sub prime companies. A lawsuit and settlement charges that First Alliance and its chief executive officer Brian Chisick violated federal and state laws in making home mortgage loans to customers. The settlement was obtained through a joint effort of the governmental agencies and private plaintiffs’ counsel. The AARP in a law suit brought by the FTC forced the company out of business. The settlement with First Alliance Mortgage Company (First Alliance) was announced by the Federal Trade Commission; the states of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York; AARP; and private attorneys for class action plaintiffs and for individual plaintiffs with unfair lending claims. The settlement of $80million was approved by a federal district court in Santa Ana, California. I met with Brian on few occasions in 2005 long afterward the settlement but nothing seemed to make sense to either of us given the way the industry was continuing to spin recklessly out of control and similar to the circumstances that happened to him earlier.

In 1994 I left Dennis Carbone and management to join John Dewey and a high profile Tax Attorney still going strong. The CPA’s in San Francisco were starting a REIT. Actually it was there second fund just starting up and new issuance (stock) under CAIT I & II. Carbone took out the management team one by one and went on to grow the company into national leader in piggy back programs called 125 loans. That firm became First Plus, a market leader and innovator of the high (CLTV) loans. First Plus, to my knowledge, went bankrupt in 1995.

Tom Schwartz a tax attorney and CPA for CAIT (funds) was an exceptionally strong business man who actually never spoke above a whisper. I’ve worked for CPA’s and attorneys side by side for years and never lost my desire to become a CPA over an Attorney. The capital management firm we started (SCA) was geared as a REIT with our denovo acting as TRS for ownership purposes. The buy sell stock agreement and earn out was performance based and tight. The effort was geared to attract investors to high yielding sub prime paper under management. The objective was to use both John Dewey and me to access Wall Street, grab production and establish a market share using a REIT and securities origination platform.

The problem was the REIT paid out to investor’s earnings after expenses from yields earned on short term holds (gestation periods) and premiums on quarterly whole loan “bulk” sales. A Pass through loses cash (actually it capitalizes its cost of origination) in exchange for a preferred stock that pays a yield known as a net interest margin. ). It’s an asset and balance sheet play that provides yields based on the quality of the loans you originate. In other words, our model sacrificed whole loan premiums (income) at a capital expense (basis) all together for the promise of long term performance and the value of the underlying stock (senior-subordinate security) that would pay commensurate with the life of the loans.
Abby, on June 24, 2009 at 11:47 pm said:

ALL FROM THE INTERNET-WHO IS CONNING WHO?
OR WILL THE REAL MAHER SOLIMAN PLEASE STAND UP? WHICH ONE IS HERE WITH US?

Wasn’t Maher Soliman contracted to be an interrogator at Abu Ghraib?

Wasn’t Maher Soliman studying law at a Northwestern
California University in Sacramento-through a correspondance course?

There is no Maher Soliman who passed the California bar.

On March 28, 2000 didn’t Maher Soliman file a $200 million dollar lawsuit against Philip Morris in San Francisco. Maher Soliman, as published on the internet, is a self described ‘nicotine addict’ Maher Soliman acted as his own attorney in this matter, as published on the internet.

Research it all yourself. There is even Maher Soliman who is used as a translator (Egyptian and/or Arabic) and posing as a US Attorney, all published on the web.

READ THIS ARTICLE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37815-2004Aug3?language=printer

LOOK FOR THIS:
‘They spoke to Thabit through Maher Soliman, an Arabic-speaking divorce lawyer from California who works as a special prosecutor for the U.S. military.’

Again-there is NO Maher Soliman who is valid to practice law in California according to the State Bar of California. Nor is he listed as inactive. Nor has his license be suspended, as he never passed the California bar exam. He never had a license to practice law.

MAYBE THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT MAHER SOLIMAN’s AND NONE ARE ONE AND THE SAME, WHO KNOWS? CARNACK KNOWS FOR SURE!
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on June 24, 2009 at 11:45 pm said:

Yes ..good call. So I am a fraud …what can I say….Wall Mart, Sears, AT&T , Verizon…..We are all listed Honey.

I have won homes back “free and clear” back to the borrower…HOME’S get it!

Have any of you ? Just one of you? …any of you done this?…please stand up and speak up! Lets hear your story and not theories!
——————————————————————-
TRUE STORY – Judge reads my draft response for the client (submitted by the attorney)
Judge say’s oh yes, I remember reading this…I like it. Deutsche Bank. – “But your honor…..
Judge – “Have you found your Note yet!…go find it and lets set this matter for trial …

DO you want the Ripp-off report or a copy of the “response”! admin@borrowerhotline.com

Your non sense law 101 arguments need work. I am sorry! I can help you. Stay away from the San Jose lawyers attempts to drag you into the mess. Or, go to law school…

but please, stay off this site please!

God Bless
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on June 24, 2009 at 11:23 pm said:

Folks, I think we’ve been chasing the wrong tail. It just down on me that the plaintiff is not the trust but the trustee. what! No, No, No…

The Trustee is relying on the master servicer to receive the borrower’s payment which collectively creates the income stream to make good on the cash flow required to “PASS THROUGH” to the investor.

The indenture or prospectus will detail the terms of the borrowers payments to be made in a timely manner. Stay with me here (“hey Lucy . . . I m home”)

If a borrower misses a payment shame on him…miss two, shame on me…miss twelve “What da Funk!”

Who forwarded the payments over this period of time? Why was the trustee not allowed to trigger the default and classify the loan?

Do you realize this requirement, not having occurred, would prohibit the Trustee to classify the subject loan?

Jeopardy Bonus Question! iF TRUSTEE IS DUPED YOU . . .
1) Call SWAT
2) Call NAACP
3) Call BBC
4) Call AARP
5) Call the SEC.

Commission guidelines under AB 1125 Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities. As required by paragraph (b) of §240.13a-18 or §240.15d-18, it provides as an exhibit from each party participating in the servicing function a report on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in paragraph B2 (d) of that section….they did not comply.

No big deal…not to HUD maybe. Is the trustee responsible for being duped?

Ask Wells where in a Citifinanical Group attestation report to the SEC they cite the failure to report delinquency with respect to ….foreclosure and refer to it is a MATRIAL VIOLATION.
Abby, on June 24, 2009 at 10:24 pm said:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/452/RipOff0452179.htm

What is this all about?

Is this the Vicki & M. Soliman who post on LivingLies?

What is going on?
admin@borrowerhotline.com, on June 24, 2009 at 8:15 pm said:

Alan…good point . But you too need to read before you post. THE CLIENT WHATEVER THE GRIEVANCE MUST REALIZE THIS IS AN ATTORNEY CLIENT MATTER. I WORK FOR THE ATTORNEY. THIS IS NOT A MATTER FOR THE WEB SITE.

ARE YOU USING AN EGYPTIAN LAST NAME TO SPREAD A LINK TO ALL PEOPLE WITH A EGYPTIAN LAST NAME. I AM A THIRD GENERATION AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT NEVER HAVE BEEN TO THE MIDDLE EAST. WOW!

Now what does this has do with the FBI reporting in 2004 the dilemma we are in..the rating agencies never looked at on sub prime file…do you use this person to gauge my experience as an auditor who can see the value of these derivatives is zero, or how FAS 140 is a GAAP violation being manipulated by everything not having to do with what you people and Garfield call MERS problems and trailing assignment issues and etc etc.

These procedural defects wont get a Judges sympathy “pal’ Please, pull you head out an smell the coffee chief. Its the S&L crisis to the tenth power. If fact where were you when these revelations were made in 2004 and when i left the industry. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as both an investment bank and a commercial bank, or as both a bank and an insurer. The US deficet is $3.5 to $11 trillion depending who do you beleive. AIG deficit totals over $360 trillion. Count from one to a trillion backwards and you’ll end up back in the stone age.

Now we have a person with little if any income financing six properties and upset she is losing the homes…one at a time. I cant sugar coat the findings and never will….sorry counsel. Come to me for a candid review and i will tell it like it is.

Hey here’s a good argument to contemplate…did MERS have anything to do with the delays causing the Paris peace talks?

Enough!
Elly, on June 24, 2009 at 8:07 pm said:

In your Homeowner’s Training Manual, there is a page called CAPACITY TO SUE RULE with Fed. RCP.
Can you please give us the state specific code for FL?

If ever you have it available for PA and also for NY, taht woudl be great.
Thanks bunches!
Elly
Patrice, on June 24, 2009 at 7:39 pm said:

Another very important and urgent piece of information needed, please: Need FL Code or Rule or Statute regarding the LAW OF AGENCY (which stipulates among other things that a Written Agreement must exist between Principal and Agent).
Thank you again
P
Please Notify me of Follow-up via email on my previous request as well.
Patrice, on June 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm said:

Would you have a FL Template for Motion for Summary Judgment with Prejudice for the Defendant/Borrower?
Thank you in anticipation.
Patrice
Marcus, on June 24, 2009 at 6:14 pm said:

Alina,
Mt to dismiss for improper party should be pleaded.
If that fails, Florida Statute 617.1502 should be used to through the case out.

617.1502 Consequences of conducting affairs without authority.–

(1) A foreign corporation conducting its affairs in this state without a certificate of authority may not maintain a proceeding in any court in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority.
Alina, on June 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm said:

Marcus,

You are absolutely right. Additionally, the assignments of mortgage are to the trustee not the trusts.

Further, in most cases there is no assignment of the note. Plaintiffs’ attorneys claim that a blank assignment converts the note to a bearer instrument and therefore there is no need for an assignment. That argument is totally wrong but it is too lengthy here to get into.

Alina
Marcus, on June 24, 2009 at 2:12 pm said:

Folks,
I think we’ve been chasing the wrong tail. It just down on me that the plaintiff is not the trust but the trustee.
The trustee has absolutely no standing. It owns nothing. The trust should be the plaintiff.
US BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR GPMFT 2007-AR1.
US Bank has no skin in the game.
Alina, on June 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm said:

Marcus,

If you have access to a law library, I suggest researching business trusts in Am.Jur 2d and C.J.S. (Corpus Juris Secundum).

There are two other cases which were heard together with the one I stated . The cases are really tax cases, but the Supreme Court also defined a Massachusetts Trust a/k/a Business Trust.

Btw, in Massachusetts, they are now known as Statutory Trusts.

I began researching business trust when I was putting together my answer and came across several template answers for Florida that refer to Corcoran v. Brody, 347 So.2d 689 (Fla App. 1977). I pulled the case and down at the end of the case is the quote I inserted into my answer.

Alina
Alina, on June 24, 2009 at 1:27 pm said:

Marcus,

Hecht v. Malley, 265 U.S. 144 (1924)

Alina
Marcus, on June 24, 2009 at 10:09 am said:

Alina,
Could you please provide the case style of the Supreme Court decision you mentioned?
Thanks
livinglies, on June 24, 2009 at 8:16 am said:

Allan. Yes. My whole point is that the intermediary thieves who started all this never registered in the states in which the property was located. So they were unregistered, unchartered, unregulated and unknown. In every state there are penalties for that. By the way, the vast sums of money in the off balance sheet, off record transactions went unreported as well. So they failed to file state and federal income tax returns, they violated their REMIC standing and they owe hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions to the states and Feds. Our elected representatives get their money from financial services, so they won’t go after the tax revenues that are very low hanging fruit. So I’ve decided to attack it from another angle. You’ll hear about it soon.
Alina, on June 24, 2009 at 7:30 am said:

Xyrant,

This is what I used:

Plaintiff is barred from pursuing this foreclosure action as Plaintiff is a “business or Massachusetts trust.” The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts Trust is a form of business organization, common in Massachusetts, comprising of an arrangement wherein real estate (or other assets) is transferred in title to one or more trustees, pursuant to written trust provisions. “Two or more persons, whether residents of this state or not, may organize and associate themselves together for the purpose of transacting business in this state under what is commonly designated or known as a “declaration of trust”; provided, however, no such association shall ever be permitted or authorized to transact a banking or security business, of any kind, in this state.” Fla. Stat. 609.01. “As yet, no Florida case has held that the trustees of a business trust can maintain suit on a note and mortgage payable to a trust, absent statutory authorization in the state of its origin. ” Corcoran v. Brody, 347 So.2d 689 (Fla App. 1977).

Plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party. Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corporation, 90 Fla. 343, 106 So. 408 (1925), contends that since the note and mortgage involved in this litigation are payable to a business trust, any action on those instruments must be brought by all the members of the trust-not just the trustees.

I had posted this several months ago, but received no response as to whether I am on the right track.

Alina
Marcus, on June 24, 2009 at 4:15 am said:

“………unless all interested parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration.”

Lisa,
My understanding of that clause is that a Florida court will take the matter if every single person in the suit is unable to file the suit in the registered state. In Foreclosure cases, the trustee can certainly go to NY court if that’s where the trust was registered. I believe the intend of the clause is to make Florida the default state in the event it is impossible for all parties to go to a foreign country where the trust is administered. That clause will not stand if the trust is registered in any state in the US.
Your argument should state that: 1)Florida court does not have in personam juridiction over the trustee 2) Florida court does not have in rem juridiction over the trust’s property 3) Florida is not the right venue because of the principle behind forum non conveniens.
I am not an attorney. This is my personal opinion.

Marcus (info@foreclosureProse.com)
Allan (sharing in Lisa B.'s concern over the applicability of 736.0201 and 736.0205), on June 24, 2009 at 3:02 am said:

Lisa,
I readily see your concern. I sense, though, an alternative intent, for in the last paragraph of the statute the question of personal jurisdiction is raised, reinforcing the notion that a foreign venue does not necessarily have personal jurisdiction over the parties – unless the party (or parties) consent to jurisdiction.

One area where I’m not clear, is how to parse “OVER the objection of a party….” does that mean “the court shall not entertain…” DESPITE or UNLESS a party objects? What is the meaning of OVER here?

Neil? Care to weigh in? Inquiring minds want to know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
736.0205 Trust proceedings; dismissal of matters relating to foreign trusts.–Over the objection of a party, the court shall not entertain proceedings under s. 736.0201 for a trust registered, or having its principal place of administration, in another state unless all interested parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration. The court may condition a stay or dismissal of a proceeding under this section on the consent of any party to jurisdiction of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of business, or the court may grant a continuance or enter any other appropriate order.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Lisa E., on June 24, 2009 at 2:15 am said:

Good Morning.

With Marcus’ excellent reference below, I am considering that this clause precludes applicable use (for our purposes) of FL Statute 736.0205.

“………unless all interested parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration.”

To my vague understanding, it appears that if the trust is registered in NY, but I am not bound by litigation in NY courts, then FL courts will continue to “entertain proceedings”. Right? Wrong?

Anyone else see a different interpretation?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa E., on June 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm said:

MARCUS!!!!

That statute detail below is a beautiful thing you post! It was forwarded to me by Xyrant.

What a great find!

And, may I take the opportunity to say “foreign trust” is the perfect pun of a descriptor for these layered entities whom are owed nothing, yet demand all!

Thank you for this contribution!

Time to go read that statute in full.

Good luck to all,
Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
Marcus, on June 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm said:

If the plaintiff in your case is a trust, this is another weapon in your legal arsenal.
Florida Statute 736.0205 states that a foreign trust cannot sue in the state of Florida. I am sure there must be equivalent law in other judicial state.
————————–
736.0205 Trust proceedings; dismissal of matters relating to foreign trusts.–Over the objection of a party, the court shall not entertain proceedings under s. 736.0201 for a trust registered, or having its principal place of administration, in another state unless all interested parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration. The court may condition a stay or dismissal of a proceeding under this section on the consent of any party to jurisdiction of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of business, or the court may grant a continuance or enter any other appropriate order.
Allan (with a CONCERN OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MAHER SOLIMAN AND VICKI M), on June 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm said:

Maher, We have no way of knowing whom to believe, so perhaps you could detail, point by point, your responses to Vicki’s enumerated charges, without wrapping yourself in the flag of circumvention with an appeal to those who’ll predictably sing your praises.

We have no mediator or conflict resolution process here at LivingLies, and we don’t expect Neil to weigh in, where he’s got “bigger fish to fry.”.

As a fellow poster, I’ve suggested before and will plead here again, Maher, that you have someone (for whom English is their first language) read what you write before you submit it here.

Are you from Alexandria Egypt? I know a Hamdy Soliman from there. I will not detail here my direct experience of him, as that would serve to unfairly prejudice (guilt by association) your hopes of a fair hearing. You’ll appreciate why Vicki’s charges especially concern me.

You may have content and experiences that could immensely help save someone their home, but before you can be perceived as authoritative, you need to unjumble your comments.

I appreciate clarity from those from whom I seek to learn. If your comments resemble the many spam messages we receive daily from defrauders and phishers in Nigeria or Russia, your credibility will likely be questioned. With our collective antennas tuned to pick up on any scam, a businessman cannot long survive if consistently he makes a bad first impression or doesn’t nip in the bud a misperception that unchecked could bury him.

Please accommodate us on that simple request. While at it, could you get somebody to write you a suitable response to VickiM’s charges, as I for one, assume her concerns affect how you’re perceived on an already gun-shy community.

Maher, I hope you’ll appreciate this renewed feedback and receive it in the spirit in which it was meant.

Think of this as an opportunity to further improve on what you already have to offer this embattled community.

Thanks,

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
angry & not taking it, on June 22, 2009 at 12:33 pm said:

m soliman..
now i can see why you want out… cant please everyone, sometimes you cant please anyone,at that point you gotta just please yourself.
homeowners …sheesh! were a dime a dozen & all with troubles!
thanks from me anyway… the light you’ve shed was …well…. enlighting… a real bummer but nonetheless enlighting.
signed
mayhem4u
Jr. Audit, on June 22, 2009 at 5:13 am said:

M. Soliman,
The Qspe…Now i get it . What a rip off. Keep up the good work!
MSOLIMAN, on June 22, 2009 at 1:46 am said:

Ahhhhhh….a grandmother of six with six homes aquired as a part time med assistant ….what’s wrong with the lending industry…. ? This matter involves a fraud investigation I never intended for her and I cannot say anything other than what is on record. The authorities are involved to the best of my knowledge and investigating …..let’s give her a hand anyway …!

Also…recall the client was a referral by an attorney (Thanks). Its part of a seperate case that seeks to bait counsel and me into dialouge. Sooooooo (Shame on you Garfield really!)

Expert witness MSoliman references, case history , court decisions and special thanks. (aka verifications)

THANKS TO :
Gregory Wilhelm, former assistant attorney general,
Jessica Barlow, ESQ (She will not back down).
Mark Terbeek ESQ is counsel who handled cases in Northern CA…The best!

Andrew Kulack ESQ, tough as nails is counsel in Los Angeles CA / Chris Gardis ESQ is counsel who handles cases we testify in – Northern CA / Chris Pham ESQ another great litigator we won multiple cases with in Los Angeles, CA / Susan Rabin ESQ, active my first go to and counsel in Los Angeles, CA ;

….with admiration and special thanks over and over again, to Steven Karl Kop , ESQ a mentor and an example of legal brilliance. Over four months of research and study into the cause and cure for this mess.

Also….Special thanks to Harvey Rosen ESQ, Los Angeles, CA a brilliant securities attorney. . . and Fred Dorton, ESQ a great attorney who we are pleased to assist in many more cases . . . any way possible….

. . . and most of all to Neil Garfield…God Bless the man who kept me going with faith and conviction for assisting borrowers and helping them through this cruel and difficult time.

Feel free to call Ms Mas to discuss your problems or…..well there’s a few name above you might also want to consider…LOL

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
Vicki M, on June 21, 2009 at 10:58 pm said:

1. It is illegal for Maher Soloman to require upfront payment from a client that is in default.
2. Maher Soloman and Brenda, under NLS, provided me with a verbal and written contract of what they will provide in exchange for the money received and failed to perform.
3. Communication, action, and a plan of action was absent or impossible with Maher and Brenda, I found.
4. Maher uses this site to lure desperate homeowners to SCAM on by making himself standout with his empty jibberish, unverifyable tales, colored with lack of proper grammer and spelling.
5. Ask him to verify any claim to which he boasts.
6. Maher refuses to refund my money to me even though he has not done what’s on his contract.
VickiM
cmysmile00@aol.com
Xyrant, on June 18, 2009 at 7:09 pm said:

I am looking for Florida case law that support the argument that a foreclosure suit cannot be done via a trust. The real party behind the trust have to be disclosed.
MSOLIMAN, on June 18, 2009 at 12:49 am said:

We know what we are saying and we support those who are faithful to this site and willing to work. You must work hard with others here to uncover the ongoing and ever living lies we are fed.

We I saw the SEC indictments coming a year ago (read my older web comments) and now B of A is exposed.

Ms Mas lost a home to B ofA and I have spoken to the lenders management with her on the line. But claims need more support and that’s something that can show a significant break or material breech and cover up at the consumer’s expense.

Congratulations to Ms Mas where she helped us to uncover the biggest lead to date and the Proverbial Smoking Gun. One random search into something we failed to review has lead to a material violations claim evidenced by a Price Waterhouse disclosure of “certain unethical behavior” towards foreclosure victims where the borrower never had a chance for a meaningful workout.

Every client you contact and solicit in a smear campaign feels legitimate rage at first where Livinglies is also buying into the fraud of saving your home? One by one they are coming back ms Mas. You may save the home you lost and we can show you what it is we have and will continue to testify about in court (good stuff we will be releasing this week derived in part thanks to this persons willingness to allow us to call the lender with her on the phone).

But you need an attorney –i can’t won’t, will not, represent you pro per (only a licensed practitioner can) squander the opportunity under sec commission requirements prohibiting certain foreclosure servicer tactics under AB 1122 (1), (2) (vii) and FAS FAB 140. Any NLS Clients with Countrywide claims and Bank of America and Wells Fargo affiliated claims should contact our offices immediately. I will forward the information to Mr. Garfield and any attorneys requesting the documents share in. (i cannot let it go to the public yet – i am sorry).

Let Neil and some of the attorneys on this site be the judge before any more of your counter productive claims and improper dispute resolution efforts waste the time of readers here. Its puzzling . . . . Last time I’ll say Please cease and desist.

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on June 17, 2009 at 10:36 pm said:

Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp is not really Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp it is Prommis Solutions, LLC.

Check this out
http://www.scribd.com/full/15860873?access_key=key-1bz4epqe8wd3t8hack50
Abby in CA, on June 17, 2009 at 10:33 pm said:

More for Calif. pro se folks—Request for First Set of Discovery-admissions-interrogatories-document production.

This is a template doc of 33 pages.

Could be used in other states as well. Just change to your state civil code law #s Those could more than likely be found on the internet.

Good Luck!

http://www.scribd.com/full/15859082?access_key=key-16iajpgylde0kx2a49h2
Abby in CA, on June 17, 2009 at 10:11 pm said:

For California pro-se in particular–if you have been foreclosed on and got a Notice to Quit..this is a handy guide for you. You can fight through a Unlwaful Detainer!! Don’t panic. Act Fast!! This might be helpful to other non-judicial foreclosure state venues.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16401692/Eviction-A-Guide-Steps-to-Take-Post-Foreclosure-to-Save-Your-HOME
Allan (with a COMPLIANCE WEEK article on QSPEs) trying to digest this never-ending alphabet soup, on June 17, 2009 at 6:08 pm said:

Vicky, I don’t believe you’re being fair to MSoliman.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

CHECK OUT: http://www.complianceweek.com/article/5144/fasb-renews-attempts-to-amend-qspe-rules

M. Soliman,

Great phone conversation. May we assume it’s genuine and transcribed?

Your info is very useful, IMHO, but we, as laypersons, need, from time to time, some explanations of what certain acronyms mean, but most especially how they relate to the mortgage meltdown that concerns us here. Lest we Google or Bing the wrong ones, could you humor us a bit on these points?

Here’s a copy of COMPLIANCE WEEK, (see hyperlink above) which makes the following claim: “Compliance Week is a comprehensive information service focused exclusively on the needs of our subscribers: financial, legal, risk, audit, and compliance executives at public companies.”

My favorite passages from this article: “Few dispute the notion that the QSPE, originally intended to serve as a brain-dead entity to which securitized assets could be transferred and thus be regarded as “sold” for accounting purposes, has been stretched.

“That abuse became apparent when regulators provided guidance allowing banks to work out troubled loans held in off-balance-sheet structures without sacrificing off-balance-sheet accounting; that permission was the smoke signal indicating financial institutions were more involved in the assets than the accounting literature would intend to qualify for off-balance-sheet treatment.”

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Vicki M, on June 17, 2009 at 5:51 pm said:

To Lisa E, regarding Msoliman-

It’s simple, Lisa. Simply pay money to him and NLS and you’ll never hear from him again.

Vicki
cmysmile00@aol.com
Lisa E., on June 17, 2009 at 5:25 pm said:

Attn: MSOLIMAN

Thank you very much for your time and efforts on my behalf.

Please inform as to the language in which you are posting so I may hire the appropriate translator!

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Search the Web on Snap.com, on June 17, 2009 at 4:47 pm said:

Attn: MSOLIMAN

Thank your time and efforts on my behalf.

Please inform as to the language in which you are posting so I can hire the appropriate translator!

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
MSOLIMAN, on June 17, 2009 at 1:01 pm said:

QSPE A Qualified Special Purpose Entity also known as Legal Isolation – - They gained popularity with Enron…A QSPE must have a distinct ability to stand on its own. It cannot be dissolved, ground down or terminated by the Seller of the loan.

The entity’s activities fall under strict guidelines set by at least a majority of the beneficial interest holders, other than the Seller and its affiliates. This requirement minimizes the Seller’s control over the entity’s activities on an ongoing basis.

These platforms are surrounding the FSB where you cannot make junk bond loans designed to ripp off the investors and limit the borrowers to a “Pay or Forget it loan program”. I say the lenders have no economic advantage to do workouts.

That is a disadvantage to the borrower for a work out Modifications are near impossible or the sale of the asset to the trust is void 1122 AB. It fails time and time again!

QSPE is the Lender , Obligor and transferor acting on behalf of the FSB (who is acting like a long term warehouse line). FAS FAB 140 holds the sale will fail is the transfer has any set asides by one party to another and any repurchase rights or a contingency .

admin@borrowerhotline.com
Abby in CA, on June 17, 2009 at 3:12 am said:

to msoliman-what is a QSPE?

what does he mean when talking about new century.

I\’m trying to understand that whole world.
Thx
msoliman, on June 17, 2009 at 2:04 am said:

QUESTION: I am looking for possible defenses related to Assignment (dated 3 months after foreclosure action initiated) USBANK NA as Trustee for JPMorgan Mortgage Trust,

…this recent telephone call with an institutional trader hedge fund manager and subprime securitizer….. (Called Bill …a friend)
———————————————————————–
Admin: So, Loan set up includes delivery of a collateral to Fed Funds Desk (Savings Bank) the night before.

Bill: Right, but your Setup file must do collateral pack and need Blank endorsement and or juriat and blank assignment.

Admin: Yeah I know, it’s still an asset back securities issuance …stock secured and commercail trade. I cant stabnd that UCC 1 and how it blocks out the chance of ever seeking a mezz or gap loan.

Bill: And…
Admin: .The blank assignment is so wrong and you know it! Your Wire goes out to the parties / escrow / title etc . . . U got Note! and QSPE ….what! Nothing there…

Bill: and the blank assignment – when endorsed stays with the banker dude! . . . it’s good to be King.
Admin: So just like good old days – Note and copy of deed will arrive and QSPE – (I mean what the _*&_. This is Enron all over brother!

Bill: What …come on! The Loan records in favor of QSPE and boys at FASB said done deal so what up! Enron Please…..they were not bad guys – all off balance sheet plays

Admin: Loss is loss and …never mind. So, so now, you got this void, abyss or “box” posing as the beneficiary, but the QSPE, never touches the asset.
Bill: IRS is all over this and these days are looking to be over for the QSPE…..But…

Admin: Hold up listen …The borrower obligation NEVER leaves the Federal Savings Bank. Call it Bro! Come on ….I saw notes left behind the copier when we went to move it …remember?

Bill: Wow, 2002 ,,,,,get real. Lost note friend …sorry!
Admin: The FSB owns it from DAY ONE! . . . And the Pass-Thru Trust is merely a Shell – Empty shell I mean a takeout commitment.

BILL: GO ask a regulator really!
Admin: So, Okay, Look! What is a takeout commitment worth . . . it is a Low cost of funds,

Bill: Hey, you still getting sued by the misfit and hanging party?
Admin: Listen, listen! The deals I looked at were all high leverage, “Loans Held for Sale” and an asset base held at an FSB. and levered over and over – Theres no sale .

Bill: When you did your deal with CitiGroup – -how high could you go…?
Admin: I got to 24:1 …So stay focused here! You have built in depositors with no retail traffic and Bad Boy activities . . .rolling with players trading futures and derivatives against FSB assets. So wrong. . .

Bill: Whats with the Expert deal any more SEC nightmares …U comming up North soon?

Admin: Stay with me (#$@# %) … So these assets are held by the Federal Savings Bank, you and I know it and I cannot get an attorney to understand….. My fear is . . .they dont listen.

Bill: What ….so we are in the middle of the biggest economic collapse in US history? BUST OUT… NO CIGAR HOLMES….

Admin: NO Cigar for who – FILO’s exiting the building?

Bill : Really – It will take a bail out of monumental proportion to solve the problem. Imagine that

Bill: Yeah, I know; hey remeber those hedge fund fools all over the tout on new Century? morons, actually they got out in time…LOL. So Stewart said Bernanke is together …but current Sec of Treasury ….He doesn’t know…won’t talk…LOL

Admin: Phone rings….Got to go….

Anyway, at time of sheriff, trustee or bogy man sale the title will transfer to a new owner or back to the bank. But a borrower agrees to convey title to the beneficiary in a default. Why a trustee sale if no bidders.

Causes: The lender FSB cannot acknowledge owning the asset as the loan NEVER left the FSB. So FSB does a sham courthouse sale and establishes a basis below the principal balance outstanding to assure it of a number of special accounting treatments.

Most important is the ability to wiggle back into FAS FAB 140-1 which does allow an owner of the asset to maintain equitable title until formal delivery with no recognition of time. (Using the QSPE to insulate the FSB from recording its assignment and protection from the race to record).

MSoliman
borrowerhotline.com
Sara, on June 15, 2009 at 4:31 am said:

Hey everyone, I just want to remind you guys that the trial of our dear friend June Reyno starts today.

220 W. Broadway, Dept. 2 @ 8:30am San Diego, CA 92101.

If you are in the downtown San Diego area, please stop by and give her your support! I think Channel 10 news is supposed to be there but don’t quote me on that one. I live on the other side of the country.

Sara
Lisa E., on June 15, 2009 at 3:13 am said:

Would someone please help me figure something out?

I am looking for possible defenses related to Assignment (dated 3 months after foreclosure action initiated) USBANK NA as Trustee for JPMorgan Mortgage Trust, which differs from indorsement on Mortgage itself (was indorsed in blank) then stamped with J.P.Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (undated, not notarized).

Does this case law apply here: “The apparent rule in Florida is that an assignment of a mortgage without an assignment of the related mortgage note is deemed a nullity and creates no right in the assignee because a mortgage is a mere lien incidental to the obligation it secures. 37 Fla. Jur. 2nd, Mortgages, Section 511. See e.g., Sobel v. Mutual Development, Inc., 313 So.2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Vance v. Fields, 172 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). ”

Thank you very much,
Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
livinglies, on June 13, 2009 at 6:32 am said:

Sara
You are wise to inquire, we don’t know nor have any affiliation with him or UFCI. One of the unintended consequences of a free public forum like this is that some people “troll” our site and others like ours to solicit both consumers and the lawyers on our listing for business. Remember, no matter what anyone,anywhere tells you there is no letter or telephone conversation that can stop a foreclosure, sale or eviction. Only a court order obtained by you or your counsel through filing a suit or asking for temporary restraining order will stop the wheels of the foreclosure machine from turning. Any referral from us would be done personally and both parties would know it.
Sara, on June 13, 2009 at 1:17 am said:

I received an email from a Donn E. Hart from UFCI. He said he was refered to me from this site.

Do you know anything about this guy? His website address is: governmentloanprograms.net

thanks,

Sara
Lisa E., on June 12, 2009 at 10:48 am said:

Clarifying after receiving email queries: To review sample Admissions
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/livinglies-general-store/about/
Lisa E., on June 12, 2009 at 8:03 am said:

Nope. Sorry. Tired. Look under the General Store tab, top right.

Sharing of my filed admissions and some suggestions on what to do if Plaintiff ignores, objects or otherwise tries to dodge your bullet.

Good Luck to all!
Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Allan (with a FIGHTING FOR OUR HOMES UTube Video) SEND to 10 FRIENDS, on June 12, 2009 at 8:02 am said:

This from FightingForOurHomes.com.

Father John Lasseigne, Pacoima, CA

Financial Entrapment

Steering to Sub-prime products

Bait and Switch

Targeting

One LA and Community organizing at the grassroots

Enjoy

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on June 12, 2009 at 6:53 am said:

Hello All,

I stumbled onto a site yesterday http://www.usfn.org. It is actually short for U.S. Foreclosure Network.

It looks to be a deep rooted, politically motivated, well funded organization. Has anyone heard of it before?

It looks like all the major foreclosure mills are associated with them.

It has a great article base discussing “issues” for foreclosing agents in the foreclosure arena. The one that I found most interesting is below…

Special Feature: Self-Help Foreclosure Defense Websites – Warning! They’re on the Rise
May 18th 2009

The number of contested foreclosures is on the rise as borrowers attempt to delay the process through judicial action. Borrowers representing themselves are known as pro se litigants. They often file make-shift, rambling, and often superfluous documents containing irrelevant arguments from self-help websites. These unique filings make it difficult to identify and address the genuine issues, and the litigants’ frequent and numerous filings become very time-consuming to manage, and typically increase the overall cost to prosecute the action. In one case, a pro se litigant filed approximately 40 documents in two months. However, judges may be hesitant to deny a borrower “his day in court.” Accordingly, defending such cases can be painfully slow and expensive.

The self-help websites provide an abundance of information to borrowers on how to delay foreclosures and often include form pleadings to file in court. The canned pleadings of the litigants often contain content that is inapplicable to the borrowers’ case. In one situation, a pro se litigant filed a form pleading that she had downloaded from the Internet. The litigant did not even bother to change the gender on the pleading; although a woman, she referred to herself as “he.” In addition, her Kansas pleading relied on Florida case law.

A common theme on these websites is that borrowers are advised to ask for the original note, mortgage, and sometimes the assignment, especially when the case involves Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Judges are also increasingly requiring production of these documents, and may put the foreclosure action “on hold” until the servicer can produce these documents to the borrower. In extreme cases, the foreclosure action may be dismissed altogether and a servicer may be subject to sanctions, such as large monetary fines, if the documents are not produced in a timely manner.

There are effective defenses to these stalling tactics. Preparation is the best defense. Ideally, the servicer should have access to the original note (with any endorsements), the original recorded mortgage, and all assignments before initiating foreclosure. Servicers should be aware that there is a legal basis to dispute the production of the original instruments. The law of some states holds specifically that it is unnecessary to have or to produce the original documents. In addition, the borrower may have contractually agreed in the promissory note that the original documents need not be produced subsequent to a monetary default.

In conclusion, servicers should not be discouraged by the tactics of pro se litigants using self-help websites; rather, they should be prepared to use all resources necessary for a vigorous defense.

Editor’s Note: Mention of specific websites was removed from the article. However, if readers are interested in this information, please email info@usfn.org.
Florida Defense Team, on June 12, 2009 at 5:49 am said:

We GET IT – Florida Homeowners in need of foreclosure defense – we’re accepting new clients. Affordable and no retainer. floridadefenseteam@comcast.net
Lisa E., on June 12, 2009 at 5:06 am said:

I posted some suggestions for filing a Request for Admissions under the FORECLOSURE DEFENSE FORMS tab (top of page). Meant to post it here. Sorry.

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Mary Tossell, on June 11, 2009 at 4:27 am said:

I forgot to add, I have one of those asset backed certificat holders aka Plaintiffs:

The Bank of New York Mellon as successor
by merger to the Bank of New York as
Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWL, Inc.
Asset -Backed Certificates, series 2005-08

Can you tell from the above who is the holder of the note? Of course I thought my orginal lender was Countrywide but it was sold immidiately to a countrywide sevicer. Only one notification of assignment… after the 30 period of Liz Pendens. Only assignment on the original note has no date and not filled in, just a stamp, no new owners name.

and the SEC quote was from thier website:
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-129.htm
SEC Charges Former Countrywide Executives With FrauD

If Countrywide didnt submit proper SEC fillings in this regard, would that mean assingments/sale of my mortgage wasnt properly reported, and therefore lack of standing etc for my foreclosure defence?
Mary Tossell, on June 11, 2009 at 4:22 am said:

I forgot to add I have one of those asset backed Plaintiffs:

The Bank of New York Mellon as successor
by merger to the Bank of New York as
Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWL, Inc.
Asset -Backed Certificates, series 2005-08

Can you tell from the above who is the holder of the note? Of course I thought my orginal lender was Countrywide but it was sold immidiately to a countrywide sevicer. Only one notification of assignment… after the 30 period of Liz Pendens. Only assignment on the original note has no date and not filled in, just a stamp, no new owners name.

and the SEC quote was from thier website:
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-129.htm
SEC Charges Former Countrywide Executives With FrauD

If Countrywide didnt submit proper SEC fillings in this regard, would that mean assingments/sale of my mortgage wasnt properly reported, and therefore lack of standing etc for my foreclosure defence?
Mary Tossell, on June 11, 2009 at 2:03 am said:

Can this be used as part of a foreclosure defence if I have a Countrywide loan from 2005?

“The SEC’s enforcement action alleges that from 2005 through 2007, Countrywide engaged in an unprecedented expansion of its underwriting guidelines and was writing riskier and riskier loans, which these senior executives were warned might ultimately curtail the company’s ability to sell them. Countrywide was required to disclose these important trends to its investors in the Management Discussion and Analysis portion of its SEC filings, but failed to do so.”
VG Diaz, on June 10, 2009 at 7:59 pm said:

Does anyone has a SAMPLE of a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Affidavit as to Amount Due and Owing? if so, please send to vgdiaz@earthlink.net.

Also, does anyone know where I can find in this site the FDCPA dispute and validation of debt sample letter?

Thanks.
livinglies, on June 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm said:

Jeff: You didn’t speak too soon. It very common for a losing party to try to come back for a second bite of the apple. While it should be taken seriously by you it usually is not taken seriously by Judges for one simple reason — if they started granting such motions they would be hearing every case twice. You are right they will do anything to avoid appeal. One decision from an appellate court that says the investor is the holder in due course and 4 million foreclosures go into the toilet, past, present and future. They are not just risking your case, they are risking all cases in every court for every pretender lender that used the securitization process to escape the risk of lending and the duty to underwrite.
jeff, on June 10, 2009 at 7:58 am said:

I guess I spoke to soon. Last week I spoke about how I won in court for Lack of Standing, Should have waited 30 days to tell you.

This morning received a notice that Plaintiffs counsel filed a Motion to Reargue the case. I guess that is short of an appeal. They don’t want another appellate case against them.

In all my research, I have never seen a case that was reargued. If anyone has any info please let me know

Thanks
Alina, on June 9, 2009 at 1:57 pm said:

Let’s get the word out to all the state’s AGs.

Connecticut Attorney General’s Office

Press Release

Attorney General Investigates Selection Process For Law Firms, Marshals Handling Foreclosures

June, 2009
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, as part of an investigation into the foreclosure business in Connecticut, has requested information from mortgage giants Lender Processing Services, Inc., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae concerning their process for selecting law firms in foreclosure proceedings.

Blumenthal is investigating reports that a majority of Connecticut foreclosures are assigned to only a few select law firms, and complaints by consumers who said they did not receive proper foreclosure notices from marshals.

In letters to Lender Processing Services, Inc., the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Blumenthal said he understands that these organizations maintain a network of law firms that perform legal services relating to foreclosure actions.

Blumenthal has requested specific information related to the process in developing these networks and selecting law firms.

“Dominance over foreclosure service by a few select law firms and marshals has spurred complaints about improper or illegal practices — wrongfully allocating work to non-marshals, forging papers, failing to serve papers, and making kickbacks,” Blumenthal said. “Concentrating this work in a few hands can be severely problematic — causing unconscionable costs and failed notice delivery. These companies — mortgage lending giants — have a public trust.

“A scarce few are spinning foreclosures into fortunes — and perhaps deepening homeowner despair.

“As concentration in the foreclosure business has increased, so have consumer complaints, which have prompted my investigation. My office is investigating to ensure that competition is preserved, and consumers protected.”

Blumenthal has requested that Lender Processing Services, Inc., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae each provide the following information:

* Identify all law firms in Connecticut who have provided them with legal services relating to foreclosure actions from 2007 to the present;

* Identify the criteria utilized in selecting law firms to handle foreclosure work;

* Identify the number of foreclosure actions filed from 2007 to present in Connecticut for which each enterprise has retained counsel;

* Identify the Connecticut law firms used, and itemize all fees paid to such Connecticut law firms, from 2007 to the present;

* Identify and itemize all fees paid to Lender Processing Services, Inc., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by Connecticut law firms from 2007 to the present;

* Identify all policies and procedures required of Connecticut law firms to comply with the provision of legal services sought;

* Identify any complaints received relating to Connecticut consumers who did not receive notice of a foreclosure action or default judgment in a foreclosure action;

* Identify all lenders to whom default servicing is provided; and

* Provide copies of all agreements with law firms, including fee schedules.

View the entire letter – (PDF-260KB)
James, on June 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm said:

have a suggestion:
Would it be possible to add a section to the web site where the homeowners and lawyers could keep a running narrative as to how their cases are progressing? I read the site every day trying to put everyone’s story together, but have found it impossible as I do not have a photographic memory. Possibly it could be done as a link from this site. I am donating money to the livinglies site today. I have a lawyer, am in foreclosure, but my lawyer doesn’t have time to talk to me, so I read the site everyday to trying to keep up on how the battle is proceeding. I have great admiration for the homeowners who are fighting pro se. I feel very fortunate to have a lawyer fighting for me, but it must be very gratifying to do it on your own, win or loose.
Alina, on June 9, 2009 at 6:40 am said:

Lisa,

I believe so, but double check with your county’s clerk office.

Alina
Lisa E., on June 8, 2009 at 5:53 pm said:

Alina,

If I file an answer to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss that includes counterclaims, must I remit a fee as your post down thread seems to state?

I’m concerned about the answer I’m composing ending up with an invoice being presented to me.

Thank you very much!
Lisa
Xyrant, on June 8, 2009 at 2:32 pm said:

Last episode of “This American Life” radio show was interesting. They explained well how we came to the credit crisis.
The podcast is available for free at
http://thisamericanlife.com/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=382
The title of the episode is “The Watchmen”.
Xyrant, on June 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm said:

Latest foreclosure program may be making dent

ORANGE CITY, Fla. – June 8, 2009 – Scrambling to stay current with his mortgage, Craig Vale feared he was surely headed into foreclosure this year. Then the unemployed print-shop-equipment operator heard about a new program for financially troubled homeowners.

Last week, Vale, 59, and his wife, Bobbie, cleared the final hurdle to a “trial loan modification” that will cut their interest rate, lower their monthly payment and give the Orange City couple a fighting chance to save their home.

“My wife lost her job after she became disabled; then I got laid off,” he said. “We were still scraping by, but the handwriting was on the wall. Then we heard about this program that seemed exactly for people like us who had never been late on their mortgage. And it gave us some hope.”

Tens of thousands of people nationwide have tapped the federal Making Home Affordable initiative, the Obama administration said last week. The program, enacted in March, aims to help the millions of people current on their mortgages but struggling with payments and those delinquent on their loans.

Less than three months after its launch, more than 120,000 homeowners have received loan modifications and a few thousand more have gotten refinancings through the program, the Treasury Department reported. The early results are in stark contrast to last year’s ill-fated Hope for Homeowners program, which fell flat after it was beset by red tape and eligibility complications. It drew fewer than 100 applications nationwide after several months.

The new Making Home Affordable program still has a long way to go before it has measurable effect on the nation’s flood of foreclosures. Still, those on the front line of the crisis say it is the most promising initiative so far.

“There’s no comparison to other programs,” said Rosa Miro, a housing counselor with Consumer Credit Counseling of Central Florida who worked with the Vales. “I was never able to put even one client in any of those programs. This one at least gives people a real opportunity to recover.”

What the new program does differently, among other things, is throw some serious money – $75 billion – at the problem to provide financial incentives for all involved.

Financial incentives

In addition to getting more favorable terms, homeowners who qualify for the program and stay current with their loan will get as much as $1,000 a year taken directly off their mortgage principal over five years. Lenders and mortgage servicers will also get $1,000 for processing an application to modify or refinance a loan, plus another $1,000 if they approve the application.

That’s a big change from the past, when loan servicers got nothing for modification work but cash incentives from lenders for doing a foreclosure.

One of the big improvements, homeowner advocates say, was the passage only weeks ago of a federal law that shields mortgage servicers from lawsuits by angry investors in mortgage-backed securities.

The potential for litigation from investors has long been viewed as discouraging mortgage servicers from working with distressed homeowners trying to obtain relief. Simply put, servicers didn’t want to risk being sued if, by modifying people’s loans, they reduced the potential payoff of mortgages bundled and sold as investments.

The shield law and other such measures are gradually changing lenders’ and servicers’ attitudes toward working with troubled homeowners, said Jeff Perdue, president of Orlando Home Mortgage, a brokerage that works mostly with the new program’s refinance guidelines.

“We finally have something we can really work with,” he said. “It’s not a watershed by any means, but it is revolutionary compared to Hope for Homeowners. At least it’s making a dent.”

Foreclosures still soar

Still unclear is how much of a dent the program is making in the pile of foreclosures. Treasury officials would not release data on how many homeowners have applied, so the program’s approval rate is unknown.

In addition to the more than 120,000 loan modifications processed in the first three months, 3,650 homeowners have refinanced their mortgages through Making Home Affordable – a relatively meager total given the number of homeowners in distress. More than 2.4 million new foreclosures are expected by year’s end, according to an estimate by the Center for Responsible Lending, a consumer-watchdog and research group. And that estimate could wind up being low, because a record 12 percent of the 45 million mortgages in the country were delinquent during the first quarter, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Against that backdrop, even the Making Home Affordable program has been pretty slow out of the gate, said Barry Zigas, housing director for the Consumer Federation of America, the nation’s largest consumer-advocacy group.

“I really haven’t seen much of a result from it yet,” he said. “I do understand that most of the biggest servicers have signed up, but this is still moving forward at a slow pace. They have a lot of applications in the pipeline, but foreclosures are still up.”

‘A number of hurdles’

The new initiative has also encountered some of the same problems as the old ones: homeowners getting the runaround at corporate call centers, confusion about program eligibility, uninformed customer-service reps, and mortgage servicers that won’t help borrowers until they’re behind on their loan payments.

“There are still a number of hurdles to overcome,” said Richard Scaggs, chief executive officer of Consumer Credit Counseling of Central Florida. “Overall, we do have a much-improved program now, and we’re getting much more buy-in from the servicers. But it is all so new, there are servicers out there who are really overwhelmed with it all.”

Copyright © 2009 The Orlando Sentinel, Fla., Richard Burnett. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Alina, on June 8, 2009 at 7:21 am said:

Xyrant,

In Florida, you can access the dockets to see what documents have been filed. In some counties, though, especially those in South Florida, there is a fee and you have to register.

Also, depending on the county, you can access the documents themselves online. In Orange County, I requested permission to e-file all my documents and it was granted. I can log into the e-file website and access all the documents filed.

Tell the county you are in and I can tell you how to access the docket.

Alina
Abby in CA, on June 7, 2009 at 2:14 pm said:

I’d either call your county civil clerk in Florida and ask how to view case online or find the county’s website and search around there to see if you can view cases online. The clerk may be easier.

Also, here in California, they have a computer station in front of the clerk’s window and one can look up cases free there.
Xyrant, on June 7, 2009 at 12:52 pm said:

Thanks Abby for your response. I am familiar with PACER.
I am wondering if similar system exist for state courts such as Florida.
Abby in CA, on June 7, 2009 at 12:26 pm said:

To Xyrant-yes, typically lawyers can see case documents online. In Federal Court and in Fed. Bankruptcy Court they use PACER. IN California, each Superior Court in respective county has a method, usually.

Now as an individual, you can sign up to gain access to PACER. You pay a fee by page for documents you lookup. It is minimal. Worth it, because you can search on, for instance a bank name, and see cases, dates etc….then you can delve deeper and look at the actual scanned pleading or if it is filed into PACER you can see that.

The same goes for State Courts, such as Superior Court in California. I have not had to pay any fees to look up all my case filings in California.

Hope this helps.

PACER is a great resource tool You can also see how the judges decided in each federal case.
Xyrant, on June 7, 2009 at 11:12 am said:

Does anyone know if lawyers have access to all pleadings in a case electronically? I am suspecting it is the case. It seems unfair to pro se defendants especially if the system is taxpayer supported.
Lisa E., on June 6, 2009 at 6:16 am said:

CONGRATULATIONS JEFF!!!!

You’ve given me some good food for thought in your post. Thank you!

To update everyone:
I’m making progress. I found Plaintiff’s Pooling and Servicing agreement and am reading slowly though the seemingly 1,000 pages. Haven’t started reading the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure yet.

I’ve composed 7 pages (thus far) of my Answer to Plaintiff’s Response to my Motion to Dismiss.

My brain is working overtime & I’m working on all this to the detriment of my sleep and other obligations.

I am lucky in that I have a good brain, a computer and that I am fluent in English. I keep thinking about all the families without those resources and also without funds to purchase them and, like myself, are unable to find & buy competent legal respresentation.

Have a good weekend all!
Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
jeff, on June 6, 2009 at 1:12 am said:

Congratulations and Thank you, to this website and all the people that contribute. I (WE ) have just won a foreclosure case in NY. Neil, add this to your list of successes

The case was won for Lack of Standing. The pretend lender did not have the NOTE and probably never will.

I was going to try pro-se, but decided not to. Although, with all the info here I felt like I was an attorney. I AM NOT and never will be. If you can afford to pay a reasonable fee by all means do so. It will help you. just my opinion.

The pretend lenders atty filed a 60 page memorandem of law on why the court should not dismiss the case. They relied on 2 NY cases. HAHA, I used the two case against them and WON. They only used part of each case, the part that would help them. little did they know after I read the same cases, it provided my with enough ammo to defeat them at there own game.

The only thing I didn’t do at the time of filing for the Motion To Dismiss was to also ask to vacate the Lis Pendence. I will have to figure that out.

Thanks to everyone here. If anyone has any questions let me know.
L.Fitzgerald, on June 5, 2009 at 7:36 pm said:

My foreclosure case has a very simple solution !

I [ defendent ] can process a re-finance payment to pay off the ” lenders” and the mortgage amount due ….

” Lender ” [ plaintiff ] is not interested in receiving that payment
.
and is uncooperative …..

they only want my house because it has a high equity value !….

My Offers in Settlements have expired un answered…

What can be done ?

L.F.
VG Diaz, on June 5, 2009 at 4:43 pm said:

Former EMC Employee Publicly Discloses the Ugly Truth About the Mortgage Servicing Industry
By Denise Richardson on July 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Consumer Warning Network released a stunning video that has a former EMC employee reciting an inside story that paints a picture of why so many people can’t get their loan out of default and why some people lost homes even though they had the money to pay off their note. Investigative studies, insiders and victims -have claimed that mortgage servicing companies can make MORE money off of homeowners when they keep your loan in default.

“the media has failed to tell the full story” says Danny Schechter, producer and director of In Debt We Trust and the ‘News Dissector” from mediachannel.org. See: Bringing the Wall Street Crisis to Main Street!

Professor Katherine Porter described many of the same disturbing findings in her recent study: “Misbehavoir and Mistakes…”

To watch her on CNN see: Are you facing an Unfair Foreclosure?

Professor Porter was also a guest on our weekly radio show SpotLight.

During that interview we discussed her findings that additionally indicated the mortgage servicing industry has zero regulations. In fact, the system currently in place for servicing companies is set up in such a way that it actually gives servicing companies an incentive not to communicate with the borrower and then make more money by collecting late fees and penalties -much like this insider’s story.
VG Diaz, on June 5, 2009 at 4:21 pm said:

“[a] bank that was not the mortgagee when suit was filed cannot cure its lack of standing by subsequently obtaining an interest in the mortgage.” “Thus, Wells Fargo Bank lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against Jordan. As such, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of WFB because WFB was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We sustain Jordan’s first assignment of error, reverse summary judgment, and order the trial court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.”

see judgment below:

http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wellsfargov.jordan.pdf
Sara, on June 5, 2009 at 3:48 pm said:

Neil:

It has been brought up on MSFraud’s message board of starting a coalition called Citizens Against Predatory Lenders. Do you see anything wrong with this?

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3511831

I would love to hear your opinion on this subject.
James, on June 5, 2009 at 7:46 am said:

I take it back. If I were a multi Millionaire. I would not buy everyone a lawyer, I would buy everone a Judge.I
Lisa E., on June 5, 2009 at 4:26 am said:

Thank you to all who have offered advice, support, and encouragement!

Thanks to you all, my spirits are lifted. My confidence is renewed. The fight shall go on (cue the sound of trumpets & a battle cry).

Everyone have a wonderful weekend.

Lisa E.
James, on June 4, 2009 at 11:50 am said:

Lisa E.
I wish I were a multi Millionaire. I would buy everyone a lawyer. I wish you the best!
James, on June 4, 2009 at 11:17 am said:

Today I watched on CSPAN, a hearing where Cris Dodd said they had passed a law that gave the Servers of the loan a save haven, meaning they could not be sued by investors for doing a loan modifications.

He was trying to figure out why the Banks were still not doing midifications even after they were given a safe haven. He alos acknowledged that this was breaking the contracts between the Servers and investors.
My question is does this mean that the Servers will now modify loans and write down the principle? What implications does this Have?
floridadefensteam, on June 4, 2009 at 7:37 am said:

Lisa E. – You doing great – keep going!!! Since your not client of ours I can’t offer specific advise on how to proceed, however, I certainly can point out the “flaws” with the plaintiffs case ( I wrote answer under each of your statements)

I received a copy of plaintiff’s response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, showing a copy of note, with a stamped “Pay to the order of_________________” signed by a DHI Mortgage Assistant Secretary Kathy Harmon. The blank area has a stamped JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA. There is no date, nor is there a notarization.

PAY TO THE ORDER MAKES THIS AN ORDER INSTRUMENT, NEGOTITATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT REQUIRES AN ENDORSEMENT BY DELIVERY AND ENDORSEMENT. DOES THIS
CONTAIN AN ENDORSEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF OR ARE THEY JUST “CUSTODIANS” OF THE NOTE.
(Motion to Dismiss Standing)

There is also an ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, executed on May 21st (case was filed 3 months prior) and signed by two representatives of MERS, one of whom is Whitney Cook. Whitney Cook was the affiant who supposedly represented Chase Home Financial and intimated that she also represented US BANK NA.

Assignment – Effective date on assignment? State courts tend to let this one slide, federal courts this wouldn’t survive. Assignee and Assignor are same?
Corporate resolution filed with assignment? Motion to Strike, Void, fraud on the courts.

In light of questionable signatures and company affiliations, I would like to have discovery of DHI Mortgage’s employee records showing the dates of employment by Kathy Harmon, the signer on the Mortgage endorsement.

Excellent! Your on the right track!

I asked for discovery in March and most was objected to, but some items were actually answered. I don’t really understand this fully, but it appears to me that Plaintiff is stating that they had “allonge” (I’m guessing that means endorsement.). But, the copy of my mortgage attached to the complaint did not have that endorsement stamp. On 3/31/09, plaintiff answered the following discovery question as “denied”: Admit of deny that the alleged copy of the promissory note submitted and attached to the plaintiff’s complatin includes no allonge showing any assignment to US BANK NA, JPMORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST.

The “allonge” is a seperate piece of paper that needs to be affixed to the document. Copy of Mortgage was probably from public records.

5) There are subtle differences (besides the endorsement stamp) between the copy of the note attached to the complaint and the copy with the endorsement (ex: numbers at the bottom right page are missing from the endorsement copy. Additionally, the copy attached to the initial foreclosure filing had a large illegible stamp on the top right corner which is totally missing from the endorsed copy.

Did you go to the courthouse and view? Is the document have a blue ink signature?
Lisa E., on June 4, 2009 at 2:47 am said:

Plaintiff is U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S2.

I found SEC filings for JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S2 (way over my head), but nothing with US Bank “as trustee”.

How does US Bank play into all of this and who exactly is the Plaintiff?

Still looking for the Pooling & Servicing Agreement.

Lisa E.
Fraud Investigation Cutbacks Coming To A State Near You <, on June 4, 2009 at 12:09 am said:

In Georgia, Budget Cuts Trim Mortgage Complaint Resources

by Karen Weise,
ProPublica – June 3, 2009 2:02 pm

With one in eight mortgages either delinquent or in some stage of foreclosure, Georgia is at the center of the housing crisis. But as the problem grows, the state resources for consumers looking for help are shrinking. Most of the state workers handling mortgage-related complaints have been laid off.

Now, just one staffer — working “more than full time” — handles all of the complaints. The rest were laid off in the fall as casualties of the state’s $2 billion budget shortfall.

Previously, four staffers at the Department of Banking and Finance acted like case managers for consumers. They would guide consumers through complaint processes, reviewing documents, forwarding information to different regulatory entities and working to resolve disputes, according to Judy Newberry, deputy commissioner for legal and consumer affairs.

The remaining staffer no longer has the time to help consumers throughout the complaint. Instead, he serves more as triage, providing a list of outside resources and escalating overt cases of fraud, Newberry said.

In 2007, the department fielded 500 mortgage-related complaints, according to department reports. It does not know how many customers it helps now, since it no longer tracks complaints.

The timing couldn’t be worse — with foreclosures rising, more and more homeowners are fighting with lenders to stay in their homes. Plus, fraud is on the rise as scam artists prey on struggling homeowners and look to exploit the new $75 billion federal program to reduce foreclosures [1] through mortgage modifications and refinancing. In April, Attorney General Eric Holder said the FBI’s caseload of foreclosure rescue scams was up 400 percent over five years before.

As the crisis grows, other states have been beefing up aid to homeowners. Arizona launched a Foreclosure Help Line last year; Nevada, Colorado and Michigan all have hotlines for consumers to get help and report fraud.

Florida’s fraud hotline has fielded thousands of mortgage-related complaints in the past year. Consumers call about both overt scams and the challenges of navigating the mortgage servicers’ bureaucracy.

“Caller is very upset and crying,” an operator at Florida’s Fraud Hotline noted in her log. That morning, the caller said, she paid $1,000 to someone claiming to be a debt collector and threatening her with arrest. An hour later, she dialed the hotline again. “Caller says that Wells Fargo did not turn her over to a collection agency. Wells Fargo told her that this is theft and to make sure we know about it.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Title Insurance companies, states and countries are teetering at the brink of the Abyss.

Federal and state regulatory schemes, already eviscerated, are being pared to the bone.

Those of us fortunate enough to afford justice or press for accountability will be lucky to get 1c on the $1.

What WMD hath Wall Street and its enabling politicians wrought?

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Xyrant, on June 3, 2009 at 7:40 pm said:

Lisa,
Don’t despair. They had the note all the long. They were hoping to they could win without it. As Neil said, “follow the money”. Make them show you ledgers, canceled checks….You got to be persistent with your discovery. File motion to compel. Don’t take a no for an answer. It is all fabrications. Take some time to think strategically. Don’t let them drag you emotionally. Supoena the record of the title company.
Did you go over the Pooling and Servicing agreement? Did you check if the trust is registered in the state of Florida?
What about the rescission option?

xyrant@gmail.com
Lisa E., on June 3, 2009 at 6:45 pm said:

The note in my case has been found by the Plaintiff and apparently shows an endorsement to them. Please forgive my long posting below. And please bear with me as I’m trying to gather my thoughts on how to proceed.

I received a copy of plaintiff’s response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, showing a copy of note, with a stamped “Pay to the order of_________________” signed by a DHI Mortgage Assistant Secretary Kathy Harmon. The blank area has a stamped JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA. There is no date, nor is there a notarization.

There is also an ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, executed on May 21st (case was filed 3 months prior) and signed by two representatives of MERS, one of whom is Whitney Cook. Whitney Cook was the affiant who supposedly represented Chase Home Financial and intimated that she also represented US BANK NA.

So…….I’m scared and sad right now, feeling like I’m done in. But, a part of me does see how I could research how to file an answer stating:

1) Assignment was executed 3 months after foreclosure suit was initiated by Plaintiff.

2) Whitney Cook has now signed as a representative of three different entities in the paperwork filed by Plaintiff.

3) In light of questionable signatures and company affiliations, I would like to have discovery of DHI Mortgage’s employee records showing the dates of employment by Kathy Harmon, the signer on the Mortgage endorsement.

4) I asked for discovery in March and most was objected to, but some items were actually answered. I don’t really understand this fully, but it appears to me that Plaintiff is stating that they had “allonge” (I’m guessing that means endorsement.). But, the copy of my mortgage attached to the complaint did not have that endorsement stamp. On 3/31/09, plaintiff answered the following discovery question as “denied”: Admit of deny that the alleged copy of the promissory note submitted and attached to the plaintiff’s complatin includes no allonge showing any assignment to US BANK NA, JPMORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST.

5) There are subtle differences (besides the endorsement stamp) between the copy of the note attached to the complaint and the copy with the endorsement (ex: numbers at the bottom right page are missing from the endorsement copy. Additionally, the copy attached to the initial foreclosure filing had a large illegible stamp on the top right corner which is totally missing from the endorsed copy.

I guess I could file an answer pointing out the 5 items above, which might work to buy me a little more time?

Still, if they “found” the note……
Alina, on June 3, 2009 at 11:47 am said:

My concern is not with myself but rather the fact that the fees are being raised significantly. On the new fee schedule, for a home valued between $50,000 and $250,000, the fee for a counterclaim or cross-claim is $900.00, up from $295.00.

Although there is assistance for indigent persons, most homeowners with a house valued in the medium price range on the schedule would not qualify. Thereby, in effect, not affording them the chance to file a counterclaim or cross-claim. The economic situation in Florida is rather grim. In Central Florida, teachers do not have the money for even copies. Every third house is in foreclosure. I receive daily foreclosure alerts listing at least 6-8 homes per day in only 2 of the zip codes in Orlando. When I was in Orlando in March, I drove through neighborhood after neighborhood that have been virtually abandoned. The raising of the fees at this time is extremely inopportune. As it is, most people do not contest a foreclosure. Now, with the new fee schedule, even fewer people will be able to contest the foreclosures.

I am surprised at the way this has been passed without nary a notice. The new fee increase was initiated by judges and then backed by Sen. Ken Pruitt (R) and Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff (R). Apparently it passed completely unopposed.

Alina
Abby in CA, on June 3, 2009 at 10:00 am said:

To Alina: regarding increase in filing fees. Check around in Florida for any fee waiver laws. You may be able to file as a ‘pauper’ or for some financial status that would allow a waiver so you may not have to pay any of those fees.

I had to do so in Calif.

Hope this helps.
Alina, on June 3, 2009 at 7:18 am said:

To any homeowner defending a foreclosure in the State of Florida:

Effective June 1, 2009, the fees for filing new claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, etc have gone significantly up.

The new fees are:

CIRCUIT CASE CURRENT FEES: Filing Fee $295
CIRCUIT (NON-FORECLOSURE) NEW FEES: Filing Fee: $395
FORECLOSURE CASES NEW FEES:
Cases with Value up to $50,000 Filing Fee $395
Cases with Value between $50,000.01 and $250,000 Filing Fee $900
Cases with Value of greater than $250,000 Filing Fee $1,900

I am totally outraged by these increases because, in effect, it makes it virtually impossible for an ordinary John Doe to defend a foreclosure in Florida. This limits access to the courts by the citizens of the State of Florida.

I would like to get anyone else’s comments on this matter.

Alina
Delia Aguilar, on May 31, 2009 at 10:37 am said:

FOR ANYONE NEEDED AN ATTORNEY IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

Dear Mr. Timothy McCandless:

Thank you! Thank you!, Thank you! so much for standing up to the Pittsburg Superior Court in the Contra Costa County. The homeowners you represented last Friday, were amazed and impressed on how you stood up and fearlessly faught for their rights.

This court has been ordering evictions like traffic tickets and treating homeowners as if we are the criminals.

Again, Thank You Mr. McCandless
From Contra Costa County, CA
Xyrant, on May 28, 2009 at 6:30 am said:

Lisa,
Make sure you double/triple check the cost bond posted by the plaintiff. Sometimes they purposely forget to sign it or other technical defect.
Xyrant, on May 26, 2009 at 9:03 am said:

Alina,
The trust agreement I am referring to is the entity that shields the actual investors. You will find it on the SEC website. In my case, US BANK is the trustee for the investment trust that owns my note. US BANK must follow the trust agreement. In the agreement, USBANK should not be forced to registered in a state in a litigation. A trustee is like an administrator of the trust.
It is a really informative document.
xyrant@gmail.com
Alina, on May 26, 2009 at 6:58 am said:

Xrant,

Can you explain which trust agreement you are referring to? Thanks.

Alina
Xyrant, on May 25, 2009 at 10:28 am said:

If you’re Florida, make sure the entity suing has a certificate of authority to do business in Florida. If not use this law.
In the trust agreement it states that the trustee (ex. US BANK) will not participate in any suit that forces them to register in that state.
—————————————————–
Fl. St.617.1502 Consequences of conducting affairs without authority.–

(1) A foreign corporation conducting its affairs in this state without a certificate of authority may not maintain a proceeding in any court in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority.

(2) The successor to a foreign corporation that conducted its affairs in this state without a certificate of authority and the assignee of a cause of action arising out of those affairs may not maintain a proceeding based on that cause of action in any court in this state until the foreign corporation or its successor obtains a certificate of authority.

(3) A court may stay a proceeding commenced by a foreign corporation or its successor or assignee until it determines whether the foreign corporation or its successor requires a certificate of authority. If it so determines, the court may further stay the proceeding until the foreign corporation or its successor obtains the certificate.

(4) A foreign corporation which conducts its affairs in this state without authority to do so shall be liable to this state for the years or parts thereof during which it conducted its affairs in this state without authority in an amount equal to all fees and taxes which would have been imposed by this act upon such corporation had it duly applied for and received authority to conduct its affairs in this state as required by this act. In addition to the payments thus prescribed, such corporation shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than $500 or more than $1,000 for each year or part thereof during which it conducts its affairs in this state without a certificate of authority. The Department of State may collect all penalties due under this subsection.

(5) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the failure of a foreign corporation to obtain a certificate of authority does not impair the validity of any of its contracts, deeds, mortgages, security interests, or corporate acts or prevent it from defending any proceeding in this state.
msoliman, on May 24, 2009 at 2:59 am said:

Attack the Notice of Default early on.

The NOD is drawn by the mortgage company. Its one of their Doc modules and is easy to determine where drwn by other than the Trustee The NOD is drawn on behalf of the designated substitute . Therefore the information includes antici[ated and not currnet contact information that precedes its intended usage.

For example an auditor or attorney will review the integrity of the document long after the document was published and subject to the parties having assumed their roles. The substitution is another issue and here are some of the opportunities.

1. Look who “requested” the Notice which is found left corner top? The lenderer requested the current title company trustee to initiate the Default on behalf of the sustitute designated trustee.

2. Below the Requested By is the “Mail To:” and that where the Substituted Trustee belongs and properly should be dispalyed.

3. It is assumed impossible for a new trustee to actually enforce the lenders rights to initiate a recovery under the acceleration and power of sale clauses where the intended Trustee” is absent the borrower file.

Therefore the lemders hope is the issue won’t be addressed until late in the foreclosure and usually only in a UD defense

Call the trustees who will likely claim it is merely an agent and ask for default filing information immediately upon receiving the notice. Log down what they tell you and don’t be surprised if they say they have yet to receive the file or offer any information thereof.

Its not grounds for much outside of seeking to rescind the foreclosure process from the date of the notice being filed.

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Lisa E., on May 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm said:

Here’s my Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Affidavit as to Amounts Due and Owing. I thought it might be of interest to others. I tried to keep on focus.

I am really appalled that this is allowed to happen, this immoral legal practice, over and over. Lady Justice is not just blind, but is turning a blind eye towards this very harmful, immoral treatment of the average Joe American.
_______________________________________

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Affidavit As To Amounts Due and Owing (Docket File #24) As Invalid On Its Face

Grounds:
1. Affidavit purports to be “submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment yet Plaintiff has not filed a Motion for Final Judgment.
2. Affiant purports to have personal knowledge of “the facts contained in this affidavit”…”as of 04/20/2009”, yet the affidavit was notarized on 02/25/2009, eight days after the case was filed.
3. Affidavit purports that Plaintiff “is owed the following sums of money as of 04/20/09”, yet only one item is typed in, the “Pre-Acceleration Late Charges through February 09, 2009”, the only figure that was a known value on the date the Affidavit was notarized on 02/25/2009. The other figures are handwritten in over typed blank underscores, leaving open to speculation that these figures could have been written in on 04/20/2009.
4. Plaintiff filed case on 02/17/2009. The Affiant states under oath “in this uncontested foreclosure case”, yet this case has been contested since the filing of Defendants Motion to Dismiss filed on 03/09/2009 (Docket File #11).
5. Affiant purports to be “Assistant Secretary” of Chase Home Finance LLC, the servicer of the loan, yet refers to U.S. BAND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-S2 using the first person plural “we”, indicating Affiant is purporting to be affiliated with U.S. BAND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-S2.
6. Affidavit purports Plaintiff is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” yet to prevail in the re-esblishment of a lost note a party must comply with the law (F.S. 673.3091). In interpreting this statute, a Florida court has held that the party must have had possession of the instrument before it was lost or have received the right to enforce it from someone who had possession of it before it was lost. (State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790, 791 (Fla 4th DCA 2003).
7. Affidavit purports Plaintiff is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”, yet Plaintiff has not established standing as a holder in due course in this matter.
8. Affidavit purports an agreed upon attorney fee structure between U.S. BAND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-S2 and Plaintiff , listing an hourly rate for contested cases which is in direct contradiction to Plaintiff’s previously filed Affidavit of Reasonable Attorney Fees (Docket File #21) which states “pursuant to a flat fee arrangement”.
9. As recently as seven months ago, Florida Default Law Group (FDLG) was sanctioned for Negligent Practice and False Representations for filing false affidavits 58 B.R. 14257 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 2008). In that order, attorney for FDLG admitting to “less than 50” false stay relief affidavits were filed, and furthermore asserted that “at no point in State Court” would affidavits with egregious falsifications be filed because an “attorney would review the state of the case” prior to filing. Judge Olsen’s opinion is scathing in it’s condemnation of FDLG “filing any old pleading without undertaking any investigation into its accuracy is perfectly acceptable practice.” Judge Olsen continues, “FLDG parties have engaged in the systemic process of churning out unrefined and unexamined form pleadings, instead of producing and filing carefully considered legal papers. This has resulted in an abuse of the system and sanctions to deter continued recklessness are warranted.”
Abby in CA, on May 22, 2009 at 1:40 pm said:

I have a fraud, TILA, civil RICO etc. complaint filed in California against a number of defendants (banks, title companies etc.) and the original lender New Century.

Because New Century is in Chpt 11 BKR in Delaware, their attorney has filed a ‘stay’ since they are in BKR.

I need to know if that means they don’t have to respond to my first discovery -interrogatories etc. and I need to know if that puts a ‘stay’ on my whole case including the other defendants (banks etc.).

Advice is appreciated. I am representing myself.
Cat, on May 21, 2009 at 3:31 pm said:

I wrote back in April regarding Chase Foreclosing on me for 3 months of unpaid escrow, my escrow account was already 5k over for the year. So yes they break RESPA LAWS and on the bottom of the monthly statements they say “FEDERAL LAW requires us to maintain a balance of more than 1/6 of your escrow amount” UNTRUE, it is the servicers discretion to even charge escrow, So yes they break REGULATION Z LAWS Misleading/false information/advertising, then MAIL these statements – US MAIL FRAUD

I receive a letter from Chase today stating that my account is current for the exception of April and May’s payment (the payments they returned me) and that they stopped the foreclosure proceedings. HUM…
I am standing hard – I have over 10k missing from my 2007 and 2008 escrow, I was denied financing for a leased vehicle which I have leased forever, my credit will be damaged for years.

I know they can’t comply with the information my attorney has requested – they would not have rolled over.

My loan is Fannie Mae – My initial mortgage was with Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp, now Chase Home Finance, LLC. The following is some information I think will be helpful:

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp in 2006 withdrew their right to do business in Florida. This is what their withdrawal states:
This corporation is no longer transacting business or conducting affairs within the State of Florida and hereby voluntarily surrenders its authority to transact business or conduct affairs in Florida. There is nothing saying there was a merger, the state would have referensed them. Chase Home Financial was LLC’d in 2005, they had one year to run their game/gain! I have tons of data, please let me know if you would like me to keep you posted.
Cat, on May 21, 2009 at 2:14 pm said:

You can go to myfloridacounty.com and get all records for the state of Florida.
Xyrant, on May 21, 2009 at 1:43 pm said:

VG,
Search Google for your county clerk web site. For instance for Oceola county you will type “Oceola county cleark”.
Some small county may not have a web site with docket search. In Florida most do.
Alina, on May 21, 2009 at 1:33 pm said:

A question to everyone in which FDLG is the opposing counsel:

Has anyone researched whether FDLG is part of the Moss Codilis/LPS network? This is something that I am seeking through discovery in my own case although I’m not battling FDLG.

The reason I ask is because of the 58 page opinion by a PA bankruptcy judge regarding these entites – HSBC v. Taylor. An excellent analysis of this case was posted a couple of weeks ago on this website.

Alina
VG Diaz, on May 21, 2009 at 12:59 pm said:

Where is the website I can get my docket and see what has been filed?

Alina,

Can you please send me the order of that case you mentioned below?

vgdiaz@earthlink.net

Thanks.
Lisa E, on May 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm said:

Hi Xyrant!

FYI: Florida Default Group posted that non-resident cost bond! I saw it on my online docket! That was super fast!

Thought you might be interested.

Lisa E.
Xyrant, on May 21, 2009 at 9:23 am said:

Lisa,
At the SEC site, look for the document titled Prospectus. It is a big document with all the information you need. It is a long read, but worth it.
Xyrant, on May 21, 2009 at 9:07 am said:

Hello Lisa,
You should file an Affidavit Opposing Summary Judgment. Make sure the affidavit lists your objections and it is notarized.
Don’t trust anything they say. They will use all kind of tricks on you. In my case they claim that USBANK as trustee hired them. I know that it is untrue. The true party pushing the lawsuit is the servicer GMAC. I sent a letter to the lawyer to warn him that if he continues to participate in the fraud, I will file a complaint with Florida Bar.
I have also contacted via certified mail with returned receipt the trustee. I asked them if they authorized the suit. I told them that if they did it will be a) in violation of the trust agreement b) contradict their SEC filing c) contradict their IRS filing.
You can get the pooling and servicing agreement from the SEC web site at http://www.secinfo.com.
You can also ask for it via the QWR.
If you go to a hearing, bring in a court reporter. If things get too complicated for you and you’re not sure what you should answer, said “Your honor, I elect to stand on my pleadings”.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is my opinion not legal advice.

xyrant@gmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on May 21, 2009 at 8:03 am said:

Lisa,
Email me and I will let you know what I did to find mine.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Alina, on May 21, 2009 at 6:49 am said:

Lisa,

In October 2008, Judge Olson of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida sanctioned Florida Default Law Group $95,000 for filing false affidavits. The case is In Re: Haque, Case No. 08-14257.

The Order is interesting as the judge asked FDLG how affidavits containing false representations they had filed. FDLG responded that they could not remember but it was “definitely less than 50.”

If you would like a copy of the order, I can email it to you.

Alina
virani0786@yahoo.com
Florida Defense Team, on May 21, 2009 at 4:28 am said:

Lisa,

Florida Default is just a mill, they are robotic and they can be defeated. Keep pushing until they yield.
Lisa E., on May 21, 2009 at 1:28 am said:

Sorry for all the posts in a row. Using my 3am insomnia time to work on my case.

5/15/09 FL Default Group filed Affidavit as to Amounts Due and Owing, signed by Whitney K. Cook in Ohio. Please see items in this document & my paranthetical comments/questions.

1) Submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgement (Plaintiff has not filed a Motion for Final Judgement). In fact, this document was notorized 9 short days after the foreclosure suit was originally filed.

2) Lists sums of money owed as of 4/20/09 (document was notorized on 2/25/09, and original foreclosure case was filed only 9 days earlier on 2/17/09)

3) States “in this uncontested foreclosure case, we have agreed to pay the law firm, Florida Default Group a flat fee of $1200. In the event the matter becomes contested, we have agreed to pay an hourly fee up to $175/hr. (First, attny’s filed a Affidavit of Reasonable fees where it states the law group is owed $1475 as of 3/26/09 and that it “does not keep records of it’s time while it represents the Plaintiff pursuant to a flat fee arrangement”. Now, if I were being paid $175/hr, I would surely track my time! Second, this matter is not “uncontested”!).

This seems so wrong to me and I have no idea how to proceed. Do I file more papers contesting this? What is the name of the filing? Do I just make notes to present to the judge? I am very shy and can’t imagine speaking at a podium in a courtroom to a judge!

I’m just a simple working mom, a good kind woman who has no legal background. I feel so badly for all of us, all of “our” American families dealing with this debacle that is so frightingly threatening our homes!

Any suggestions appreciated.

Good luck to all!
Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa E., on May 21, 2009 at 12:38 am said:

Could someone please advise me on how to find my loan’s pooling & servicing agreement?

Thank you very much!
Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
Lisa E., on May 21, 2009 at 12:12 am said:

Please follow Xyrant’s advice in the posting directly below mine here, regarding weekly review of your online court docket.

I just discovered Florida Default Law Group filed a Motion for Default on 4/2/09. Now, I have received copies of every single filing of their EXCEPT for that critical one (innocent oversight, I suspect not).

After I saw it online, I immediately called the clerk of the court. I typed up and mailed to the court a one page document notifying the court of Failure of Plaintiff’s Attorney to serve a true and correct copy of Motion to Dismiss (I made an error in there as I should have written Motion to DEFAULT). I faxed and mailed a copy to FL. Default Law Group.

Thank goodness their Motion for Default was denied, all without any work on my part.

So far I’ve:
Responded to the lawsuit with Motion to Dismiss
Disputed the Debt
Filed Request for Discovery, Admissions, & Interrogatories
Filed a Lack of Posting a Cost Bond by Plaintiff’s Attny
Filed Motion to Deny Granting Plaintiff’s Legal Fees
Filed Notice of Failure to Serve Documents to Defendant
Filed Request for Discovery in form of a QWR

HA HA HA, kinda sounds like I know what in the heck I’m talking about!

Most of the above has been summarily shot down in legal mumbo jumbo by Florida Law Group.

Lisa E (Pro Se in Florida)
Diana Cirigliano, on May 16, 2009 at 10:25 pm said:

We have been going through a mess basically since right after the closing in 2005. Now in foreclosure – Wells Fargo trustee for BEAR STEARNS asset backed sec. Greenpoint Mort. We were served in June 08, they claimed no note, now trying to make one original. We have council, we paid for handwriting analysis, claimed forgery. Now we seem to be going no where. This is not our current home Thank God. We don’t want to stall we want this over.
I would like to find as many cases in FLORIDA or anywhere from WELLS Fargo who initially go into court saying that they have lost the note. If I have them couldn’t we show the judge that Wells Fargo is intentionally lying and misleading the court? Wouldn’t this prove the guilty of the Fair Collections?
How can I get a hold of these actual cases? I went to the county records but it doesn’t show the actual foreclosure papers claiming that they lost the notes.
If people banned together and gave each other this information couldn’t you go into court asking why these large amounts of securities are not recorded as being lost with the sec?
We have already lost so much through this battle, a lot of money, I lost a 5 month baby in utero, our credit rating, job advancements, our sanity !!
I want to fight this hard I want these criminals to pay but it sure is not any easy task, they have the money to fight.
Anyone reading this who would like to know more or who can send me filings that can help us please contact me!!!!! PLEASE!!!
Diana C
Florida
dlsolomon@bellsouth.net
I will help anyone out there that may need my help at some time
We have been raped and pillaged and I want those people who lay their heads down on their pillows and sleep at our expense to have some sleepless nights of their own!!
msoliman, on May 16, 2009 at 2:06 pm said:

Court reporter is an absolutute must. But check with the department you are in , they usually have a recording device which you must request for transcript purposes.

admin@borrowerhotline.com
Xyrant, on May 16, 2009 at 12:18 pm said:

Hello,
A little piece of information. Most counties in the US have a website where you can check the docket on foreclosure cases. If you have an ongoing case, I recommend you check your docket at least once a week. You can also look at similar cases to learn about different strategies in your defense.

It is also a good idea to bring a court reporter in your hearing. I have seen too much from some judges. Having a court reporter will put the judge on notice that he/she is on record and to stick to the law; it also prepare you for appeal.
xyrant@gmail.com
James, on May 13, 2009 at 1:06 pm said:

Forgive me for the distracting rant below; I understand that it is a non sequitur but the people at work have forbidden me to rant.

I read about three months ago that Chase was opening five Loan Modification Centers in Florida so they could do more loan modifications. Then I read on some post here that they are doing their foreclosure actions in-house and noticed that they are mentioned more in posts as the foreclosing agent . Adding 2 and 2 I would guess that the new Loan Modification Centers are just cover for Chase’s FORECLOSURE MILLS . What a bunch of crooks. How is it possible that they can sleep it night. Evil pure Evil. May JAMIE DIMON Wall Street nice guy rot in HELL. This is the guy who spoke to the New York Chamber of Commerce and said we shouldn’t call each other names and at the same time was setting up his own personal Forclosure Mills. Is it ok to say Bastard on this site?
jason, on May 13, 2009 at 6:41 am said:

my loan was colsed may 19th 2006….I have been searching the 8k filings and cannot locate my loan. does anyone know how soon before or after my loan was closed , that it would show up in the SEC filings….thanks, jason
againstchl, on May 12, 2009 at 4:01 am said:

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ISSUES, WOULD APPRECIATE ANYONES WHO HAS EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD TO COMMENT.

This may interest you, this is part of a true transcript that happened with my case a few weeks back. I filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, subject matter jurisdiction, real party in interest ect….the motion has yet to be heard. counsel for the lender brought it up on her own, im guessing that they thought the judge would rule in their favor. This was made at the MSJ stage.

JUDGE: UNDER LAW, DOES A SERVICER HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING A FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT IT IS JUST A SERVICER.

COUNSEL: IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, THERES NOTHING THAT REQUIRES DISCLOSURES

JUDGE: WHAT ABOUT REAL PARTY IN INTEREST?

COUNSEL: THERE ARE CASES THAT HOLD THAT A SERVICER HAS SUFFICIENT STANDING AS A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. THERE ARE CERTAIN STANDARDS WITH FANNIE MAE AND THE ORIGINATING LENDER. THERES NOTHING IMPROPER, ITS ANOTHER STALLING TACTIC. ommited

JUDGE: I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUESTION OF THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. ITS AN ISSUE THAT HAS NOT BEEN FULLY RESOLVED UNDER STATE LAW, WHETHER A SERVICER ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR AN UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL HAS THE AUTHORITY OR IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTERSEST IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING. THERES AT LEAST AN ARGUMENT THAT BY FILING AN ACTION BY THE WRONG PARTY WITHOUT STANDING BECOMES A SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PROBLEM, IT IS NOT WAIVABLE.
msoliman, on May 10, 2009 at 5:12 am said:

STRUCTURE OF ASSET TRANSFERS
RECOURSE: Some transfers of non prime receivables with recourse will meet certain criteria of FAS140 and be counted for as a sale.

Other transfers will fail the criteria and be accounted for as secured borrowings.

GAAP mandates the arrangement between a (QSPE), transferor and transferee qualify as a sale and not debt. (Hint) Some loans go into foreclosure immediately and other loans do not. But everything seems to go to sale at 36 months.

MSoliman
http://www.borrowerhotline.com
James, on May 9, 2009 at 11:21 am said:

Alina,
I read the rulings you sent me (not all of the 58 pager, but I will). You are right they are entertaining and also tragic. I didn’t know Judges had a sense of humor when they wrote their rulings.
I wrote the author of the below article and asked her to read Neil’s comments on her article. I also asked her to do follow ups as it is much needed. Hopefully she will read the info on this site and do more articles.
James, on May 7, 2009 at 4:52 pm said:

Hi Alina,

duh, here’s the right email address.

jdcclearwater@gmail.com
James, on May 7, 2009 at 4:03 pm said:

Alina,
Try again I had email troublee today.
james
Alina, on May 7, 2009 at 9:31 am said:

James,

I tried to email some of Schack’s decisions to you at the email address you posted and I received a message stating that the email address could not be found.

Alina
James, on May 7, 2009 at 8:08 am said:

Alina,
Thanks for the references. I will check them out.
I also wrote my Senators and Representative on the article below . More letters to the Flordia AG would be good.
Please help. I need to see someone go to jail.
jdcclearwater@hotmail.com
Alina, on May 6, 2009 at 7:19 am said:

James,

What you have missed is that this is the pattern and practice in the industry. Nationwide is not the only company doing this. It just happens to be the one that was profiled in this story. Look up Ocwen, Select Protfolio, etc. You will find that it is standard industry practice. Also look up all the King County/Schack rulings where Judge Schack has come down hard on this practice. You will find the decisions interesting and entertaining.

Having said that, you are right that it is fraud and it’s a good thing that it is being profiled. Now they need to do a story that includes all these bozos.

As a matter of fact, they can start with the assignment in my case where I have uncovered that the person who signed the assignment as Assistant Secretary of MERS also signed assignments on the same day as Document Control Manager (whatever the heck that is) for Select Portfolio. Additionally, this person has signed for other banks as well. The assignments I have uncovered have been filed across the country. And, yes, I have filed a complaint with the Florida AG’s office who recently sent me an email thanking me for the information.

Documents are being fabricated on a large scale in order for the parties bringing suit to make it appear as if they have standing.

Another name to look for is LPS f/k/a Fidelity National. There is a recent PA bankruptcy decision which details how LPS works that I can email to you. The decision is 58 pages and the judge was very detailed.

Alina
832.366.3526
virani0786@yahoo.com
James, on May 6, 2009 at 5:20 am said:

I have written the Florida Attorney General complaint from their web site stating that Changing the Note was FRAUD and that they should prosecute Nationwide Title Clearing and the Lenders involved. If you guys could also go the FAGO and email a complaint I would appreciate it the more complaints from the public the better the chance for prosecution. Just Google Florida Attorney General and it will take you to their web site. I also am going to write the US Attorney Generals Office and the Governor of Florida.
If you could help maybe we could get some of these guys in Jail.
To me this seems like they have admitted their FRAUD. Have I missed something.
James, on May 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm said:

This is an article that ran on Sunday. I thought it might be of interest.
Where does the money go?

Tampa Bay companies help lenders transfer home loans, foreclose

By Susan Taylor Martin, St. Petersburg Times Senior Correspondent
In Print: Sunday, May 3, 2009

Despite the turmoil in the lending industry, Bryan Bly seems to have no trouble finding a job.
On Aug. 3, 2007, Bly signed a document as vice president of Option One Mortgage.
On Feb. 13, 2009, Bly signed a document as vice president of Deutsche Bank.
And on Feb. 18, 2009, Bly initialed dozens of documents — this time as vice president of Citi Residential Lending.
In fact, Bly never worked for any of those. His real employer is Nationwide Title Clearing, a Pinellas County company that helps lenders clean up problems that can complicate efforts to foreclose.
Bly, who lives in a Clearwater trailer park, is one of several Nationwide employees authorized by lenders to sign as “vice president” in assigning loans from one company to another. Assignments are key in determining who actually owns the loan, an issue that has become all-important as banks foreclose on millions of loans that were bundled into securities and sold to investors.
Nationwide says the assignments and other services it handles for lenders help ensure everything is legal and above board if they sell a loan or need to foreclose.
“We’re pretty much sticklers that what we put in the record is legitimate,” says Jeremy Pomerantz, a Nationwide spokesman.
Critics, though, say that Bryan Bly and “vice presidents” like him at similar companies are part of an assembly-line process designed to resolve a big problem: In the rush to “flip” loans as fast as possible in order to make more money, the new loan holders often failed to get the proper paperwork showing they owned the loan and had the right to foreclose.
“The problem is that when lenders foreclose, they have to have all their ducks in a row,” says Rob Napolitano, a New Jersey mortgage expert. “They’re trying to doctor up these assignments in order to create an ownership trail that didn’t exist in the first place.”
Signatures challenged
At a time when one in every 159 American homes is in foreclosure, the seemingly slapdash way in which loans change hands is giving homeowners a tool to delay or even stop the foreclosure process. More and more judges are demanding that the party seeking to foreclose prove that it owns the loan “note” — the borrower’s promise to repay the debt.
In New York, a judge dismissed Deutsche Bank’s motion to foreclose on a $408,000 loan last year because it had started foreclosure proceedings while the loan was still owned by IndyMac Bank.
The judge said he wouldn’t reconsider the case unless Deutsche explained why one woman — Erica Johnson-Seck — had signed as vice president of two different companies. The judge also said he was “perplexed” as to why both Deutsche and IndyMac had the same address, and why an affidavit by Johnson-Seck, who supposedly worked in California, was notarized in Texas.
In New Jersey, another foreclosure case was thrown out after the “vice president” for Deutsche Bank acknowledged she was only an assistant secretary. “She said she was told to fill out the paperwork however it needed to be done in order to make the document look valid,” Napolitano said.
To help homeowners protect themselves from questionable, even illegal foreclosures, Tampa attorney Chris Hoyer started the Consumer Warning Network last year. The Web site, which now gets as many as 80,000 hits a day, gives tips on challenging foreclosures — “Make ‘em produce the note!” — and sample letters for contacting lenders.
“The intent is not to get someone a free house, but to delay the foreclosure and put pressure on the lender to negotiate,” said Hoyer, a former federal prosecutor.
Among those who have been helped by the site is Thomas Worthington, who lost his information technology job in November. Although he has yet to miss a payment on his Sarasota home, he decided in February to try to modify his loan terms.
That’s when Worthington learned that the right to collect his payments had been sold to American Home Mortgage Servicing, AHMS. But public records showed that the loan itself had been assigned to Deutsche Bank on a document signed by Crystal Moore, a vice president of Citi Residential Lending.
“So I called AHMS and asked them who owned my mortgage,” Worthington said. “I got a service rep in India, and he said, ‘We own your mortgage.’ ”
Suspicious, Worthington sent the company a letter asking for the loan note, appraisal and other documents proving that it really did own his loan. The response he received might help him fight foreclosure if it ever comes to that.
“What I got back was a copy of the title report,” Worthington said, “which leads me to believe they have squat.”
Nationwide steps in
Worthington’s loan wasn’t the only one assigned to Deutsche Bank in February. Records in Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough counties show scores of assignments with Crystal Moore as vice president. Moore appears to have been in a big hurry — instead of signing her full name she scrawled a single loopy initial.
Like Bryan Bly, Moore is actually an employee of Nationwide Title Clearing. And the assignments she and Bly initialed in February were done under a contract with Citi Residential to make sure Deutsche Bank was shown as the owner of thousands of securitized loans.
Founded in 1992, Nationwide is a private company that occupies a swath of low, white buildings in Palm Harbor.
From 300 to 400 employees at the peak of the real estate boom, Nationwide now has about 115 who handle tax and title searches, lien releases and other services for dozens of lenders. It also updates information for MERS, the electronic mortgage tracking system created by the lending industry to reduce paperwork and recording fees as loans change hands.
To expedite transactions, Nationwide gets resolutions from lenders that authorize Bly, Moore and other employees of “proven reliability” to sign as their vice presidents, said Pomerantz, the Nationwide spokesman. On a big project like the Citi-to-Deutsche loan assignments, “they may sit there all day for a week and sign.”
“We follow every little requirement, far better than most banks do,” Pomerantz said, adding that “every one of our competitors uses the same methodology.”
But it is exactly that assembly-line process that makes critics wonder if “vice presidents” can be certain that what they are signing is accurate and legal.
“Papering over a hole doesn’t make the hole disappear,” Hoyer said. “Using this device to present an air of legitimacy is an affront to the judicial system and a stain on society.”
Susan Taylor Martin can be reached at susan@sptimes.com.
VG Diaz, on May 4, 2009 at 3:20 pm said:

I received a response to my QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST, COMPLAINT, DISPUTE OF DEBT AND VALIDATION OF DEBT LETTER, TILA REQUEST from Indymac Bank, but the only thing they send me was copies of note, mortgage, appraisal and any other related closing document to the loan, but they stated that they cannot and will not provide any other documentation regarding the servicing of the loan or internal documents and notations, guidelines or other material supplied to them by third parties in connection with the organization of this loan because they claim is not required under a QWR.

Obviosly Indymac will not provide any more documentation, is this a good thing and can it be use as an affirmative defense or is there anything else I should send to them?

Please advice, I simply need some guidance.
Xyrant, on May 3, 2009 at 10:18 am said:

At my hearing for a motion to dismiss, the judge forced me to argue other 2 pending motions that were not scheduled for the hearing. I was not prepared to argue my case. The judge denied all of my motions. Is that a violation of Rule 1.100(b) of FL Civil Procedure?

———————
(b) Motions. An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which shall be made in writing unless made during a hearing or trial, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion. All notices of hearing shall specify each motion or other matter to be heard.
Xyrant, on May 3, 2009 at 10:09 am said:

Doris,
When they said the lost the note, it is most likely a lie. As soon as they discover that you will put up a fight, the note and mortgage will miraculously appear out of no where.
One tactic is to file an answer and use the lost note as a defense. If you don’t file an answer they will amend their complaint and bring in the note. You have to outmaneuver them. At least that’s my personal experience in Florida.
Alina, on April 30, 2009 at 3:02 pm said:

Allan,

Your post is great.

On a sidebar, the attorneys I work with should be instructed that “A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits.”

Unfortunately, from my experience, attorneys for the most part do take lawsuits as a game where the cleverest wins. When I was studying pre-law, I was advised to take drama. The reason was that it is theatrics that win your case in court, not necessarily the truth (this is the reason Justice has a blindfold). After being a civil litigation trial paralegal for 20 years, I can tell you that it is definitely the presentation of a case that wins most of the time not necessarily its merits.

I am not trying to dissuade anyone from going pro se. But I believe you should know what you are going up against.

Having said all that, I am handling my case pro se.

Alina
Alina, on April 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm said:

k.w.,

this is the closest to TRCP you cited:

RULE 1.120. PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS
(a) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, the authority of a party to sue or
be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a
party, except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court. When a party desires to raise an issue as to
the legal existence of any party, the capacity of any party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be
sued in a representative capacity, that party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.

Alina

p.s. Florida is still a bit backward – they do not even have e-discovery rules yet.
Doris, on April 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm said:

Beneficial / HSBC are claiming they lost the note or stolen, very strange all these valuable notes are lost or destroyed. They filed an affidavit to that. What can we use when they lie that it was lost or destroyed? I wouldn’t lose a check because it is valuable..We know the truth, so what’s the best way to stop their lies?
VG Diaz, on April 30, 2009 at 1:20 pm said:

I was serve today with a foreclosure action from Wells Fargo as trustee for the certificate holders….

Count 2 – Re-establishment of note
they claimed that they lost the note and mortgage or the note and mortgage was destroyed.

Is there a motion to dimiss or afirmative defenses for this count?
MaryF Wills, on April 30, 2009 at 11:20 am said:

Fought for our home for a year, still lost in Feb 09. Received 3 day quit then served with Unlawful Detainer which we answered. Now we have court tomorrow so I’m preparing our paperwork asking for a extension. In the process of gathering info, I have found a envelope from the title company containing both orginial and copies to keep(2 separate sets) that I had failed to mail back one. This envelope contains the following items:Acceptance Escrow Instructions,Amendments,Natural Hazard Disclosure, CAL FIRPTA Instructions, Note and Deed of Trust, Statement of Information, Preliminary Change of Owenship, New Loan & Insurance Info and Vesting Worksheet.
How do I use this to get our home back?
k.w, on April 30, 2009 at 6:38 am said:

Texas has the following rule in their civil procedure. I am looking for something similar in florida civil procedure.
Any body has any idea? It is a very potent tool. A lot of time the plaintiff attorney does not have the authorization from the trust to file suit. They come to court by deception hoping that no one will challenge them.
——————————
RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY
A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating
that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the
attorneyto be cited to appear beforethe court and show his authorityto act. The notice of the motion
shall be served upon the challenged attorney at least ten days before the hearing on the motion. At
the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show
sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure to
show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall
strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears. The motion may
be heard and determined at any time before the parties have announced ready for trial, but the trial
shall not be unnecessarily continued or delayed for the hearing
Allan (with some online and offline resources and strong encouragement to fellow Pro Ses), on April 29, 2009 at 9:54 pm said:

Here is a cursory history of self-representation in America. (Click on my name hyperlinked above).

Remember, when you’re represented by counsel, the judge is relegated to his proper role as a disinterested referee between zealous adversaries. When you represent yourself, the judge is supposed to transform him/herself and become an accommodating seeker of truth, sometimes acting as your lawyer in that quest.

“Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also impact pro se litigants. For example, The State of California Judicial Counsel has, through published materials, addressed the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to self-represented litigants. The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertance by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. The Judicial Counsel justifies this position based on the idea that “Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee… A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits.” It suggests “the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial”

My own experience has been that in 50% of my experiences in court, I have fared well as a pro se. When I did have lawyers, they were exceptional 50% of the time, and disastrous the other 50% of the time. What made them disasters was that, though my case had merit, the representation was botched ab initio. Sometimes the winner take all adversarial system is but a lottery.

Too often it comes down to how much justice one can afford.

Take inspiration from the pro ses who succeeded in their David v Goliath litigation. You needn’t have a “fool for a client.”

UNTIL AN ATTORNEY WHO “GETS IT” COMES ALONG, BE YOUR VERY OWN HERO

Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
mary, on April 29, 2009 at 2:07 pm said:

Ten months ago I came across this site when my parents estate went into foreclosure. I learned what a lost note was, I learned about producing the note, what a affidavit was and how it can be challenged.
Each time I came to this site I learned more and then I just looked into the local laws and amazing how alot of states basically use the same statutes when it comes to foreclosures.
I represented the estate pro se and I made it in front of a fair Judge. I submitted under local Civil Procedure Rules that any party can request Settlement facilitation.
I wrote a letter and received an Order to SFC.
Last Friday was the conference, the Plaintiff, his attorney, junior lend holder, thier attorney, myself and the facilitator sat down and discussed options.
Well, I am now walking away with the Foreclosure settled with prejudice.
I learned so much. I never would have won if it hadn’t been for this site and everyones knowledge. You have to learn the law, look-up words, read laws within laws but I never would have known that there was a defense without Niel and his supporters.
There is hoe if you are willingly to fight and not givre up. I cannot believe how sloppy the banking practices are and how they don’t following not only local and district law but what little regard they have had with the Federal Regulations when they transfe title.
THe Lendholder finally produced the original Note but it hadn’t been indorsed or recorded for 15 years and the Mortgage hadn’t been recorded for the same. I was going to seperate the Mortgage from the Note and then challenge the recording statutes of limit.
They also filed several lost notes that said they couldn’t find it, so I challenged all the elements of a holder in due course.
I submitted that they produced affidavit’s stating they lost it and without recording they couldn’t prove they had it before the transfer was done.I wanted to know why they hadn’t produced in the several hearings prior and still filed affidavits stating the note was lost.
That was just a couple of my defenses that I believe helped me win.
Thanks for all the help.
Fraud in FL???, on April 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm said:

I can not seem to find an attorney in my area that understands what is going on with this whole foreclosure mess and was hoping someone can answer my one question below.

Up until 04/19/09, the county clerk of courts showed my original mortgage document with AMNET MORTGAGE as the lender. On 04/20/09, an Assignment of Mortgage was recorded by the clerk of court naming JP MORGAN CHASE as the assignee / mortgage holder. Here is where it gets interesting. The assignment states that MERS officers acting as nominee for AMNET MORTGAGE (assignor) assigned, transferred and conveyed the mortgage to JP MORGAN CHASE. According to my research, AMNET MORTGAGE is no longer in business so how could it have officers, plus I am not even sure they are legally the current holder of the mortgage since MERS is involved. Better yet, the signing officers for MERS as nominee for AMNET MORTGAGE are Section Managers for JP MORGAN CHASE. I discovered this by googling their names. After doing further research I found these same officers of MERS, JP MORGAN CHASE employees, were acting as nominee’s of MERS for multiple other lenders assigning mortgages over to JP MORGAN CHASE.

Now JP MORGAN CHASE is trying to foreclose through FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP even though I have had no dealings with JP MORGAN CHASE in the past.

So my question is, was / is it legal for JP MORGAN CHASE to use its own employees as MERS nominee’s to assign a mortgage from another lender (AMNET or any other lender for that matter) to itself? In my opinion there is some major fraud going on here.

Any other insight anyone can offer would be appreciated.

Michael
South Florida
MSoliman, on April 25, 2009 at 6:40 pm said:

SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 2009
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION PLAN
“…An Expert Witness must be available in a market where attorneys just seem lost with the issues at hand).

At NLS, we are presenting all our cases to the lender in hopes they can realize the need to assist each borrower and to preserve homeownership as the Obama plan calls for. I offer over 20 years of experience trading subprime receivables on Wall Street. I know the tricks of the trade and know where my cohorts are vulnerable. I am here 24 hours a day to get on the phone with you and your servicer to resolve these matters.

Homeowners were violated and taken advantage of by the lenders who were reckless and aware of the tragic problems they have caused. Our efforts as “expert witnesses” to counsel support case development for clients hurt by lender malfeasance and unethical programs. We work close with attorneys and clients to provide substance or evidence of a wrongful servicer and lender practices.

An Expert Witness must be available in a market where attorneys just seem lost with the issues at hand. We asked you all from the beginning to consider isolating counsel. If we could not provide you ample support for a wrongful foreclosure you must pursue an action against your lender with a licensed attorney. A threat of litigation we are told by our attorneys is the last resolution.

After filing for litigation some of our clients and their attorneys see results. Omira Munoz is a client and a positive example where CityFinancial cut her loan back by $500,000 and made here a new loan at a lower interest rate.

What is the cost of litigation to a lender? Our clients such as Tom Wuensch ($365,000) and Donal Spicer ($1,000,000) are now living in their homes with cases that have been dismissed in court!

We are trying to do our very best with the limited resources we have and the budget we intended to work with. Bankruptcy for example is expeditious and the lowest cost methodology for attacking the lender.

Our files show strong evidence of the borrower’s right to resolve wrongful foreclosure claims. But clients are cash strapped homeowners seeking relief and need to even out the playing field with both lenders and the attorneys. Troubled homeowners across the nation heaved a sigh of relief when Obama’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan were announced last month. NLS client have a record of a pending claim and right to recovery that in some cases dates back 12 months. They are still in their homes!

The $75 billion plan aims to keep about $ 5 million owners in their homes by modifying troubled loans. Not bad, right? As it stands, that plan may help some responsible but distressed homeowners avoid foreclosure. But the only way to reduce the bulk of foreclosures is by reducing the amount that borrowers owe lenders (principal reduction). The good news is that principal reduction is not precluded in the Obama plan; it’s just buried. We at NLS urge you to remain focused and demand a resolution which has been skirted in the debate. There are five roadblocks to implementing principal reductions. These impediments aren’t as difficult to deal with as they might first appear to be. We must act now and remove them to make Obama’s plan work for you:

1. Lenders don’t want to recognize the loss, even though they know it’s real. This is irresponsible behavior and regulators should not permit it. A $250,000 mortgage on a $200,000 house is not worth $250,000. Not recognizing this leads to bad economic decisions and foreclosure. Foreclosure in this circumstance would yield a lender recovery estimated at $125,000. A much higher recovery could be obtained by recognizing the mortgage loss, and restructuring.

2. Loan servicers are afraid they would be sued for not recovering the full amount. This is a pathetic if somewhat understandable excuse for not doing the right thing. Thankfully, legislation has been proposed to come up with a safe harbor if a loan modification provides a higher recovery.

3. Servicers don’t have the trained manpower to properly analyze each distressed homeowner’s circumstance and develop an appropriate modification. This is a lame excuse for an industry that found plenty of trained personnel to devise and implement a rainbow of exotic mortgages. These same people could be retrained to fix the mess they helped create.

Responsible homeowners, renters, and taxpayers in general are being asked to bail out their less-responsible or less-fortunate neighbors. Is there nothing wrong with bailing them out if the neighbors provide something in return? Yes, their neighbors are victims of fraud. Claims are that homeowners benefit from a good economy with rising home values, but if things go bad they get bailed out. Wrong again!

Those who benefit from a principal reduction should not “pay” for it. Specifically, the lender has put a cash burden on themselves for subsidized homeowners. Nothing should compromise the lenders ability to pay the restructured mortgages over the long term. In return for the mortgage write-down, the homeowner owes nothing for the pain and suffering they received.

The workout we are seeking is a sensible and a principled solution that requires litigation and a skilled attorney. Our hopes are a workout now may be possible, finally, under the Obama plan.

MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com

Thank you Neil Garfield for allowing us to contribute soley to support your efforts in fighting foreclosure.
bt, on April 25, 2009 at 11:42 am said:

i did not know there was a timeframe for the plaintiff to repsond to a motin to dismiss teh foreclosure? what statue are you referring to?
Sean, on April 25, 2009 at 2:39 am said:

Aloha to all.
I returned to court this morning defending a MSJ. I dont want to get into details about the MSJ, and Hawaii’s statutory requirements. The bottom line is that I pretty much lost on the MSJ, however the order was postponed because we had raised the issue “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and “real party in interest”.
Here is the interesting part, and I would appreciate anyones knowledge on this basis. Counsel for the lender admitted to the presiding judge that they service the loan for Fannie Mae. All their pleadings and aff. claim that they OWN the loan. With thier own admitance, they now have changed their position to servicing agent with a private contract. Anyway, I need to defeat this claim as it its probably my last hope. I have a hearing set in late May on this matter. Any suggestions please email me at againstchl@gmail.com

Thanks
Xyrant, on April 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm said:

Rick,
I think you have to call the judge assistant and schedule a hearing for your motion. That’s what I did in my Florida cases. I am not sure if the clerk will automatically grant you the motion if you don’t do anything. Maybe someone can shed more light on the matter.
Rik, on April 24, 2009 at 11:57 am said:
Rik, on April 23, 2009 at 9:03 am said:

I think I posted this in the wrong location, so here it is in a more appropriate thread…

I have filed both a NOTICE OF FILING MOTION TO DISMISS and a MOTION DISMISS FOR A LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and the plaintiff’s attorney has failed to respond in the 20+ days required in Florida for both.

What is the next step to finish this off? Do actually need to do anything, or will my motion(s) be granted/accepted by default?

I have some experience with filings in the UK, and it is generally the practice to enforce a motion or lose the advantage of getting the motions granted through a late filing by the Plaintiff’s.

Thank you for any assistance provided.

Rik
Rik, on April 23, 2009 at 8:59 am said:

I think I posted this in the wrong location, so here it is in a more appropriate thread…

A little guidance would be appreciated….

I have filed both a NOTICE OF FILING MOTION TO DISMISS and a MOTION DISMISS FOR A LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and the plaintiff’s attorney has failed to respond in the 20+ days required in Florida for both.

What is the next step to finish this off? Do actually need to do anything, or will my motion(s) be granted/accepted by default?

I have some experience with filings in the UK, and it is generally the practice to enforce a motion or lose the advantage of getting the motions granted through a late filing by the Plaintiff’s.

Thank you for any assistance provided.

Rik
Rik, on April 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm said:

Hi all,

Regarding my Qualified Written Request document. Just for clarification. This is not a modified version wording wise, I merely changed the basic formatting and the fields that would need to be changed to make it so you can search and replace easily using MS Word.

It is a very powerful document, and reading it will help you to appreciate the work required to complete and audit. Read it all!!

The wording is as you would find here on the LivingLies web site, but please make sure that you read the document, word for word, once you have modified it, to ensure that you have covered all of the locations for names, addresses and alias’s completed.

I have sent a copy to all who have requested it, I think. If I missed you. Please send a message to rbienvenue@yahoo.com.

Good luck to all of you who are trying to save your homes. I am with you, and will share all of my documents in this manner.

Thank you LivingLies.

Rik
Steven K. Kop, on April 20, 2009 at 3:09 am said:

ABOUT THE QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST – CAREFUL HERE!

**CAREFUL **IT’S A DUAL EDGED SWORD! OUR CLIENTS WILL ADD FROM FIVE TO TEN THINGS THAT ARE A MUST IN PROVING THE LENDER IS NOT THE REAL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. That is what you need to clue in on in preparing the QWR and to make a defense. HUD’s Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales is responsible for enforcing RESPA. Look, under Section 6 of RESPA the borrowers are entitled to important consumer protections relating to the servicing of their loans. Under Section 6 of RESPA, borrowers who have a problem with the servicing of their loan (including escrow account questions), should contact their loan servicer in writing, outlining the nature of their complaint.

AGAIN CAREFUL, as I must testify to their repsonse in a court of law as a witness. The borrower may bring a private law suit or a group of borrowers may bring a class action suit against a servicer who fails to comply with Section 6’s provisions. Borrowers may obtain actual damages, as well as additional damages if there is a pattern of noncompliance.

HUD issues a sample qualified written request from you, the borrower, to a lender. ** PLEASE USE IT AND DO NOT DEVIATE. BUT WRITE US FOR SOME TIPS AND POINTERS ON WHAT TO BE SURE TO INCLUDE! Don’t Blow it! (Ask us or ask livinglies or attorney Mr Kop for any other recommendations if you like).

(When in doubt regarding your rights as a homeowner always consult an attorney for legal opinion and legal advice)

msoliman
admin@borrwerhotline.com
http://www.borrowerhotline.com
S B, on April 20, 2009 at 1:06 am said:

Aloha Rick

I know many are asking you for copies. I too hope you can share those copies with me. I have so lil hope left.

MAHALO and Aloha
kalona808@aol.com
Tom, on April 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm said:

Hi Rik,
Thanks for being in the battle. I would like a copy of your docs,
QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST, COMPLAINT, DISPUTE OF DEBT AND VALIDATION OF DEBT LETTER, TILA REQUEST.
My email: tomjeff@verizon.net

Thank you again,
Tom
Zed, on April 18, 2009 at 2:20 pm said:

Rick,

Pls send copy to zed.saffar@gmail.com. And I can tell you if this would work.

Regards

Z
Allan (with a second request of Rik), on April 17, 2009 at 11:11 pm said:

Rik,

Can you please send me a copy of your QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST, COMPLAINT, DISPUTE OF DEBT AND VALIDATION OF DEBT LETTER, TILA REQUEST, and any other useful documents you may have?

Thank you,

Allan (Pro Se)
BeMoved@AOL.com
Vicki Mah, on April 17, 2009 at 10:01 pm said:

Rik,

Can you please send copy of QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST, COMPLAINT, DISPUTE OF DEBT AND VALIDATION OF DEBT LETTER, TILA REQUEST to me?
Thank you,
Vicki
cmysmile00@aol.com
Lisa Diamond, on April 16, 2009 at 4:22 pm said:

Rick,

I would like to obtain copies of your compiled documents :

QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST, COMPLAINT, DISPUTE OF DEBT AND VALIDATION OF DEBT LETTER, TILA REQUEST.

You can email them to: mrsdiamond@msn.com

Thanks~
TCS, on April 16, 2009 at 3:07 pm said:

Rik,
Can I also get a copy of your documents.

Thank You,
stythomas@yahoo.com
MSoliman, on April 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm said:

As for the audits! You MUST have an audit to attach as exempler to the case and for the matter of a wrongful foreclosure.

DTI: But the audits must go further in detail and include income analysis for verification of the debt to income information used to calculate ratios. That calculation will enable counsel to quantify actual damages.

DAMAGES: Damages are a function of the excess or over funding calculation that exceeds the governements specific cielings for tolerances and ensuring the borrower is not being overburdened.

This is not somthing I have seen any of the audits I have reviewed. Also keep in mind that the 1008 and 1003 are your priority disclosure documents and null the balance of the disclosures as all APR and cost of loan determinations are wrong

admin@borrowerhotline.com
borrowerhotline.com
MSoliman, on April 15, 2009 at 2:13 pm said:

Be careful in executing the Qualified Written Request. There is a huge opportunity there with respect to the Lender, Trustee and vulnerability when issuing in tandom a Debt Validation Notice. (more to follow).

Neil, contact me and I will share it with you and you can determine if the information is credible for release.

Good Luck
Msoliman
borrowerhotline.com
877-732-7754
Martin, on April 15, 2009 at 8:49 am said:

Hi Rick,
I would also like the documents. Thanks!

mmacisso@hotmail.com
Doris, on April 7, 2009 at 10:11 am said:

Please send me the documents to tucker308@cox.net
Rik, on April 7, 2009 at 9:59 am said:

JT – I will need your e-mail address to forward the document.

Rik
JT, on April 7, 2009 at 12:37 am said:

Rik:

I would appreciate a copy of what you have.

Regards,
John
VG Diaz, on April 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm said:

Rick,

I’d love to get a copy of your compiled documents. My email is vgdiaz@earthlink.net

Thanks.
VG Diaz, on April 4, 2009 at 9:29 am said:

Rick,

Here is my email: vgdiaz@earthlink.net

Thanks.
VG Diaz, on April 4, 2009 at 9:28 am said:

Rick,

I would like to obtain a copy of your:

QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST, COMPLAINT, DISPUTE OF DEBT AND VALIDATION OF DEBT LETTER, TILA REQUEST

Thanks.
Allan (with greetings from a homeowner fighting in the trenches), on April 3, 2009 at 7:42 pm said:

Hi, Rik,

I’d appreciate a copy of your documents as well, and would gladly share with you mine. Lucky you to get a request from Allan Hennessey. Not everyday one gets an offer such as his. Let me know what feedback you get. I might wish to queue up with my cobbled documents.

Reporting from Miami, FL (where I’ve moved to take this fight to my adversaries (who fail with impunity to show for hearings). Luis Molina down here warned me of what to expect next as a PRO SE. After Luis (‘Ny’) triumphantly defeated the law mill’s motion for summary judgment (as reported by MSNBC), the banksters called in bigger guns and made him sit for a deposition.

RSVP
Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
Allan Hennessey, on April 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm said:

I would love to see a copy of what you have compiled and give some feedback…

AllanHennessey@gmail.com
Jeff, on April 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm said:

Rik,

I would appreciate a copy of your doucments.

Thank you.

Jeff
jfm33137@aol.com
Dan, on April 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm said:

Rik,
There is no email address. I would like to check them out. Can you email me them – dmedstrom@hotmail.com …

Thank you,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Rik, on April 3, 2009 at 12:54 pm said:

As part of my Pro Se work, and being a technically savvy kind of guy I have created a…

QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST, COMPLAINT, DISPUTE OF DEBT AND VALIDATION OF DEBT LETTER, TILA REQUEST

…that can easily be modified using a “global search and replace” in Microsoft Word.

I put a lot of work into it to ensure that it was clear, concise and easy to read. As I create other documents in my quest to put off the Banksters, I will continue to post.

If anyone would like a copy, let me know.

Rik
Allan (with "Thoughts on Walking Away From Your Home Loan" an article from NYTimes), on March 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm said:

Your Money

Thoughts on Walking Away From Your Home Loan

By RON LIEBER
Published: March 13, 2009

If you’re among the millions of people who will not qualify for the Obama administration’s program to help troubled homeowners, you’re probably wondering what you’re supposed to do now.

Perhaps you no longer have enough income to pay your loans. Or you can afford the payments but don’t qualify for refinancing under the new plan because the value of your home is too far below the balance of the loan. If you’re far enough underwater, you’re probably questioning the wisdom of writing a monthly check on a place that may take 10 or 15 years to get back to the value it had two or three years ago. It isn’t easy to come up with the answer, and if you have moral misgivings about not making good on your mortgage, a religious officiant may offer as much useful guidance as a financial planner.

In an economic environment like this one, however, the consequences of giving up on your mortgage may not be as painful as they were a few years ago. Yes, it’s almost always preferable to negotiate a better deal on your existing mortgage than to walk away. But if you can’t work things out with your lender, you probably won’t be sued. You shouldn’t receive a major tax bill either. And the damage to your credit will not be permanent or insurmountable.

Let’s look at these last three in order.

YOUR LENDER First off, let’s define what we mean by “giving up” on your current mortgage. It may mean trying for a short sale, where the lender allows you to sell your home for less than the mortgage amount. You may also hand over the deed to the home in exchange for the lender agreeing not to start foreclosure proceedings (a “deed in lieu” in industry terms). Then, there’s foreclosure itself, and the possibility that bankruptcy judges may soon have the power to adjust the terms of primary mortgages.

That said, just because you’re ineligible under the Obama plan doesn’t mean that your lender or servicer won’t ultimately adjust your mortgage anyhow. Collectively, there are enough people in trouble or under water on their loans that they have plenty of leverage if they’re willing to play chicken with their lender and threaten to stop paying.

The problem is, the lender can play chicken, too, by threatening to come after you for the balance of any money you owe — whether it’s the difference between what you sell the property for yourself and the remaining mortgage, or the loan amount left over after the lender sells your property in foreclosure.

The lender may not follow through, though. “What our membership is telling us is that it can be cost-prohibitive to chase down a borrower who is already in financial distress,” said John Mechem, a spokesman for the Mortgage Bankers Association. “You can’t squeeze blood from a stone.” They may, however, still come after people with high incomes who walk away from jumbo loans that are way under water or loans on investment properties.

Some states have laws that may specifically prohibit lenders from pursuing borrowers for the balance of many mortgage loans after foreclosure, though the particulars vary. Arizona and California are among these states, according to Steven Bender, a professor at the University of Oregon School of Law. It’s best to talk to a lawyer to determine your state’s rules.

In fact, if you want to be sure your lender (or a collection agency that it may sell your loan to) won’t chase you down, it’s a good idea to have a lawyer involved with any short sale, deed in lieu or foreclosure itself. “You must get the bank to agree in writing that any deficiency is waived,” said Chip Parker, a lawyer specializing in foreclosure with Parker & DuFresne in Jacksonville, Fla.

The biggest challenge here may simply be finding someone at the bank to help. Having a second mortgage will also complicate matters.

YOUR TAXES You also need to consider the taxman. Often, forgiven debts are taxable as income. Recent legislative changes, however, eliminate the federal tax burden through 2012 on most primary residence debt that a lender has reduced through loan restructuring or forgiven during foreclosure.

Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for CCH, a tax information service, said that people who sell their home through a short sale or give up the deed in lieu of foreclosure can also qualify for tax relief if they use a special tax form, 1099-C, that reflects the amount of debt that the lender has forgiven.

People who live in states with their own income taxes may avoid a big bill as well. Some states, like Arizona and California, have introduced or passed legislation that echoes the federal laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many others tend to mimic most or all federal income tax laws as a general rule, according to CCH. Check with an accountant in your state to be sure.

YOUR CREDIT A short sale, deed in lieu or foreclosure itself will almost certainly damage your credit report and score, and the black mark will last for up to seven years. But the amount of damage it does will depend on how much other credit trouble you’ve gotten yourself into with other lenders.

If you’re giving up the home you own, you’ll probably need to rent soon afterward. Will landlords turn you away once they check your credit and discover your troubled mortgage? “If it’s the only thing marring their credit, it’s probably not a big issue,” said Clay Powell, the director of the Rental Property Owners Association of Michigan, who added that good tenants could be scarce in economic environments like this one.

In fact, Todd J. Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University, predicted that FICO may have to adjust its credit scores to lessen the impact of a foreclosure or similar incident. “It just seems obvious that a foreclosure in 2008 or 2009 doesn’t have as much information value as a foreclosure five years ago,” he said. “To the extent that foreclosure doesn’t predict future behavior as much as it did in the past, you’d expect that the FICO algorithm would change to adjust for that.”

Craig Watts, a spokesman for FICO, said that was an interesting idea. “We try not to get involved too much in psychobabble around what is and isn’t predictive,” he said. “If the numbers show that foreclosure is less predictive, then we’ll take it into account in future redevelopments of the formula.” That would take a minimum of two to three years, though.

Some lenders aren’t waiting that long to initiate their own foreclosure destigmatization programs. The Golden 1, one of the nation’s largest credit unions, now has a mortgage repair loan for people who have lost a home to foreclosure but want to buy a new one.

It’s hard to imagine that there won’t be a parade of insurance companies, credit card issuers and mortgage lenders in Golden 1’s wake, even though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be unwilling to guarantee the mortgages of such borrowers for several years. In fact, Aaron Bresko, the vice president of lending for BECU, another large credit union based in Washington State, is putting together a panel called “How to Lend to the Newly Credit Impaired” for a conference later this year.

“Good people have bad things happen to them, so how do you find those people and reach out to them?” he said. “As the year progresses, it’s going to be an emerging market.”

How are you handling your mortgage problems?
Write to rlieber@nytimes.com.
More Articles in Your Money » A version of this article appeared in print on March 14, 2009, on page B1 of the New York edition.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RSVP
Allan
BeMoved@AOL.com
cg, on March 27, 2009 at 6:21 pm said:

Linda:

The typical “assistance” offered by ASC is a forbearance agreement. It requires the financially struggling homeowner to pay a substantial amount in addition to their already unaffordable mortgage payment, usually for a period of 6 months. After making all the payments under the agreement, ASC states that it will consider a loan modification but cannot guarantee that investors will offer a modification. If payments aren’t made in strict compliance with the agreement, (a dollar short or a day late), ASC reserves the right to resume the foreclosure.

I’m assuming that the payments you made to ASC were under a forbearance agreement, rather than a loan modification. The problem is, ASC’s hidden intent appears to be foreclosure whether or not a forbearance agreement exists and regardless of whether the homeowner is current on the agreed payments. The forbearance agreement is a farce, never meant to avoid foreclosure, but rather just a way for ASC to collect as much money as possible from the desperate homeowner. By the way, ASC is Wells Fargo dba America’s Servicing Company.

I am an attorney in N. California. I know of 4 lawsuits in my county alone against ASC by homeowners who were told foreclosure had been postponed, only to discover that ASC conducted a trustee sale or attempted to foreclose without notice to the homeowner. The homeowners were either making payments according to a forbearance agreement or were waiting a response from ASC after submitting an application for a work out.

I understand your cry for help and your situation does sound desperate. Your legal rights at this point are dependent on a number of specific facts: What state are you in? Has ASC already gotten an unlawful detainer judgment against you? Did you answer or appear in any court proceeding to evict you? Have you received a sheriff’s notice? Are you still in your home today? As you move further in the process, your ability to bring a legal action becomes more difficult and expensive. Are you still up for the fight?

Obviously time is critical. Have you contacted the “attorneys who get it” in your state?

I can be contacted at cgarsf@gmail.com
Linda, on March 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm said:

I hope that the first blog was posted, but just in case that it did’nt. Here is my situation: I paid ASC money and they foreclose on me 15 days later and sold my home. Now they are trying to evict me from my home. The first payment that they received was on 6/12/08 for $3700 although the agreedment only stipulated $3512. On July 13 I made a second payment of $2596 per ASC. On August 1 We received a notice of Trustee Sale on our property. Both me and My husband are under doctors care and over 55 years of age. I never intended to lose my home. It was ASC that suggested the loan modification and I was told that my home would not be foreclosed on. Now we find ourselves waiting for the Sherrifs Dept to come out and evict us from our home, and the people that are doing the eviction does not hold the note. We need help!
Walter Hackett, on March 18, 2009 at 10:52 am said:

BE CAREFUL! California consumers should NOT presume that “evidence” of fraud in their mortgage loan documents is adequate to stop a non-judicial foreclosure OR to set aside or stay an eviction order. While this is what we hope for it is in no way a guaranteed result. In the over two dozen suits we’ve filed ZERO have settled and most aren’t even at issue as we continue to wade through a sea of demurrers. I’m concerned that some of the posts here may lead people to believe a positive result is easy to obtain. This is a war and it will not be won overnight. Published cases in deed of trust states are slowly shifting in our favor but we are NOT safe yet. California Homeowners should ONLY hire licensed California attorneys to represent them. Audits by reputable companies and similar services are all fine and well and may prove useful in litigation but such companies cannot represent you in court. If you want to know whether the person you’re dealing with is a licensed California attorney visit http://www.calbar.ca.gov and go to the “Attorney Search” section. While I appreciate the energy and attitude of many of the posters here reality can be a harsh instructor. I encourage ANY California homeowner who is facing mortgage loan problems to contact and meet with a licensed California consumer attorney so that they can be apprised of ALL their legal options and make a fully informed decision as to how they should proceed. Information you obtain from reputable audit and similar service companies is not without value but only a licensed California attorney can provide you with legal opinions.

Walter Hackett
Rik, on March 17, 2009 at 11:56 am said:

Hi,

Thank you for the great information site. It is very helpful. Now to the nitty gritty.

Wells Fargo has filed foreclosure documentation against my property. On checking the title/deeds registrations for my County, Pinellas, Florida, current records, as at the 5th of March 2009 shows that the mortgage with Wells Fargo is paid off (REL status) on 10-17.2007 and that no mortgage remains.

Does this mean that There is no mortgage on the property, and therefore the Foreclosure is not valid?

Thank you in advance for your help?

Rik
livinglies, on March 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm said:

Dan: This takes me back to my litigation days in the 1980′s. I would suggest that the remaining tenants go to the receiver and make an offer to buy the complex with the receiver holding the paper. The price offered should be low enough to make them mad but high enough that they must consider it. I would go find an honest appraiser (there are some) and see if an offer somewhere between 40-50% of fair market value — that converts tenants into landowners. Then file a declaration of condominium and convert it into condominiums. If they keep the place up, they could make a tidy profit over time and save their homes. Oh by the way, it would be insane to do this without a qualified real estate attorney. Many will work out a deal where their fees are paid by the lenders upon closing. You might even get some working capital inserted into the deal from the lenders either added to the balance of reduced mortgage or just their way of saying thank you. Amongst those of us who played in the real estate crash in South Florida that was known as Real Estate Proctology
L, on March 17, 2009 at 4:39 am said:

Hello Neil and all,

THIS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT QUESTION.

I want to know if the lender has been sent a DEMAND FOR VALIDATION OF DEBT via certified service and they DO NOT respond within the 21 days, therefore…”technically extinguishing the debt”… HOW DO YOU PROCEED TO ENFORCE THAT AND WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS and what is the wording or paperwork to present to the judge to vacate judgment and the case? It is URGENT since we are going against time here.

Also, a copy of the Demand for validation of debt is filed in the courthouse.

Please inform since I am getting mixed and varied info here in Florida. God Bless
Dan, on March 16, 2009 at 1:56 pm said:

Corporate Meltdown leaves renters in limbo

Large apartment complexes are abandoned to receivership …

“The property owner … had abandoned the complex and a dozen other large rental properties … after defaulting on hundreds of millions of dollars in loans.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29697413/

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
ORDER VACATE - SHERIFFS WRIT OF POSSESSION, on March 13, 2009 at 9:44 am said:

T*o*d*a*y!
————————————————————————-
Dt: March 12th 2009
Re: Los Angels Superior Ct / Torrance Division
Su: MOTION TO STAY SHERRIFFS WRIT OF POSSESSION AND ORDER TO VACATE

Los Angeles Superior Court / Torrance Division
February 2009 – Borrower calls NLS office with little more than enough time (notification to parties) to properly request to stay a sheriffs order to vacate. Staff working around the clock wth counsel agrees to take on the challenge and prepare the motion, and ready the paper work for counsel before 7:00am.

We submit client’s case under a limited scope engagement agreement. Then submit the motion before 11:00 am only to find the Court rejects our first attempt on technicality.

Not wise to change plans last minute if you’re waiting the execution of Sheriffs writ to vacate. Usually we find the banks trustee is notified by mail of the eviction date and time. Occasionally maybe, the trustee is notified by telephone. Herein the trustee acting as a landlord can assist and should immediately notify the Sheriff if you can get them to cancel the eviction. But Good Luck!

The Sheriff will not accept another claim of right to possession after the court issues an order to evict all persons following a claim of right to possession hearing. If the debtor tenant files bankruptcy after judgment for possession was issued in the unlawful detainer lawsuit, the landlord creditor may obtain an order (lift order) from the bankruptcy court.

Thursday 03/12/2009 –

we are down to 3 hours pending the Sheriffs visit and orders to vacate. Post foreclosure the court will issue a Writ of Possession (real property) that authorizes the Sheriff to remove (evict) the occupants from the property.

The Sheriff will typically serve a 5-day Notice to vacate within three business days after receiving the writ. We received a call with only one day to spare. The eviction was originally scheduled after the expiration of the order of the court and 5-day period.

So now down to 3 hours pending the Sheriffs visit and orders to vacate. Staff members coordinate with counsel and meet at the courthouse steps. Our office proceeds to rocess the papers and request for stay of eviction – Here’s what happens

- Court clerks accepts and forwards the filing
- Court and Judge agrees to special hearing.
- Judge reviews the matter in chamber and issues decision

COURT APPROVES STAY!

We contact the Sheriffs for verifying the order was received. Borrower remains at home and can sleep well . . . Thanks to staff, Deborah and to my co Pilot seated next to me! I am going to get some rest. Thanks to Neil G for allowing me a chance to jump ship, and take up the fight. “Neil, your living the truth through Livinglies! “

By Your friend
Maher Soliman
NLS Nationwide Loan Services
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
admin@borrowerhotline.com
AUDIT MY FILE- AUDIT THIS !, on March 9, 2009 at 11:36 am said:

Nationwide Loan Services
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
By Maher Soliman
“My troops may fail to take a position, but never are they driven from one!”
– General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson
We are pleased to announce we have joined forces with a national firm and major compliance company and together are seeking to introduce our state of the art foreclosure defense technology. The two forces are potentially capable of ensuring the United States mortgage markets will never again force Americans into this unsettling mess. More importantly it will assure that a foreclosure audit will have sufficient teeth to make a Lender quit and want to settle versus fight the challenge to the foreclosure.
Auditing Jokesters
The current audits we see are an absolute joke. We received an audit signed by a person working for a perpetrator lender for another file we are covering in a wrongful foreclosure. If your auditor was employed in 2002 through 2007 your audit will be discredited.
Bankruptcy and the courts are not waiting for you with open arms where folks with more than one home do not make payments and collect rents while crying the blues. Knee jerk filings in Federal Court with claims of a RICO and PONZI are receiving stern warning and reprimands’ from Judges.
You think the 1099 the lender will give you is anything compared to the IRS inquisition anticipated when your rent free and tax free lifestyle must be reported?
WAKE UP!
There are things you must do to make plans for your anticipated results in a foreclosure challenge. You should know that a band of crooks, thieves and South Seas carnival workers already pounded the judicial system with phony cries of hardship; these people fight foreclosure in Federal and State court arguing wrongful acceptance for loans a lender actually gave away!
Five Questions to Ask of Your Forensic Auditor
1. What singe document is the most critical important disclosure in your loan file?
2. What one member of the Securitization process will bring down the entire deal structure?
3. Why is an internet address a critical component of the audit?
4. Why is a Broker the most valuable tool to align with in a borrower defense?
5. What is the sole piece of information guaranteed to decide the holder in due course and put an end to the lost note question?
Lenders lose money making loans
Again, Lenders lose a lot of money making loans. GET IT! So why, tell me why did they continue to lower credit standards and push forward years after the market died to keep business coming in? Angel Mozzarella is a fictitious CEO for a big name “billion dollar” lender who brags of his ability to still underwrite an FHA loan. Why did he let his company slip and forget sound underwriting when the quality of assts is critical to the whole loan cash alternatives? That alternative is cash flow from the net interest margin (NIM) and is not available to a lender for upwards of two years out! And the NIM is solely dependant on quality of assets and a low delinquency and foreclosure rate.
ONLY YOUR ATTORNEY KNOWS FOR SURE
Counsel . . .
Ask your self the question why! Answer it with authority and now you know who to subpoena and depose. Hey counsel….your not calling back? What happened? If you have the answers you don’t need an audit. If you don’t have the answers, than ask your auditing firm. If they don’t have the answer than we do not know what’s left to say!
Outside of a donation to Livinglies, hang onto your money and think first before reacting. Be wary of the need for outside forces to ignite inner bickering, fighting and factions amongst ourselves. Know what the comments of the courts mean to say and assume RESPA and TILA rules and regs are worthless. (No violent storm or rough seas (RESPA) could bring down the Titanic. It’s the tip of the iceberg (SEC) that proves fatal while Mount Everest is resting beneath and hiding under water.
We will review your file and conduct an audit and deliver to your attorney substance! Want a pretty folder and nice presentation? Go away!
Here is what you get for the time and effort . . .
• Contra Costa CA Home $1 million Case dismissed
• Concord CA Home $50,000 Cash for keys
• Wisconsin Home Case Dismissed
• Concord CA $500,000 price reduction
• Brentwood CA Home $1.180 16 months no payments (pending trial)
• UD hearings
o Trial Pending
o Trial Dismissed
o Trial Pending
o Trial Judgment for the Defendant
o Lost – Sheriffs writ VACATED
Attorney General or Federal Court Judge
Our audit comes with an opinion that will be certified by NLS and signed by a verifiable legal authority. The authority includes either a prior state assistant ATTORNEY GENERAL, past FEDERAL JUDGE.
M.Soliman
Admin@borrowerhotline.com
TOLL FREE 877-732-7653
“He plays his games and we play ours…!”
– Sergeant from Full Metal Jacket
“Maher Soliman is a veteran of the primary wholesale and secondary subprime and non agency markets. NLS or nationwide is a sub servicing agent and advisor to counsel “expert” providing “spot” loan evaluations for consumers seeking to file claims with their lender. Offering counsel and consumer “pro per” whole loan evaluations for qualifying asset integrity using RESPA, TILA and GSE guideline’s for layered risk and risk weighted tolerances.
The role of CDO trustee, on March 9, 2009 at 11:23 am said:

If you challenge the trustee consider the importance of the role of the CDO trustee who cannot be underestimated.

According to the ABS Surveillance group, “In the CDO asset class, in which transactions are complex and the collateral pools actively managed, the trustee plays a key role as gatekeeper, ensuring that only eligible assets are purchased and added to the collateral pool.

Only the trustee relationship manager responsible for the deal can ensure that the overall transaction works as specified in the indenture,”

msoliman
877-732-7653
S B, on March 9, 2009 at 2:32 am said:

Wish I could have had some help here. But just to up date u all.

My attorney lost GMACs MSJ. Then he lost again and I now owe 48 k plus for attorney fees. I couldn’t get a real attorney. I begged him to tell me a date for me to appeal for months. I’m still in shock he lost. He would only communicate by e-mail with me.

I can’t find an attorney here in Hawaii I can afford. So now I will lose my non profit program that allowed me the chance to bring food to over 200 people in need a week. Will have to find our pet therapy babies a new home as well.

Can’t do anything about it because I don’t have $ to have a chance to do anything about it all. I never had a real chance. No one to turn to either.

I wish the rest of u much better luck then I have had. I tried to fight all I could. My great apolgies are to those we served.
BillW, on March 9, 2009 at 2:10 am said:

By the way, it is very important in my opinion, if a bank, such as in my case, is a trustee for a “Trust” which is the actual note holder, the bank then is not the note holder and therefore they must prove that they are actually a Trustee by producing the documents that show such agreements. Otherwise, they are not allowed to foreclose upon the property. A judge may rule differently, however, it would make for a great appeal, which takes a very long time. I specifically listed that in the discovery i just posted.
BillW, on March 9, 2009 at 2:01 am said:

I have served Interrogatories upon the Plaintiff along with a Request to Produce. For anyone interested or in the same situation i am copying both here. Sorry for the long post, but you can cut and paste as necessary. Always helpful.

FIRST INTERROGATORIES LETTER

TO: BEVERLY J. FINKEL/THOMAS A. SHOOK/SUSAN S. WHITE/JOSEPH T MERLI, ATTORNEY’s FOR PLAINTIFF:

YOU ARE HEREBY SERVED the following written Interrogatories to be answered separately and in writing within thirty (30) days from date of service, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 33 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. Give the names and addresses of persons known to the parties or counsel to be witnesses concerning the facts of the case and indicate whether or not written or recorded statements have been taken from the witnesses and indicate who has possession of such statements.
2. Set forth a list of any documents in possession of the party that relate to the claim or action in the case.
3. Set forth all documents showing plaintiff as the owner and holder of the alleged note and mortgage to include all assignments, notices of change of ownership, servicing agreements, and related Trustee documents.
4. Set forth an itemized statement of all alleged monies due to bring the alleged note current.
5. Set forth an itemized statement of all alleged monies due to date to cure all alleged indebtedness to Plaintiff.
6. List the names and addresses of any expert witnesses whom the party proposes to use as a witness at the trial of the case.
7. For each person known to the parties or counsel to be a witness concerning the facts of the case, set forth either a summary sufficient to inform the other party of the important facts known to or observed by such witness, or provide a copy of any written or recorded statements taken from such witnesses.
These Interrogatories shall be deemed continuing so as to require supplemental answers if the party, any representative, or counsel obtains further information between the time the answers are served and the time of trial.

REQUEST TO PRODUCE LETTER

TO: BEVERLY J. FINKEL/THOMAS A. SHOOK/SUSAN S. WHITE/JOSEPH T MERLI, ATTORNEY’s FOR PLAINTIFF:

You are requested to file within thirty (30) days a written response to request on the (attached Document Schedule) and to produce those documents for inspection and copying on
(a) Your written response shall state with respect to each item or category, that inspection-related activities will be permitted as requested, unless request is refused, in which event the reasons for refusal shall be stated. If the refusal relates to part of an item or category, that part shall be specified.
(b) In accordance, the documents shall be produced as they are covered in the usual course of business or you shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.
(c) These requests shall encompass all items within your possession, custody or control.
(d) These requests are continuing in character so as to require you to promptly amend or supplement your response if you obtain further material information.
(e) If in responding to these requests you encounter any ambiguity in construing any request, instruction or definition, set forth the matter deemed ambiguous in the construction used, in responding.

DEFINITION

As used in these requests, the following terms are to be interpreted in accordance with these definitions:
(a) The term “person” includes any individual, joint stock company, unincorporated association or society, municipal or other corporation, state, which agencies or political subdivisions, and court, or any other governmental entity.
(b) The terms “you” or “your” include the persons to whom these requests are addressed, and all that person’s agents, representatives or attorneys.
(c) In accordance, the terms, “document” or “documents” includes all writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, recordings, and any other data computations from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary by (you), through detection devices, into reasonably usable form.
(d) The term “occurrence” means the incident complained out in the Plaintiff’s complaint.

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

1. All documents identified in your answers to Interrogatories.
2. All written reports of each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
3. All documents upon which any expert witness you intend to call at trial relied to form an opinion.
4. The most recent resume or curriculum vitae of each expert whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
5. All notes, correspondence, bills, invoices, diagrams, photographs, x-rays or other documents prepared or reviewed by each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
6. All invoices generated by expert witnesses generated for performing all expert witness services to the plaintiff, including but not limited to, the records review, the pretrial preparation, any telephone conference, any trial testimony anticipated and any other fee paid by the plaintiffs for expert fees.
7. All written, recorded, or signed statements of any party, including the Plaintiff, Defendant, witnesses, investigators, or agent, representative or employee of the parties concerning the subject matter of this action.
8. Any documents identified in any other parties’ Answers to Interrogatories.
9. Any document prepared during the regular course of business as a result of the action complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
10. Copies of any treaties, standards in the industry, legal authority, rule, case, statute, or code, that will be relied upon in the defense of this case.
11. Any and all invoices, logs, sales receipts, itineraries, or schedules for the
Plaintiffs.
It is requested that the aforesaid production be made within thirty (30) days of service of this request to the Pro Se Defendants home address ……….

I hope this helps someone.
Bob, on March 8, 2009 at 6:06 pm said:

The Page looks great thank you.
Jose Fighter, on March 7, 2009 at 2:52 am said:

Great new look on blog and most of the info is now easily available , can you guys put the comments area back on the front page. it makes it easy to follow new developments
kmd, on March 6, 2009 at 7:16 pm said:

Hello from Michigan,
My mother has been fighting the foreclosure process for almost a year and is headed into court next week. She (through her lawyer) has filed a lawsuit against the lender and servicer for fraud. She has been in contact with Mr. Garfield and has found this site to be of tremendous help.
Her house went to the sheriff sale in May of ’08 and she was supposed to be evicted in Nov ’08. She filed the lawsuit which put off the eviction until a court date in Dec which was postponed by the lender (they needed more time to find the documents that she asked for) and rescheduled for March.
Here is my question –
About a month ago she received a 1099 A from the lender (or should I say “one of the lenders”) and then a few weeks later she received 1099 A from a servicing company, for the same amount as the one from the lender.
Does this sound right to anyone?
Any input would be greatly appreciated!!
Lisa, on March 6, 2009 at 7:03 am said:

If a “lender” does not hold the note, they are merely a deb collector with no control to negotiate terms of the loan.

The US Department of Treasury’s Homeowner Affordability & Stability Plan “Guide for Borrowers” instructs homeowners to contact their mortgage lender after March 4, 2009, to determine if your lender holds the note OR or if it has been securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (see Q&A #8).

http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/homeowner-affordability-plan/ConsumerQA.pdf

This brings up the following questions and concerns that I hope someone can help me figure out:

1) If the lender I am currently sending payments to does NOT have the note nor control to negotiate/adjust the interest for today’s market, what happens when I satisfy the mortgage? What do I get in return? Not the note if they don’t have it….

2) Unless the note was destroyed for some reason, the note exists somewhere. What happens if the holder of the note was promised some crazy terms (that payment from me to them for full amount of the loan will begin in 2015 – for instance)? In defense, I’d show proof of payments I made to my lender for all these years…. but that only proves I sent money to people who did not have the note. It seems it would be considered my tough luck and my fault for being an “irresponsible consumer” (not making payments to the holder of the note & not having clear understanding of the terms). Ignorance is not an acceptable defense.

3) If the lender I’m paying does not have the note, no control to negotiate terms, and no ability to foreclose, why do they have the ability to report late or non-payment on credit reports until I CAN locate the holder of the note? Legally, how can anyone besides the holder of the note make credit reports regarding the note?

4) When I contact the lender to ask about the note, and am told it has been “securitized” by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, does that mean Fannie and/or Freddie will be able to show me the original note? Or am I expected to trust that they have it and make payments to them (non-note holder) versus my current non-note holder? How do I get such a big government agency to show me the note, and how long will it take?
Annie, on March 4, 2009 at 4:39 pm said:

I too am in California and after attempts to work with, first Wamu, and then Chase. Chase rushed through the recording of docs in an attempt to push as many foreclosures into the court as possible. I have found many errorrs in the timelines of filed docs that are either incorrect in naming the parties involved or . I also felt I might have some abilty to enforce civil proceedure

For “ALI” the attorney who needed info as to whom to contact regarding the foreclosure victim predators. I have actually found some new laws that are enforced by the fBI, if you look under Federal Criminal law code, and search for FBI and foreclosure I am sure you will find the info you need. These new laws were made specifically for the vulchers who obtain the public record info and then approach the people in foreclosre with schemes and scams. Its an actual task force. I fell victim a few years back to people like these and believe it or not the dept of justice contacted me for my case details, that was on a more local level, and now with 1/2 of the country in foreclosures the necessity for aggressive law enforcement has made these recent changes. I urge anyone who has been approached by anyone claiming they can help amd for a fee up front DO NOT PAY ANYONRE until you have checked them out, and try contacting the bank modification department yourself, if they are gonna work with you they will, if not , an attorney is unlikely to get much further than you have, at least in my case this was true and instead of spending several thousand which could have been better spent trying to move, i am still no better off , just less money.
Ashley, on March 1, 2009 at 9:49 pm said:

Anyone’s input on my situation would be greatly appreciated! Btw, I live in Tennessee.
We currently have a mortgage with CitiMortgage. My husband’s mother passed away, leaving him the house in 2001. We have since been living in the house and paying the mortgage. It is still in the Estate name, and executor of the will is my sister-in-law, Dinah. We had fallen behind and needed help with working out payment on our mortgage . This was in the month in December, and I owed October , November, and the current month at the time, of December. Both Dinah, and myself talked to my account representative to ask if these payments could be put on the back of our note. He said it could be done, and he would document all information in the account, I had no problems at first, made a full payment in January that served as October, leaving me now owing Nov, Dec, and Jan. I had also told him that we would completely pay the full amount past due upon receipt of our tax return. I received our return and on Feburary 17th the mortgage company received $2820 from me. $1820 was to go for the 3 notes that we were due on, and to pay the current month of February, and the extra $1000 was to go on our escrow account. As of Feb 17, according to my account manager, even if my account had temporarily rolled over to collections, my payment would immediately post , bring the account current, and he would still be responsible for handling my account. It was then 4 days later, on Feb. 21st that I receive a letter from a law firm, which is actually just a collection agency, stating my house is in foreclosure, and the entire $59000 of the note is due, or it goes to sale in March. I call, and after several failed attempts to reach anyone to help me on this matter, finally speak to someone who says, ‘Yes, your home is in foreclosure since Jan. 31st and has a sale date in March and $2000 attorney fees added on. I was astonished and explained what we had worked out with my rep. and was never, even as of earlier that morning, told my house was in this situation. They still refuse to remove any fees, even though they’ve been reminded that they’re required by law to let the executor of the estate aware of any pending foreclosure/sale on the home. She nor I was given any information about any of this. Like I said, it is actually still in an estate name, not mine and my husbands. They have gotten to the point of even speaking for my account rep, which I have been in CONSTANT contact with and saying he’s said things he knows he hasn’t. He says he has accounts in his computer since November, with no calls or anything made that still haven’t gone into foreclosure, and right at 90 days they proceed with mine, and as for the collection agency to handle my case 13 days, they are adding $2080 attorney fees to my account, and refuse to waiver on them. We feel completely, justly, and legally very blindsided here.
S B, on February 28, 2009 at 7:56 am said:

WAMU contacted me and stated they have approved a modification loan. They added 10 yrs to the loan making it a 40 yr…ARM
first 3 yrs would be 3% then 4 th yr would be 4% Then in the 5th yr
it would 5.2 %

Plus I would have to make a cashiers ck for 3k up front. Supposedly they are getting the documents to me next week or two. They said they were approved near a month ago. I feel like I am being hooked again.

Plus while I am waiting for these so called approved papers to sign, they are sending people over to my house, e-mailing, snail mailing me and calling me. I got a call today where the guy wanted to come in and assess the house.
Ian from WAMU tells me to ignore that. It’s because they don’t know we’re working on a deal. And then some places just take it on their own to try and make deals.

The odd part is the courts placed a stay on my property and I was told FDIC actually has the loan.
In HAwaii not many are talking so I am limited in the info I can get.
Anyone have any thoughts on this please let me know. Is this another scan or just flat ut bad deal
Mary Mazurette, on February 27, 2009 at 4:11 am said:

I want to relate my latest experiences with the case I am helping a friend on. I have made a few comments before regarding how we were able to get the Unlawful Detainer stayed after the lender had ignored our rescission letter and proceeded to sell the property. The second lender involved had purchased the property at the auction that aided us in being able to put the stop to everything. There had been an unrecorded assignment to a third lender that were signed on 3/3/08 but held from recording until the day of the sale. We filed for quiet title and declaratory relief which is currently in the courts now.
On 1/7/09 the code enforcement dept. of the city arrives at the property with the police in tow and informs my friend he has to vacate. He was not the owner of record and they were declaring the property a nuisance. They red tagged it and changed the locks. One code enforcement officer admitted to being in contact with the lender. The code cited on the red tag was for the clean up and repair procedures for a nuisance. It did not mandate vacating of the property. My friend was told he would be arrested if he returned to the property. We filed an appeal with the City, it was denied, he was not the owner. We tried to contact the City attorney, he refused to talk to us. I wrote the attorney a letter explaining the stayed unlawful detainer, attached court minutes and he finally contacted my friend, but we got no where. I played my best hand and filed a petition for Writ of Mandate against the city with an emergency stay order on the city’s actions. While waiting for the hearing on the motion for the stay, a representative for the lender shows up and changes the locks yet again. My friend refused to leave the area and remained parked in front of the property all day. He tried to tell the rep that there was no granted unlawful detainer, but it fell on deaf ears.
Well, the good news is, the Judge granted the emergency stay, my friend is back in his house and I believe, or hope this will strengthen our case of lender misconduct. We haven’t given up yet, still fighting in Southern California!!!!
JT, on February 27, 2009 at 12:57 am said:

Countrywide received my Qualified Written Request on 2/2/09 which I modeled of of this site. I also asked questions about entries made on the loan app that were inconistant with loan apps done the same year. So far, no response. What’s the next step?
BillW, on February 26, 2009 at 3:09 am said:

Follow up to my case.
Since my last hearing, where the judge overruled plaintiffs counsel and moved us to a later hearing because plaintiffs counsel never acknowledged my answer to their complaint, I have been successful in delaying further our next hearing. Today i called the Master In Equity to find out when our new hearing was to be scheduled. The judge was unavailable and had to return my call, but eventually he did and he chose to get a conference call going with plaintiffs counsel to see when we could schedule the hearing. I immediately posed to the judge that i needed to serve “discovery” upon the plaintiffs counsel with some interrogatories. He asked me if i wanted to keep the house i clearly stated yes and made him aware that i had never heard of this bank and had no reason to believe they actually owned the note. He then asked if i was a lawyer, because he said i knew more than most Pro Se defendants.
The judge acknowledged my right to request discovery and receive an answer prior to rescheduling the hearing. Therefore he will not reschedule until discovery is complete. I probably bought myself two months for discovery and rescheduling.
I have made some local inquiries and found a local consumer affairs attorney that i will be interviewing in the next week to see if he “gets it”. I am still not sure what the final outcome will be, but the one thing i have realized in all of this is if you are going to fight you need specific clear and understandable goals for what you want as an outcome at the end or what you can afford. It is not over until you give up, so keep fighting.
Lisa, on February 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm said:

Hi,
I too am wondering if there has been any success after the Sheriff’s Sale. I found it interesting that at sheriffs sale the house sold for almost 100,000.00 less then we owe, to the same mortgage company of course. I guess what I’m asking is…should we still pursue a loan mod? Already had a TILA audit and came back okay, nothing really glaring but on the edge. We have a Beneficial Loan and Thrift Loan in Minnesota. HSBC is the servicer. any encouragement would really help, Thanks
L, on February 23, 2009 at 7:46 pm said:

Hello,

Wanted to know if there have been any victories with regards to fighting even AFTER the “Sale” of the property! Please post your experiences.
Gary Hawes, on February 23, 2009 at 3:09 pm said:

Looking for help in South Carolina. 3 months past due with Chase. My Audit shows Tila and Respa vilolations. Predatory lending and other fraud.
Gary Hawes
nusteem@aol.com
Florida Defense Team, on February 18, 2009 at 9:16 pm said:

Floridians in need of foreclosure assistance drop us a line at floridadefenseteam@comcast.net. We have reasonable rates and work for you to get your home back! Depending on the mortgage note you can settle for pennies on the dollar or perhaps even free and clear.
S B, on February 18, 2009 at 10:36 am said:

Diane just keep hanging in there the best u can.
Called the FDIC, all the hot line for HOPE. They are supposed to have changed their ways of helping people more then they had.

I am sure many empathize with your battle. I sure do. Seems like in Hawaii it’s like some hidden secret no one wants to let out of the bag.
It’s covered up in short sales and all kinds of other stuff.

I can’t find an affordable attorney who has the ability, knowledge, and is any where near affordable to reverse the insanity I’m dealing with on this issue.

The sad part I see happening is people are burned out with the bail outs to those with $$$ that many seem to now blame the victims of the scams. Stating things like how stupid we were to fall for it. It’s our responsibility for our losses. It’s really beyond ugly. It’s very much the have nots vs the haves.

I hope very much you get the help u need fast. Try other web sites as well. Call ur political leaders and don’t back off until they speak to u and give some genuine effort of giving u real guidance.

Hang in there and let us know if u should find some answers.
Diane of So Cal, on February 18, 2009 at 8:48 am said:

It’s as if we are all bobbing in the great Atlantic Ocean after the Titanic sank screaming for help to anyone who will listen – but only one boat turned around to save us – and it was too late.

One last h e l p ! Anyone? I’m losing my fight to go on. March 11th and ticking…….

Diane from Socal
diane@moveupproperties.com
(909) 815-4499 Gulp.
Allan Hennessey, on February 18, 2009 at 12:35 am said:

Folks,

It is of extreme importance, that you know the details specific to your loan/transaction BEFORE you seek legal counsel.

If you bring an attorney the specific claims that you have, they only have to verify the validity of those claims, and help structure your case per local procedures and rules… Most attorneys however are not competent to perform the investigation required to bring ALL these facts to light.

Focus on the facts…”just the facts ma’am, just the facts”

We can help with detailed Forensic Foreclosure Investigations in all 50 states, that you can take to any attorney for advice, with much better results.

Call for more details.

Allan Hennessey
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
Marie, on February 17, 2009 at 11:52 pm said:

Anyone attorney in Oregon that can assist would be most appreciated! I have called perhaps 40 attorney’s and either too busy to assist or don’t understand the issues at hand with these TILA and RESPA issues. I currently filed a Chapter 13 and the attorney has fumbled all the paperwork and doesn’t return calls and really DOESNT get it. He agreed with me all up front before the BK filing and now is back pedaling and telling me to sell the house(s) because it doesn’t matter who owns the note, that I still owe the bank. I have sent out QWR, Notorial Protests to these lenders and all defaulted! email: tam1012@comast.net
Eric, on February 17, 2009 at 6:06 pm said:

Bob,
I save your Email and will let you know if I find anything my friend.
Please let me know if you find anything also.
Thanks.
Eric.al29@yahoo.com
Eric, on February 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm said:

Hi Bob,
I went to two different Attorneys and they are doing the loan Modification, and this is not what I am looking for.
Do you know any one by any chance?
Thank you very much
Doris, on February 17, 2009 at 11:28 am said:

This is for Beth who has a case in Virginia, can you contact me, I live in Virginia, and wish to speak with you..ASAP
Thanks
Bob, on February 17, 2009 at 10:24 am said:

Eric have you check with any of the attorneys listed here on the sight.

Neil has a link
LIVINGLIES ATTORNEY NETWORK CLICK HERE: lawyers-that-get-it-0209

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/lawyers-that-get-it-0209.pdf

If your find anything that can be of info to us all, post your experience.
I am in California as well and just found the list of attorneys that get it. I still have to make some calls, but have been considering going pro se (representing myself)
I think my choice was partly because I was not able to get any attorneys to return any calls as if the case was to hard or they did not share any interest in helping. Most that I was able to find only cared about collecting a consultation fee and cash upfront with no guaranty and I figure I can do that myself. I am a bit afraid of attorneys that show to much interest in capitalizing. But not so much in hearing you out.
I hope this is useful.

Email me and share your feedback if you don’t want to post it.
Help@equityloanmanagement.com

Thank you
BOB
Eric, on February 17, 2009 at 7:31 am said:

Hi Guys,
So far I haven’t had any luck to find an attorney in Ca who can help with my cases.
Please Help.
Thanks
Beth, on February 15, 2009 at 3:42 pm said:

Hi Jose,

Even with the affidavit of the note there still have been that missing link from the original lender to the next note holder. There was no chain of title. And the dates that the Plaintiff provided of assignments didn’t match the date on the Trust where the notes ultimately ended up. We’ve had a case where the Plaintiff committed perjury right in the foreclosure complaint. We filed a Motion to Dismiss based on that and then the Plaintiff withdrew claim immediately to never be heard from again. I’ll call you on Monday as I have a case in Virginia and I don’t know VA law.
JOSE FIGHTER, on February 15, 2009 at 5:27 am said:

Beth,,

great job and keep piling them on
how were you able beat the affidavit of note ownership these crooked lenders are using in MD to get away with the foreclosures and defrauding the court in the process?

703-442-8828

Virginia legal aid lawyers believe foreclosure defense and TILA audits are not necessary. No wonder they are having trouble helping any one.
MSoliman, on February 15, 2009 at 3:39 am said:

COMMENTS: My (promissory) note specifically states that any transfer or assignment of the note will be announced to the mortgagor in writing within 30 days. We never received notification that such assignment was going to occur or ever occurred.

EXPERT VIEW: This is a real concern for a party who was blinded by the foreclosure process and railroaded out of the home.

The “loan servicing transfer” discl. (if matter is not in foreclosure ) is the bigger concern. But the fact you know of the transfer and have commented here is reasonable acknowledgment regardless of the lenders failure to adhere and to provide statutory proper notice. I’m in court assisting counsel (and getting thrown out by objection just as fast) and see the judges take on something like this as “superfluous.”

EXCEPTION: Is there something with respect to timing and delivery of a subsequent notice or lender procedural maneuvering that can be viewed by a court as negligent and purposely deceptive.

EXAMPLE: A pending forbearance and or offer to modify the terms of the loan while your home was sold from under you at a TS would support a wrongful foreclosure claim and reliance in the disclsose. Therein your reliance on the clause in the loan document and their failure to adhere was verifiable and to your disadvantage , shown as wrongfully deceptive and willfully negligent.

Maher Soliman
Examiner “Expert” Witness
admin@borrowerhotline.com

http://www.livinglies is the first stop any attorney should make before considering a clients situation….we really mean it!
Maher
BillW, on February 14, 2009 at 10:44 pm said:

Some more interesting facts in my case that may be helpful.
My note specifically states that any transfer or assignment of the note will be announced to the mortgagor in writing within 30 days. We never received notification that such assignment was going to occur or ever occurred.
Furthermore i had a subprime negative amortization note that allowed the principal balance to go as high as 115% of the original balance before i was required to increase my payment or pay the full interest amount. To this day they have not notified me if i have exceeded that limit or not. As long as i have not exceeded that limit i should not be considered late?
Also, the bank who had the note (countrywide) and serviced the note is still sending me notices about my loan, therefore how can this new bank be in possesion of the note. They have yet to record their assignment at the county clerks office.
The original complaint filed by the plaintiff (whom i had never heard of before) had no supporting documentation attached at all. all they had were averments stating they were due the note and didn’t even mention the fact that countrywide had been an assidnee prior to them.
I am trying to find more information on foreclosure law in SC and the UCC as it applies to mortgages. If anyone has any info to help with these issues it would be greatly appreciated.
Beth, on February 14, 2009 at 10:15 pm said:

I am not a lawyer but a paralegal with 15 years experience as well as 10 years experience in the mortgage industry. I’m in Maryland. I was able to get the foreclosure dismissed on my home because the Judge agreed that the Plaintiff filing the foreclosure was not the noteholder. I’ve since helped several homeowners file to Stay the foreclosure which in Maryland equals a dismissal of the foreclosure. I help the homeowners file these Motion to Stay pro se. I’ve since enlisted several attorneys that are now willing take on these cases as well as an attorney that will do a forenisc audit. Depending on income levels I do have attorneys through out the state that will do this work pro bono. I also work with attorneys that will sue the lender for predatory lending. The was a recent case where a jury awarded a homeowner 1 million against Wells Fargo for putting her in a stated income loan that was 3 X more than her actual income. I also work with several lawyers that are putting together class actions suit against these lenders. Anyone in Maryland that needs help please email. jacobson.beth@yahoo.com
Allan Hennessey, on February 14, 2009 at 7:48 pm said:

Sara,

You need to put the case together, and take your money to go buy a “puppet” lawyer. Find one that will simply verify everything, and argue it for you.

I can tell you with certainty, there are not enough experienced competent attorneys nationally to handle the size and scope of these issues.

You need to package everything in a way that explains that the party that is foreclosing is not the party that you owe money to. No different than if your next door neighbor was attempting to foreclose by recording a document with the county. Where is their proof? Validating their claim! Call their Bluff!

There are many exciting things happening in this field right now and the masses are awakening!

Dont give up! The only thing you need an attorney for is arguing your case/reviewing your documents. There are many others of us out here that are competent in assisting homeowners in assembling their own case together by identifying case specific information.

Good Luck to everyone fighting the good fight!

Allan Hennessey
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
AllanHennessey@gmail.com
Michael Castrillo New Orleans, on February 14, 2009 at 7:31 pm said:

To one and all, I’ve put together a little website as a public service. I would appreciate any comments you have about it.
Michael Castrillo New Orleans, on February 14, 2009 at 7:30 pm said:

To one and all, I’ve put together a little website as a public service. I would appreciate any comments you have about it.
Sara, on February 14, 2009 at 9:38 am said:

Neil,

After the master-in-equity told me (during my foreclosure hearing) I needed to seek an attorney, I tried. There are no attorneys here in the state of South Carolina that “get it”. And I have money to pay one and I really don’t care what the fees are.

All the attorneys I spoke with (over the phone) said something to the effect of “you really can’t win a foreclosure case if you owe them money”. They just didn’t want to deal with it.

Sara
livinglies, on February 14, 2009 at 3:31 am said:

Panama Princess
Let me know your feedback, Hanson is a good man with a servant’s heart
Best of Luck
NG
livinglies, on February 14, 2009 at 3:23 am said:

Way to go Bill, are there any Lawyers that “get it” in SC. It seems Obama is getting it, the Congresswoman from Ohio is getting…”there is no one person that o.wns the mortgage” perhaps we get video clips of the President and the Honorable Marcy Kaptur D-OH and have you take laptops with little projectors into the hearing and let Obama and representatives on the House floor educate these judges…seriously Get me 2-3 lawyers in SC that will get on a conference call with me personally and I will help them see the light. We have done this in MA, NC, Oregon last week, TN…Brad calls me and says Neil I got three lawyers in this state scheduled for a conference call next Tuesday….we need your help people….sheesh TX and MI and IL the “land of Lincoln” you ought to be ashamed.
S B, on February 14, 2009 at 1:00 am said:

BILL Great Job!!!!

MAHALO to u all for the advise on the remod loan. Because of u, I called back to WAMU to get more info on thise remod deal. My gut feeling was not good. I learned that the remod is now for 40 yrs!!! They added 10 more years to the loan. The woman I spoke with this time was really rude. I kept asking more questions. She demanded I wait for the new loan docs.

ANYWAY I’m so sick to my stomach. I am trying so hard to hang on. My lawyer really jacked this case up. And now I have the added battle to replace him, continue to fight the mortgage comapanies. 3 of which already filed bankrupt.

I am most worried about our non profit program. Most the 20 yrs has been out of pocket. Sometimes the very thought of looking those we serve in the eye without complete shame of dissapointment is tearing my heart out. Especially my elderly who are on a fixed income and look so forward to a full meal.

Ck out this article from our local paper. Maybe for just a moment some of u can find a tiny bit of hope in justice.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090213/NEWS01/902130377/1001

I know we are the ones that got scammed by the millions out here. I’m educated, community hearted and still I was scammed. Next week I will be getting a large scale award for the work I have done. Going to be tough to hold my head up knowing how real it can be that all I have done and do may soon be over. WOW

Hope you all have a great weekend. Keep ur comments coming please. I am reading every word in hopes that just maybe there’s something in there that will help me through this.

Click here: Honolulu mortgage company executives indicted in scam | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser
Sara, on February 13, 2009 at 11:42 pm said:

BillW: please drop me an email. I’m in SC too

saraleebeads@bellsouth.net
BillW, on February 13, 2009 at 11:09 pm said:

I had my hearing yesterday. I was in the Master in Equitys court room with at least 50 other people that were being foreclosed upon.
Outside the courtroom i heard a conversation about how the law firm that was representing the plaintiffs in my case were also involved in the sale post foreclosing, and therefore making money both for performing the foreclosing and also assisting in the sale by working(colluding) with other outside the case as to what was available and for what price the bank might settle. This whole foreclosure process is a sham for others to make money. One defendant had just sent $2,000 to the bank via certified funds the day before the hearing to try and save her house. The judge asked her why she did that as if the bank had asked her to send that money, and yet she answered that she sent what she had to try and keep the house. The judge then let her know that the bank may not accept the amount sent since it was not necessarily enough to cover the entire amount that was due. he then told her to call the bank and see what the amount was to bring the loan current as soon as possible. The sad part is she will never see that $2,000 again and yet she will definitely lose her house because she was desperate. The law sucks for people in foreclosure who really want to keep their house and pay for it.
I was one of the only fortunate ones who had read this and many other websites to help plead my defense. The Plaintiffs counsel (in this case) was not aware that i had filed an Answer to the original complaint within the allotted timeframe. When i was called to plead my case there was no court recorder in place at the time and the judge asked me to stop my motion to dismiss until he could find a court recorder. (they must think that everyone just shows up to lose and not fight). Once the Recorder was in place we began our motion to dismiss on grounds set forth per this website, upon which we were justified, and the plaintiffs attorney objected on the grounds we had never filed a response to the original complaint. Being the anal retentive guy i am i had an original notarized copy of my filing as well as a copy of the recorded filing with me. Needless to say the plaintiffs attorney was speechless and the judge overruled his every motion since i had the documents in hand. However, the judge referred us to a different court saying that we had contested the pleading and therefore were to go to the contested foreclosure court. The judge only let me read my motion to dismiss, which stated the following: “the alleged lender is not the owner of the mortgage note and has not attached documentation supporting said fact and thus lacks standing to pursue foreclosure or sale of the subject property.
Secondly, after plaintiff received my answer , plaintiff failed to forward any documents to the contrary.
And Furthermore, plaintiff violated the’Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’ 15 USC Section 1601, as amended by not obtaining verification of the debt and mailing a copy of the verification upon receipt of my answer where i expressly denied each averment in their pleading and demanded strict proof.”
At this point the judge asked me to hold all other testimony until we were referred to the court where foreclosures were contested, since the plaintiff had no idea we had contested even though i had overnighted my answer to them.

I am now awaiting our true foreclosure case which will begin within the next two weeks. i am not holding out much hope as the state of SC does not require assignments to be completed before the proceedings are filed, however, i am going to give these bastards as much as hell as i can. They have ripped-off americans for too long and i am not going to go down without a fight.
If you do fight your foreclosure, make sure you follow your states rules of civil procedure, and understand the state statutes about foreclosure. In most cases you can get all of that information online. Otherwise go to the library and look at your states foreclosure law book. it will be published and in the library.
Good luck everyone, it is a tough battle, but if you love your house like i do, then it is worth fighting. I will follow up with everyone once i plead my case in the contested foreclosure court.
dasmom, on February 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm said:

To NG

I will be meeting with Atty Guest in Connecticut next week.

dasmom
Florida Defense Team, on February 13, 2009 at 7:23 pm said:

Floridians in need of foreclosure assistance drop us a line at floridadefenseteam@comcast.net. We have reasonable rates and work side by side with you to get your home back! Depending on the mortgage note you can settle for pennies on the dollar or perhaps even free and clear.
L, on February 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm said:

SB, Im no attorney or any legal advice here, but what I would do is look at the mod where it might show there is a baloon and a waiver of the rights where it states that ( me/you/owner) is waving any and all the rights to defend/sue anyone including the janitor related to the bank in the future if that doc is signed. Plus I would be signing a NEW note giving them the bullet to come back after “me”. I would be very careful on those docs, even when they ask for a contribution. They definitely have something to hide with that type of “offer/mod”. Will share more later on. NEVER, EVER GIVE UP!
L, on February 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm said:

SB, Im no attorney or any legal advice here, but what I would do is look at the mod where it might show there is a baloon and a waiver of the rights where it states that ( me/you/owner) is waving any and all the rights to defend/sue anyone including the janitor related to the bank in the future if that doc is signed. Plus I would be signing a NEW note giving them the bullet to come back after “me”. I would be very careful on those docs, even when they ask for a contribution. Will share more later on. NEVER, EVER GIVE UP!
S B, on February 12, 2009 at 9:02 pm said:

Mahalo Dan

I will check him out.

I called WAMU today and although I was told that WAMU gave the loan to FDIC, WAMU claims they still own the loan. I an really confused now.

WAMU told me I am approved for a loan modification. I will have to pay 3 k up front in a certified check.

I will have 5 days to sign and approve and send back the docs.

It went from a 30 yr loan to a 40 yr loan. They are rolling all the payments back in. The first yr will be set at 3%
the 2nd -4th will be at 4%
5th year 5.2%
6 to the end will be at 5.2 %

It is still an upside down loan. Is this a good deal? I’m not sure why but I doubt it. I will still owe way more then the house is worth but the payments will be less then it was.

Something doesn’t seem right. They are sending people to my house every other day posting notes on y doors to call WAMU and embarrassing me in front of my neighbors.

If this is a bad deal and I reject it, it can several months or foreclosures to get it resolved.
Am I stuck?

This was a false loan to start with. I’m not sure what to do. I am still trying to figure out how to over come and deal with GMAC suing me and winning an MSJ due to my attorneys incompentence on this issue.

If it was just me at stake and I didn’t have so many in the community depending on me, I feel like I would just give it all up. But I just can’t get passed the gut wrenching feeling of those faces we serve having one less place to help them. DAGGGGG!!!
Diane from SoCal, on February 12, 2009 at 8:29 pm said:

http://www.moveuproperties.com/diane/foreclosure/GPletter2-3-09%20001.jpg

http://www.moveuproperties.com/diane/foreclosure/GPletter2-3-09%20002.jpg

I received these letters from Greenpoint Mortgage a few days ago and am scratching my head.

My QWR was used from a template based form letter I pulled from this site with no off the wall bells or whistles in it. I simply needed the details of my loan per my rights under RESPA.

Even though Countrywide is now my loan servicer and my request was directed at Countrywide for the answers, Greenpoint jumped in the ring with this response to my request. Apparently, CW is working on the answers to my QWR per correspondence I received from them.

Do I pursue my request for answers from Greenpoint since they opted to respond to my request? And, if so, how does one write a QWR that meets RESPA guidelines that I may be missing?

My sale date was again postponed through my efforts to March 11, 2009. I still cannot locate an attorney in California that has a full concept of what needs to be done in order to best defend me and my rights with regards to retaining my home.

The last attorney I pseudo-hired ended up taking and keeping the book I paid for from Neil’s Seminar! He was enthralled with it and asked to borrow it. Poof, gone. But so is he and that’s ok – but my book!! Valuable stuff Neil!

I also have WAMU threatening me now regarding my HELOC. My phone rings hundreds of times a day and not from potential clients as I wish it would.

Ideas?? Thank you again for your great site and info.

Diane from Socal.
diane@therockgrouponline.com
(909) 815-4499
Dan, on February 12, 2009 at 6:21 pm said:

S B,
Contact Maher at http://www.borrowerhotline.com – he is very good and may be able to help you.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
S B, on February 12, 2009 at 6:14 pm said:

Aloha All

First I would like to deeply apologize for all of you going through this insane tragedy of the worst robbery of the American homeowners.

I am one of them. I know the extreme stress they have caused many hard working tax paying citizens.

I tried for several months to work this out on my own. I hired an attorney who had no clue. In fact he actually lost the case to GMAC who intentionally placed me in foreclosure, holding my payment because I didn’t have my loan number on the corner of the check. GMAC told me they were working on correcting the loan. Next thing I know I had a foreclosure on my home and had to borrow 10k in attorney fees, late fees and cost in order to stop the foreclosure. GMAC had my payment in their hand when I called. Asked me what I wanted them to do with it. They are now counter suing me for 50K more.

We tried to take ALL the lenders that scamed this deal from one to the other correct this mess. Three of the five went bankrupt. I’m down to GMAC who won the MSJ. And I don’t have a date or lawyer to appeal.

WAMU stated they have a new deal for me. But it will cost me 3K up front. My lawyer has threatened to do a motion to dissmiss but now wants me to fire him instead. He refuses to answer my questions of the deadline of when I can file for an appeal. I asked him about what documents he has with original signatures such as the note, such as the changes they made in the truth in leanding after the documents were signed.

Is there any way I can get these answers to try and fight for myself? Any guidance out there?
I have a non profit program that hundreds depend on me for a healthy meal and other items of need. I have a dog therapy program that visits those in need in the community. I am doing my best to try and not lose it all.

I had great credit before this scam, I paid my bills on time. If I lose my home, I will hurt more then just myself. I can’t bare the thought of that.

I need to get this appeal in if it’s not to late.

WAMU said they will send me the new document next week. I am so uneasy and untrusting now. Is there any thing I should look for extra close. They only give you 7 days to look these docs over and send them the 3k.

I have always been the one to help others, but my pride and ability to keep doing that doesn’t allow me not to ask for help. I just can’t bare the thought of letting so many people down who need what we do.

MAHALO
gump59, on February 12, 2009 at 7:15 am said:

Neil – want to be a movie star?

Michael Moore is doing a film on this whole mess and from the sound of it, he could probably use you.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/
bailout@michaelmoore.com
BillW, on February 10, 2009 at 3:43 am said:

I am in the process of fighting the foreclosure on my home. The bank filed the original foreclosure in May of 08 and i filed my response to dimiss exactly 30 days after the date i was served with the documents. The lender did not file any supporting evidence with the original foreclosure filing, which was my grounds for dimissal based on the fact there was no supporting evidence. 8 months later the lender filed to have the case moved to the Master in equity of our county, because the courts were taking too long to hear their case. I pulled the county records and surprisingly the lender is registered as the Mortgagee. However, this loan was assigned at least once. What recourse do i have at a master in equity hearing and since the lender is actually registered with the county as the mortgagee does the original assignment matter?
My loan had multiple payment options, was a negative amortization, and had a lump sum payoff or refi after 3 years. Is a TILA violation the way to go, and if i lose at the master in equity hearing to get an extension when does one file a TILA violation?
If anyone has any answers to these questions, i could use a quick response as my hearing is on Thursday. Thanks in advance for any help and i will follow up on my case on Thursday. I live in South Carolina.
livinglies, on February 9, 2009 at 5:03 am said:

Panama Princess
Just curious who are you using for the audit and which of the “lawyers that get it” are you using? I have hundreds of emails daily and like to get feed back on the benefits people are deriving from my blogsite…please let me know how your experience is, either positive or negative.
NG
dasmom, on February 9, 2009 at 12:15 am said:

Alan,

I have already started the process to get an audit done and have found a lawyer “who gets it” from this website. I am doing everything I can to save my home. I know that I don’t have the competence to go it alone on this legal fight. Just like I would think anyone who tried to practice my profession without the proper training and license has a fool for a client.

I’ll keep everyone posted on any progress I make.

Thanks,

dasmom
Bob, on February 8, 2009 at 10:37 pm said:

Thank You
Dan

I think you make a clear point, I know I may need an Attorney to follow up.

Unfortunately I have not been able to find an Attorney that will sit-down with me and further look at my case. Most will just ask to meet with you collect a consultation and give you a price. But when I give them a brake down of the info I have collected they look at me as if they have never heard of it or with a confused look on their faces. Personally that alone tells me they may have a tough time bringing forth a lawsuit that will benefit me.

I found this on one of the postings I believe posted by Neil:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/foreclosures-tila-right-of-rescission-and-consequences/

1. TILA Rescission is self enforcing. It automatically extinguishes the lien and the liability. The time for rescission does not run until you actually knew the full scope of the violation. That is tantamount to it never running out.
2. YOU CAN ASSERT AND SHOULD ASSERT TILA VIOLATIONS IF YOU CAN BEFORE YOU ARE IN FORECLOSURE OR EVEN IF YOU ARE CURRENT IN YOUR PAYMENTS.
3. Judge is required to look for authority himself if you are representing yourself without a lawyer (pro se). This provision in effect makes the Judge your lawyer and your Judge. Pretty good combination for you.
4. Judge has no discretion to deny damages, refunds etc to Borrower once a violation of TILA, no matter how small, is discovered.
5. TILA Rescission is NOT barred before during or after other proceedings unless those other proceedings specifically mention rescission as an issue to be tried.

So I have decided to file for Quiet Title Lawsuit, and bring forth the Letters I have sent as proof of what the lender should have done.

Along with the violation found on the contract such as not getting proper disclosure indicating the 3 day right to cancel was not properly served and their negligence to my many request prior to rescission asking them to do a loan modification to their response over the phone “You don’t qualify for a loan modification because you are current on your payment” and three months later having fell behind (not on my mortgage) but on a $200.00 dollar line of credit.

Finally I called them back indicating that I was running out cash and needed desperately their help, until I could get back on my feet. This was my 5th attempt in asking them to send me documents for a modification the first one I never received a response from them. The other times I never got even a letter to say I don’t qualify, I explained to them I was not working and that my current household income only covered the mortgage payment.

Then and only then did they take into account that I needed the help, but this is what they did. Over the phone evaluated my claim for a modification, they asked what line of work I was in and how much would I bring home if I were working and how much were my other bills. When that all was done the rep said well with you not currently working and the amount of bills you have in excess of $1800.00 dollar you don’t qualify.

I was ticked off at their way of helping; I kept calm and I told her had I been working I would not bother calling them. Had I been working I would have at least another $6k to play with, but that was not the case I needed their help. I was not requesting they drop the price on the dept to current market value; just to give me a break for a few months.

After the seventh time in giving them an explanation of my circumstances I did some home work. Opened for the first time my loan doc and tried to understand them. I read the truth in lending statement and many of the disclosure researched then and found out what the banks need to provide borrowers at the loan consummation and read into the 3 day of rescission notice. In doing so I found that I needed to be given 2 copies per borrower and that was not the case. I figure I must have signed an acknowledgement of the document because I remember doing so.

But even then:

TILA states that a written acknowledgment “does no more than create a rebuttable presumption of delivery.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(c)
Notwithstanding any rule of evidence, written acknowledgment of receipt of any disclosures required under this subchapter by a person to whom information, forms and a statement is required to be given pursuant to this section does no more than create a rebuttable presumption of delivery thereof.

SIMPLE ENGLISH

In spite of any rule of evidence, written acknowledgment of receipt of any disclosures required under this subchapter by a person to whom information, forms and a statement is required to be given in accordance with something to this section does no more than create a denial of the truth a belief based on the fact that something is considered to be extremely reasonable or likely of delivery thereof.

At the time of consummation I was given cash and checks to pay of my credit cards all with in the same day I signed the loan docs. I should have signed a waiver indication in my own print that I had a financial emergency and needed the money there and then. If that is not the case then I have to wait until after the 3 days of rescission to end so that the lender can release all funds.

Since I know the agent that did my loan, I told him I needed him to notarize a document for me, because I was planning to send a notice of rescission to the bank. He told me that he could not do it because he was not a Notary public, (then that told me to look further) I talked to him and explained my situation.

I since have talked to the loan officer and told him of my findings and explained to him that do to the facts and that he was the one that notaries my documents the documents are Null and Void. I brought up the Notary Service and why he no longer was doing notary service he told me he never was a notary public. That the way it was done in the branch was if the Notary public was out to lunch or even on his day off, the Branch Manager instructed them to notarize the documents and that she would latter sign the book or the actual Notary Public would do it. They would start the process and it would later be completed.

I told him if he knew that the fact that he was doing the notary service was against the law. He told me that he knew and had told his boss about it. He was told to shut-up and do his job! He then offered if it came down to it he would testify in court to the entirety of facts that occurred at the branch, and that the Notary Public as well did not agree with being forced to leave the book.

Below are the many things I found and to that I am including a review Neil made once I had posted what I found as to the Notary Service.

California Code: Notary Must NOT Have an Interest in the Document Being
Signed
January 30, 2009 • 14 Comments

I caught this from the comments section: He’s right and I think if you
look in the statutes of every state and industry standards that are
published by Notary Associations you will find the same language. The fact
that the Title agent is the closing agent is the Trustee on the Deed of
Trust DOES create an interest in the document being signed (Deed of
Trust). In judicial states it might be a different story. The logical
conclusion is that either a quiet title or mandatory injunction removing
the Deed of Trust from the official records of the county in which they
are recorded might be successful. This would remove the security but not
necessarily the obligation or the note (which is evidence of the
obligation). It DOES accomplish two things (a) the loan is no longer
secured and (b) there is nobody authorized to enforce it. Take a look at
this:

California Civil Code § 1185.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8200-8230

8224. A notary public who has a direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction shall not perform any notarial act in connection with such transaction. For purposes of this section, a notary public has a direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction if the notary public:
(a) With respect to a financial transaction, is named, individually, as a principal to the transaction.
(b) With respect to real property, is named, individually, as a grantor, grantee, mortgagor, mortgagee, trustor, trustee, beneficiary, vendor, vendee, lessor, or lessee, to the transaction.
For purposes of this section, a notary public has no direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction where the notary public acts in the capacity of an agent, employee, insurer, attorney, escrow, or lender for a person having a direct financial or
beneficial interest in the transaction.

8227.1. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person who is not a duly
commissioned, qualified, and acting notary public for the State of
California to do any of the following:
(a) Represent or hold himself or herself out to the public or to
any person as being entitled to act as a notary public.
(b) Assume, use or advertise the title of notary public in such a
manner as to convey the impression that the person is a notary
public.
(c) Purport to act as a notary public.
8227.3. Any person who is not a duly commissioned, qualified, and
acting notary public who does any of the acts prohibited by Section
8227.1 in relation to any document or instrument affecting title to,
placing an encumbrance on, or placing an interest secured by a
mortgage or deed of trust on, real property consisting of a
single-family residence containing not more than four dwelling units,
is guilty of a felony.
8228.

8228.1. (a) Any notary public who willfully fails to perform any duty required of a notary public under Section 8206, or who willfully fails to keep the seal of the notary public under the direct and exclusive control of the notary public, or who surrenders the seal of the notary public to any person not otherwise authorized by law to possess the seal of the notary, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in Section 802 of the Penal Code or any other provision of law, prosecution for a violation of this offense shall be commenced within four years after discovery of the commission of the offense, or within four years after the completion of the offense, whichever is later.
(c) The penalty provided by this section is not an exclusive remedy, and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.

CALIFORNIA Unfair Competition Law would prohibit coercive tie-ins

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200-17210 The FTC enforces a number of laws specifically governing lending practices, including the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639, which is part of TILA. The Commission also enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41, et seq., along with Sherman Act Clayton Act , BHC Act, Home Owners’ Loan Act, would prohibit coercive tie-ins which broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

Bank Holding Company Act Amendments

Section 106 of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 (section 106) generally prohibits a bank from conditioning the availability or price of one product on a requirement that the customer also obtain another product from the bank or an affiliate of the bank.1 Thus, for example, the statute prohibits a bank from conditioning the availability of a loan from the bank (or a discount on the loan) on the requirement that the customer also purchase an insurance product from the bank or an affiliate.2 Congress adopted section 106 in 1970 at the same time that it expanded the ability of bank holding companies to engage in nonbanking activities under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act).3 Congress expressed concern that banks might use their ability to offer bank products— credit in particular—in a coercive manner to gain a competitive advantage in markets for nonbanking products and services (such as insurance sales).4 Congress therefore decided to impose the special anti-tying restrictions in section 106 on banks.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200-17210

17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.

17201. As used in this chapter, the term person shall mean and include natural persons, corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies, associations and other organizations of persons.

17206. Civil Penalty for Violation of Chapter
(a) Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation, which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, by any district attorney, by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, by any city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, by any city attorney of any city and county, or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor, in any court of competent jurisdiction.

17206.1. (a) (1) In addition to any liability for a civil penalty pursuant to Section 17206, any person who violates this chapter, and the act or acts of unfair competition are perpetrated against one or more senior citizens or disabled persons, may be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation, which may be assessed and recovered in a civil action as prescribed in Section 17206.

17207. (a) Any person who intentionally violates any injunction prohibiting unfair competition issued pursuant to Section 17203 shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed six thousand dollars($6,000) for each violation. Where the conduct constituting a violation is of a continuing nature, each day of that conduct is a separate and distinct violation. In determining the amount of the civil penalty, the court shall consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the extent of the harm caused by the conduct constituting a violation, the nature and persistence of that conduct, the length of time over which the conduct occurred, the assets, liabilities, and net worth of the person, whether corporate or individual, and any corrective action taken by the defendant.

This Book has come in handy for research and finding violations on my contract
Truth in Lending
Comptroller’s Handbook
October 2008
http://www.occ.treas.gov/handbook/til.pdf

Below is my original posting if anyone can elaborate more to it and the posting listed above I would Kindly appreciate any Feedback..

February 6, 2009

Neil,

I have to ask on one of your previous posting I read that rescission letter should be sent to as many lender correspondences that you may have including the one to the originator of the loan. My loan was originated by Washington Mutual today being the 25th day since my first letter went out. The first 3 copies of the letter were received by the lender on the 13th of January at the branch where I initiated the loan, I also sent 3 copies to the Mortgage Servicing Center or otherwise the payment processing center and 3 more copies to the lenders Loss Mitigation Department.

Since the original notice was received the lender representatives have not stopped calling, every time they call if their number shows on my caller ID I answer since the 16th of January I started getting the calls I told them then to stop calling and kindly explained my self every time that I had rescinded the loan and I was awaiting for their correspondence to the letter. They insist they have not received anything from me and they are looking to help my by bringing me current. All I need to do is pay the month I am behind and the calls will stop.

Yesterday I faxed the collections department a letter indicating the many laws they violated with regards to my loan as much as how costly it would be if the district attorney took my case. I expressed myself accordingly and kindly asked that they stop calling me and to avoid further confusion that they only contact me by mail. That it was well over 20 days since I rescinded my loan and the consequences they risked in not responding and my rights since they failed to acknowledge 9 certified letters. As well as the many times they called me and I repeatedly requested they answer to my letter.

Now My payment was due on the 10th of January today I received a notice stating that if I do not respond with a payment with in 30 days they will start foreclosure proceedings and if I try to dispute the charges in court that would only speed up the time it takes to sell the home from under me. Now I know I have 9 certified postal certificates singed as received by one of their reps.

Today I have receive over 20 calls with number unknown and they hang up once voice mail picks up. I believe that now they have received the faxed copy and I also made the time to personally hand deliver a copy to the branch, of course I did not tell them it was my loan I simply stated that I was sent to do the delivery and if they could sing a sheet indicating I did deliver the document. Know when the branch manager read the cover sheet and what it stated, she said I had no business delivering to their branch and that the sender should address it to the bank. I stated that I was sent there because apparently the loan was originated there. Now I am not sure but under TILA I believe I read that the rescission letter should go to the address listed on the document and It only needs to state “I wish to Cancel” dated and signed now is there something that I can grasp to by getting rejected by the branch manager or turned away with the delivery of the letter should I even bother sending it to her certified like the other nine letter I sent. Or is the faxed copy to the collections department enough.

She blew me of and said it’s not my business this is a legal document and should be sent to the lender not the branch. That after having read the front cover it was not something she needed to deal with so I asked where should the letter be sent so I can transfer the info to the sender. She maid me wait for about 5 minutes came back out and told me to take the document back and have the sender look at the billing statement that it was not up to her to do it.

Since they have ignored my every request till this day, I am now thinking I should just start the lawsuit if I need to but am not sure since I faxed the second letter demanding they take action in correcting their wrong as well as sending me all the requested documents and the rescission request in clearing the deed and title. That I would allow for 20 days, although I am not required to do so. But was seeking they took action or I would forward the violations to the District Attorney for review.

If you or anyone out there has feedback I would appreciate it and Neil I emailed you early January I am not sure if my letter made sense but I would like to send you a copy of the letter I sent the bank I do not want to post it because I have found letters even here that are not expectable as was the letter posted regarding the Notice of Non- Compliance and I feel that with anything else it is best that people here seeking help don’t get miss informed as to postings. I have to let you know that some of the things I listed on the letter came from this blog and after researching in detail I felt it was valid.

You can email me or anyone with info directly at Help@EquityLoanManagement.com Neil I will email the letter to you for review if that is alright with you.

Thank you,
Bob
msoliman, on February 8, 2009 at 7:23 pm said:

Homeowner in Foreclosure Earns a Huge Victory in Unlawful Detainer !

By Maher Soliman
Expert Witness, Whole Loan Examiner and Consultant to Counsel

February 5, 2009. Sacramento California – A California Courts ruling is for a judgment in the “holdover” matter allowing the foreclosure “sale” by trustee to be set aside in favor of a modification.

Lenders who originate and service loans know California offers a “safe haven” from homeowners disputes in a foreclosure. That means overwhelming odds for anyone in foreclosure who 1) loses their home in a foreclosure and 2) must respond to an unlawful detainer after their home is lost. That was not the case for an El Dorado area resident at a recent hearing for an unlawful detainer matter heard in a Placerville County superior court room.

The win in court is in the unlawful detainer matter and case number PCU20080326 and parties – AURORA LOAN SERVICES v. STELLA D. ONYEU.

The case was originally filed in October of last year and shortly thereafter was dismissed when the Plaintiff failed to show at a scheduled hearing. Subsequent motions were filed to vacate the dismissal in favor of a motion to dismiss by the plaintiffs. The matter was heard recently heard again by the same court and earlier mentioned presiding judge. Mark Terbeek is the attorney for the Defendant and Maher Soliman a Juris Pro witness provided case development and court expert testimony.

This judgment ruling for the defendant is monumental given the courts limited jurisdiction related to the lenders sole focus to have the borrower removed from the home. The issues at hand are the legal procedural limitations and high attrition rate for defendants and their attorney’s. The problem is the defendant’s lack of standing for pleading a wrongful foreclosure due to jurisdiction of the court.

So what does this all mean? Many homeowners can find some hope, for the moment, in knowing the otherwise unfriendly California UD courts will now hold some promise for hearing arguments as to the foreclosure and the plaintiffs standing.

According to foreclosure and REO sales analyst Brenda Michelson of Nationwide Loan Services “It’s hit or miss at this level of the law and the courts willingness to step outside of its jurisdiction.” The smaller outlying courts seem to me to be more willing to entertain defense arguments that the plaintiff may not be the holder in due course and lacks capacity throughout the foreclosure” Terbeek’s response is that if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a logical and properly conveyed transfer of the beneficial interest – it is not entitled to possession.

After the foreclosure and conveyance back to the trustee, the homeowner is considered unlawfully occupying the dwelling as a holdover. However, the court ruled that AURORA had in fact violated its duty to show good faith and comply accordingly under the recent California statutes and amendments Power of Sale provision. AURORA LOAN SERVICES like so many other lender servicing agents has come under greater scrutiny as of late for questionable business practices. According to its web site Aurora Loan Services is operating as usual. The company is a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Bank, and not part of the Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. bankruptcy filing. Servicing agents are on notice they must be ready to defend themselves when the opportunity to argue the plaintiffs standing are allowed in an unlawful detainer motivate by a foreclosure.

The presiding judge who heard the matter ordered a judgment against the company allowed for Terbeek to enter a request for all legal fees due.

According to legal expert Soliman, “there are so many attorneys willing to fight the court on the jurisdiction issue. However, it is nearly impossible to rely on the judge and courts at this level”. Soliman is an examiner with Nationwide Loan Services and has engagements in multiple cases throughout California through attorneys such as Terbeek who represented the defendant.

Jurisdiction: An Overview

The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power” and the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions.. Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, or legislation of A paramount fundamental question for lawyers is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken down into various components including whether there is jurisdiction over the person (in personam), the subject matter, or res (in rem), and to render the particular judgment sought.

An unlawful detainer lawsuit is a “summary” court procedure. This means that the court action moves forward very quickly, and that the time given the tenant to respond during the lawsuit is very short. For example, in most cases, the tenant has only five days to file a written response to the lawsuit after being served with a copy of the landlord’s complaint. Normally, a judge will hear and decide the case within 20 days after the borrower now tenant files an answer.

The question of whether a given court has the power to determine a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. Such a legal question is referred to as “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.” In order to evict the tenant, the landlord must file an unlawful detainer lawsuit in superior court. In an eviction lawsuit, the lender is the “plaintiff” and the prior borrower and homeowners become an occupant holdover and the “defendant.” Immediately after the trustee sale of the home the conveyance by the trustee is entered in favor of the lender. Until recently in most cases the lender is with in its right foreclose if a borrower has missed a number of payments, failed to make the insurance premiums or not paid the property taxes. “But sometimes a lender is wrong and you can fight foreclosure by challenging the foreclosure process and related documents” said Soliman.

As the new owner of record Duetsche Bank must follow procedures no different than that of a landlord in a tenant occupancy dispute. Therein, the next step is to remove the homeowner from the subject dwelling. If the tenant doesn’t voluntarily move out after the landlord has properly given the required notice to the tenant, the landlord can evict the tenant. If the lender makes a mistake in its filing of the foreclosure documents a court my throw out the whole foreclosure case. In the case of a wrongful foreclosure the borrower’s claims are limited to affirmative defenses.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Unlike a judicial proceeding, California lenders need to merely wait out the mandatory term for issuing default notices and ensure it has properly served those notices to the borrower. In other words the hearing and trial taken place in the above referenced matter is not subject to arguments brought by the homeowner for wrongful foreclosure versus the question as to lawful possession of the property by the lender.

California lenders are typically limited to only the defenses a landlord will face when opposed and made subject to claims of wrongfully trying to evict a tenant. Claims such as the Plaintiff has breached the warranty to provide habitable premises, plaintiff did not give proper credit before the notice to pay or quit expired or plaintiff waived, changed, or canceled the notice to quit, or filed the complaint to retaliate against defendant are often completely unrelated to the matter at hand. The courts decision to enforce the provisions of an earlier modification in lieu of a foreclosure sends a major wake up call to the lenders who are under siege to avoid foreclose and be done with mortgage mess affecting United States homeowners. Soliman says the decision is unfortunately not likely to be read into as case precedent for future lawyers and wrongful defendants seeking to introduce our case as an example of a lenders wrongful action.

Therefore, the debate about what the courts can and cannot hear will remain open and subject to further scrutiny by the lawyers for both sides and judges who preside over the courts at this level.

web site info at http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
Dan, on February 8, 2009 at 4:52 pm said:

Bob,
I think it is overkill on the rescission notices. They have received it with proof of service and that should be sufficient (disclaimer: I am not an attorney or an expert and this is not legal advice, just my opinion). Disputing the charges in court will speed up the time? I guess that could possibly be true based on “old school” arguments. These are the typical arguments I have seen given in response to debt collection and foreclosure in general (affirmative defenses typically based on generalities is the only way I can describe them). These arguments are designed to “buy time.” There may be something in them but you will lose. They probably get these as default arguments (pleadings) in most cases where homeowners are looking for time to stay or time to negotiate (or they have to respond so as not to lose immediately). But, if you argue the points brought up by Neil and others, you have valid defenses and arguments. Without an audit and without talking to an attorney who “gets it”, it would be difficult to tell what defenses you have (unless you do extensive research yourself).

Besides rescission there are other letters you can send such as:
– debt validation letters (extremely important to send these within 30 days of receiving a dunning letter)
– QWR’s (lots of different kinds including Federal and State)
– Objection to Trustee
– Questions (using Tacit Procuration)
– Others that I have seen on this site and other sites

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Michael Castrillo New Orleans, on February 8, 2009 at 3:09 pm said:

Dan!

Love your writing, its helped so much.

At the risk of embarrassing myself, I paraphrase Dale Carnegie: People almost never believe that they are doing wrong, or if they are, that they are either justified or compelled by circumstances.

In my responses to counsel of the multiple parties demanding payment from me for the same loan (in my case they thought they had an easy mark so they were incredibly sloppy) I have considered it important to educate the attorneys involved and actually attempt to recruit them to our side.

In many cases, the local attorneys don’t actually know that they and their clients are breaking the law. I decided it was important to “win at the beginning, or lose at the end,” so I didn’t just cite statutes and case law, I printed and attached them to my response! I copied and highlighted the relevant portions of their clients SEC filings, I sent excerpts of Louisiana law and Municipal code, excerpts from law reviews, judicial decisions, EVERYTHING, all well organized (lots of paperclips, copiers HATE staples).

I added this line:

“53). By falsely claiming to be the party in interest and unconscionably causing counsel to do the same in a court of law the Trust/Lender/Servicer needlessly and recklessly exposes counsel to Rule 11 sanction.”

I also added this:

“68). If the borrower may be permitted to speak in his own voice, I think about all the other people in the Great State of Louisiana, the storm-tossed and battered coast, the near-drowned Crescent City, the upstate reaches battered just last year by monstrous storms. I think about the many who, unlike me, aren’t saddled up for war. I think of the elderly and unsophisticated, the poor and the ill who can’t rise up and make a call to arms, to recruit and inform the legal community first and foremost to protect and defend those who can’t defend themselves. We have survived worse than this, and we will keep our homes.”

To be machiavellian about it, its psychological warfare, demoralize your opponent by making them doubt the morality of their cause. Take away their will to fight for the side that’s already suffered a string of defeats in court.

“Its not YOU against ME, counselor, its US against THEM.”

For me, it worked. Dale was right.

Michael Castrillo
New Orleans
Diane of So Cal, on February 8, 2009 at 9:04 am said:

Well, good news followed by more questionable info.

I have attached a copy of my paperwork recorded at the county this week as planned as well as a copy of my qualified written request sent earlier this month to Countrywide. I copied every entity involved in my transaction as well like both Countrywide office locations, both Greenpoint Mortgage locations, MERS, the first Trustee and the assigned Trustee at both locations so in all I overnight mailed 8 packages to all on Wednesday this week.

Just having everything recorded at the county alone was not an easy task either as I needed the documents notarized on one end of town and then delivered in person to the county all the way in the opposite direction. And of course, the first time I presented the documents for recordation I was missing one item so the next day I had to do my travels all over again! Whew. But they accepted and now I have a somewhat “cloud” recorded against my home to indicate that I’m in dispute with the lender as to some important items that you will read in my attachments.

The following day after my recording I received a FEDEX package from Countrywide’s legal department stating that they are in process of reviewing my file per my qualified written request and they expect to have an answer to all of my questions within 45 – 60 days. That is all fine with me except that my sale date is 5 days away. So did that mean that my sale date was postponed? I called the Trustee to verify and it had not been postponed still scheduled for the 9th of Feb.

So I then called the gal that prepared the FEDEX letter informing her of my pending sale date and what it implied. She, like everyone else at Countrywide swore up and down that there was no sale scheduled and that she would be the one person to be able to rely on for accurate info since she top of the food chain at Countrywide. A very nice woman by the way. Still she transferred me to the foreclosure department just to verify that my worries were unfounded. So, talking with the Foreclosure Dept. they put me on hold to dig a little deeper to verify if a sale date was indeed scheduled and low and behold, it was scheduled for Feb. 9th!! Now, how the heck did I know that? Oh brother. I called the gal in legal back and she could now see the sale date in the system as the foreclosure department apparently placed in the system for all to see. She was upset with the foreclosure department, wrote a few sharp emails to various department heads an apologized to me for providing false information.

She told me that she would absolutely put in for a postponement that should be somewhere mid-April since I was in process of negotiating a loan mod anyway. Great, good, excellent. I called the next morning and the Trustee confirmed that the sale was postponed to March 11th. Not the mid April I was hoping for but that’s ok because they had not received copies of my recent recording yet either that will obviously need some attention to when that time comes.

So I was relieved a bit knowing my pending sale date was not Monday anymore and still is scheduled for March. However, today I received a certified letter from Greenpoint (Greenpoint no longer services my loan and I only copied them on my qualified written request) notifying me that I have not fulfilled the grounds to request a qualified written request pursuant to RESPA as there are no errors or discrepancies to verify or questions to answer that I apparently should have the answers to already. Bla, bla, bla. So not true!!! Nearly every term of my promissory note is different than my records directly from Greenpoint themselves shows as of September 2008 in my rate adjustment letter. My interest rate, payment amount, principal balance, verification of an impound account, who is my note holder, who is my Trustee of record were all criteria I requested in writing and am entitled to receive. Nope, nothing. AAAHH!! So stupid and I will be on them first thing Monday. But that is Greenpoint not Countrywide. Countrywide’s letter states from the nice lady that they will provide me with all the answers I need within 45 to 60 days.

Copies of the correspondence rec’d from CW & GP FYI. Thanks so much for a wonderful and extremely useful, educational site.

http://www.moveuproperties.com/diane/foreclosure/CWLETTER2-3%20001.jpg

http://www.moveuproperties.com/diane/foreclosure/GPletter2-3-09 001.jpg

http://www.moveuproperties.com/diane/foreclosure/GPletter2-3-09 002.jpg

Diane in Socal
diane@moveupproperties.com
Allan Hennessey, on February 7, 2009 at 6:44 pm said:

Ashlee b, contact me, I am in Washington State and have multiple Homeowner contacts here that have been successful in stopping their foreclosure with the methods discussed on this site.

We can assist with “educating” an attorney you trust, versus sending you down an endless search for a competent(read: Expensive) attorney who’s calendar is filled out through 2011.

Bob, Dan, Dasmom, and everyone else… This website is not designed for homeowners, although there are countless homeowners here that understand much of what is being discussed here. Remember, that each courthouse, each judge/commissioner, each county, each state, is each different from a Federal Jurisdiction.

Therefore, the broad range of subjects discussed on this site, by nature encompass many of these different jurisdictions.

There are few Homeowners among us that have actually been successful in stopping their foreclosure, WITHOUT Legal assistance, in order to validate the debt, using many different points of merit. There is no silver bullet, and it is very difficult to do on your own.

No matter what, it will cost $. Filing fees, and other professional fees for even minimal assistance, adds up. And when it comes time to argue the findings in your case, if you plan to represent and argue your case yourself, then you have a fool for a client, as you will NOT in most cases be afforded any leniency. Procedure is the most important factor! Have specific goals in mind.

If you are facing foreclosure, then someone intends on taking your home from you. If you intend to keep it, you must have people in your court(literally).

Allan Hennessey
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
AllanHennessey@gmail.com

Disclaimer: Allan Hennessey is not an attorney, and is not licensed to give legal advice in any way shape or form. The information provided in this communication is not to be considered legal advice at any time. Instead what is offered is a professional opinion, based on case studies & research and should be considered for educational and informational purposes only.

If you have an attorney, it is highly suggested you purchase information available from those that understand how to stop a foreclosure, and take it to that attorney(s) to help you accurately craft your filings in a timely manner.

Such a preliminary audit to help you get this handled should cost around $500-1500.00. This should include an analysis of all information and documents available, to discover flaws, and a determination of what information is not known, in addition to the grounds for your court case. There should be included, an analysis of the foreclosure actions taken by other parties thus far, if applicable. This information is priceless in taking to your attorney, or when interviewing attorneys to determine if they understand this subject.

Note: Many attorneys that do not understand Real Estate and Mortgage Contract and Foreclosure Law, MAY understand it and be willing to help you after reading such a report (i.e. Family Law Attorneys, Personal Injury Attorneys, Corporate Attorneys, etc.)

Time is on the side of those that move swiftly and decidedly.
Bob, on February 7, 2009 at 5:50 pm said:

Thank you Allen and Dan more feedback would be greatly appreciated original posting bellow.

February 6, 2009

Neil,

I have to ask on one of your previous posting I read that rescission letter should be sent to as many lender correspondences that you may have including the one to the originator of the loan. My loan was originated by Washington Mutual today being the 25th day since my first letter went out. The first 3 copies of the letter were received by the lender on the 13th of January at the branch where I initiated the loan, I also sent 3 copies to the Mortgage Servicing Center or otherwise the payment processing center and 3 more copies to the lenders Loss Mitigation Department.

Since the original notice was received the lender representatives have not stopped calling, every time they call if their number shows on my caller ID I answer since the 16th of January I started getting the calls I told them then to stop calling and kindly explained my self every time that I had rescinded the loan and I was awaiting for their correspondence to the letter. They insist they have not received anything from me and they are looking to help my by bringing me current. All I need to do is pay the month I am behind and the calls will stop.

Yesterday I faxed the collections department a letter indicating the many laws they violated with regards to my loan as much as how costly it would be if the district attorney took my case. I expressed myself accordingly and kindly asked that they stop calling me and to avoid further confusion that they only contact me by mail. That it was well over 20 days since I rescinded my loan and the consequences they risked in not responding and my rights since they failed to acknowledge 9 certified letters. As well as the many times they called me and I repeatedly requested they answer to my letter.

Now My payment was due on the 10th of January today I received a notice stating that if I do not respond with a payment with in 30 days they will start foreclosure proceedings and if I try to dispute the charges in court that would only speed up the time it takes to sell the home from under me. Now I know I have 9 certified postal certificates singed as received by one of their reps.

Today I have receive over 20 calls with number unknown and they hang up once voice mail picks up. I believe that now they have received the faxed copy and I also made the time to personally hand deliver a copy to the branch, of course I did not tell them it was my loan I simply stated that I was sent to do the delivery and if they could sing a sheet indicating I did deliver the document. Know when the branch manager read the cover sheet and what it stated, she said I had no business delivering to their branch and that the sender should address it to the bank. I stated that I was sent there because apparently the loan was originated there. Now I am not sure but under TILA I believe I read that the rescission letter should go to the address listed on the document and It only needs to state “I wish to Cancel” dated and signed now is there something that I can grasp to by getting rejected by the branch manager or turned away with the delivery of the letter should I even bother sending it to her certified like the other nine letter I sent. Or is the faxed copy to the collections department enough.

She blew me of and said it’s not my business this is a legal document and should be sent to the lender not the branch. That after having read the front cover it was not something she needed to deal with so I asked where should the letter be sent so I can transfer the info to the sender. She maid me wait for about 5 minutes came back out and told me to take the document back and have the sender look at the billing statement that it was not up to her to do it.

Since they have ignored my every request till this day, I am now thinking I should just start the lawsuit if I need to but am not sure since I faxed the second letter demanding they take action in correcting their wrong as well as sending me all the requested documents and the rescission request in clearing the deed and title. That I would allow for 20 days, although I am not required to do so. But was seeking they took action or I would forward the violations to the District Attorney for review.

If you or anyone out there has feedback I would appreciate it and Neil I emailed you early January I am not sure if my letter made sense but I would like to send you a copy of the letter I sent the bank I do not want to post it because I have found letters even here that are not expectable as was the letter posted regarding the Notice of Non- Compliance and I feel that with anything else it is best that people here seeking help don’t get miss informed as to postings. I have to let you know that some of the things I listed on the letter came from this blog and after researching in detail I felt it was valid.

You can email me or anyone with info directly at Help@EquityLoanManagement.com Neil I will email the letter to you for review if that is alright with you.

Thank you,
Bob
Dan, on February 7, 2009 at 3:37 pm said:

Sorry, my last post was for S B, not Bob (although it probably applies for Bob also!)

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan, on February 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm said:

Bob,
Get an audit and/or Do a preliminary document review available through this site and/or contact an attorney who “gets it” (not sure if there are any in Hawaii).

You can also contact Maher at http://www.borrowerhotline.com as he (and others) have stopped the sale and also stopped eviction AFTER a sale.

Most attorneys do not get it. Get one who does.

I am not an attorney and this is just my opinion.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan, on February 7, 2009 at 3:14 pm said:

Also, remember that rescission is only one of the many defenses you have against them. Do not put all your eggs in the rescission basket. Research, get an audit and know your rights.

Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Allan Hennessey, on February 7, 2009 at 8:09 am said:

Bob,

No “Lender” or “servicer” is going to listen to you or your threats, when they know 99% of the time they will win no matter what, and they never have anything to lose.

On the other hand, if you file a lawsuit(many of us can help) you will cause them to be required to answer FOR THE RECORD, causing the truth to finally come out, or an opportunity for you to put these folks in their place.

File a Lawsuit, do it right, its the only way to get the truth.

Allan Hennessey
Homeowner with experience stopping own foreclosure
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
Bob, on February 7, 2009 at 7:15 am said:

February 6, 2009

Neil,

I have to ask on one of your previous posting I read that rescission letter should be sent to as many lender correspondences that you may have including the one to the originator of the loan. My loan was originated by Washington Mutual today being the 25th day since my first letter went out. The first 3 copies of the letter were received by the lender on the 13th of January at the branch where I initiated the loan, I also sent 3 copies to the Mortgage Servicing Center or otherwise the payment processing center and 3 more copies to the lenders Loss Mitigation Department.

Since the original notice was received the lender representatives have not stopped calling, every time they call if their number shows on my caller ID I answer since the 16th of January I started getting the calls I told them then to stop calling and kindly explained my self every time that I had rescinded the loan and I was awaiting for their correspondence to the letter. They insist they have not received anything from me and they are looking to help my by bringing me current. All I need to do is pay the month I am behind and the calls will stop.

Yesterday I faxed the collections department a letter indicating the many laws they violated with regards to my loan as much as how costly it would be if the district attorney took my case. I expressed myself accordingly and kindly asked that they stop calling me and to avoid further confusion that they only contact me by mail. That it was well over 20 days since I rescinded my loan and the consequences they risked in not responding and my rights since they failed to acknowledge 9 certified letters. As well as the many times they called me and I repeatedly requested they answer to my letter.

Now My payment was due on the 10th of January today I received a notice stating that if I do not respond with a payment with in 30 days they will start foreclosure proceedings and if I try to dispute the charges in court that would only speed up the time it takes to sell the home from under me. Now I know I have 9 certified postal certificates singed as received by one of their reps.

Today I have receive over 20 calls with number unknown and they hang up once voice mail picks up. I believe that now they have received the faxed copy and I also made the time to personally hand deliver a copy to the branch, of course I did not tell them it was my loan I simply stated that I was sent to do the delivery and if they could sing a sheet indicating I did deliver the document. Know when the branch manager read the cover sheet and what it stated, she said I had no business delivering to their branch and that the sender should address it to the bank. I stated that I was sent there because apparently the loan was originated there. Now I am not sure but under TILA I believe I read that the rescission letter should go to the address listed on the document and It only needs to state “I wish to Cancel” dated and signed now is there something that I can grasp to by getting rejected by the branch manager or turned away with the delivery of the letter should I even bother sending it to her certified like the other nine letter I sent. Or is the faxed copy to the collections department enough.

She blew me of and said it’s not my business this is a legal document and should be sent to the lender not the branch. That after having read the front cover it was not something she needed to deal with so I asked where should the letter be sent so I can transfer the info to the sender. She maid me wait for about 5 minutes came back out and told me to take the document back and have the sender look at the billing statement that it was not up to her to do it.

Since they have ignored my every request till this day, I am now thinking I should just start the lawsuit if I need to but am not sure since I faxed the second letter demanding they take action in correcting their wrong as well as sending me all the requested documents and the rescission request in clearing the deed and title. That I would allow for 20 days, although I am not required to do so. But was seeking they took action or I would forward the violations to the District Attorney for review.

If you or anyone out there has feedback I would appreciate it and Neil I emailed you early January I am not sure if my letter made sense but I would like to send you a copy of the letter I sent the bank I do not want to post it because I have found letters even here that are not expectable as was the letter posted regarding the Notice of Non- Compliance and I feel that with anything else it is best that people here seeking help don’t get miss informed as to postings. I have to let you know that some of the things I listed on the letter came from this blog and after researching in detail I felt it was valid.

You can email me or anyone with info directly at Help@EquityLoanManagement.com Neil I will email the letter to you for review if that is alright with you.

Thank you,
Bob
Dan, on February 7, 2009 at 12:58 am said:

dasmom,
No problem. If anyone else has a different experience please post as we would all like to hear it.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
dasmom, on February 6, 2009 at 11:11 pm said:

Dan,

Thanks for your response. I understand your stance now. I wish you every success in your fight!

I will continue my fight also

dasmom
Dan, on February 6, 2009 at 10:43 am said:

dasmom,
I am not an attorney and these are only my opinions.

A QWR is a “qualified written request”
A Demand letter is a demand – presumeably because some fraud and/or other illegal activity has taken place.

I am not buying time.

The QWR is authorized by Federal law. In my state, I am authorized to make a written request also. I use both in my letters to the “lender.” My purpose is to get information from the lender – information that I am entitled to by law. Besides all laws broken by the originator, the servicer and everyone else in the middle, the servicer broke several laws when they failed to respond to my QWR (Federal and state) and when they failed to stop negative reporting. I also rescinded the loan. They said “you cannot rescind” which is not the correct response designated by law. Even though they have to provide me with the name of the holder in due course (by law), they said “it is proprietary.” Now I am in foreclosure and they continue to break the law by not filing notices correctly and by saying that they have the power of attorney for another major bank which is a flat out lie. They have stated that they (the servicer) hired a company to foreclose “to represent its (the servicers) interest relating to my loan”. What possible interest can the servicer have in my loan? Thats proprietary information (so they say)! I found out the “proprietary information” when I read the SEC filings in regards to my loan. Here are some tidbits:
– the servicer is required to advance my principal and interest payments and report my account as delinquent (when I miss payments).
– the servicer is required to buy back the loan when my acccount becomes 60 days delinquent

I missed 6 payments and the servicer did not buy my loan back. They made my payments for me. They do not want to spend $500,000 of their own money buying my loan back. So, they are using me as financing (they are foreclosing on me instead of buying the loan back). This means they just have to keep making my payment until they get my house, then they can sell it, get their money back and make a profit (large profit). They could care less that my house is only worth $275,000 because they have no skin in the game – it didn’t cost them anything. Thats also why they won’t give me a decent (or any) loan modification.

If they made my payment, how can they foreclose as the holder in due course sustained no loss? They lie, thats how.

If I walk away, I let them have my house for free. I also let them get away with breaking all the laws I mentioned (and many more).

What I mean by nothing can stop them is that they are big and you are small. They just don’t care because over 99% of the time, they get what they want when people walk away. In court though, you can level the playing field. When you ask questions in court, they cannot answer without a lie. So, they will either continue to lie or try to drag the case out until you give up.

I have shown a pattern and practice of their continual trampling of my rights.

You are in a better position in some ways, they have to sue you. You can bring up lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction and lack of joinder – probably before you even respond to their lawsuit. If done correctly, those are very powerful arguments that can stop the case before it even begins. I have to sue them, which puts the burden back on me to prove my case – although I would bring up those same issues.

I will not stop until I win or until I have exhausted all legal avenues. Especially because I know what they have done and I have the proof.

Get an audit. Get a copy of the note with all assignments. Check those assignments against SEC filings (Mortgage Loan Sale and Assignment Agreement). Check the SEC filings for Pooling and Servicing agreements to find out what your servicer is doing. Find out what your Trustee (of the loan pool) can and cannot do. The number of laws broken (in my opinion) is incredible.

I have not had an attorney send a demand letter based on an audit of my documents. They may respond to that although I won’t hold my breath.

Look at the case with Wells Fargo where they foreclosed on a person who never bought the house. That person had a huge case against them – and a letter was written by an excellent attorney. The bank did nothing. They only seem to respond to lawsuits (when ordered).

I sent out a few demand letters where I said “this is good, this will get their attention.” Even when I pointed out that they violated a specific law, they said “we looked into it and we did everything correctly.”

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Bob, on February 6, 2009 at 6:39 am said:

Does anyone know if a loan can be rescinded when a lender did not follow procedure and foreclose a home?

In addition to the foreclosure the lone origination was not legal and multiple violations have been found on document including no rescission end date on the 3 day to cancel notice.

1. Borrower did not receive proper disclosure to the documents he signed.
….( The Notary public showed up at the borrower home to have loan docs signed)
….Loan broker (agent) was not present to go over in detail what the borrower was signing.
….Borrower was instructed sing on the x and initial here.
….By the Notary Public whom personally delivered documents including blank copies for borrower to keep.
….When borrower would ask questions regarding the Loan, the Notary Public would give a brief description of the document and instructed the buyer to call the broker at a later time.

2. The Borrower Loan Application was taken over the phone.
….borrower information was not filed in a truthful and honest manner, instead the broker inserted a different amount as per stated income, 3 times the amount actually stated by borrower of his actual income made.
….borrower Truth In Lending Statement, as I understand the Financed loan amount can not be over or under $100.00 the total loan amount minus closing cost and broker fees, which by the way broker fee cost borrower 16k on a 500k refinance loan amount, with an interest rate of 10.25% a two year interest only and 28 year remaining payment at a variable rate and a final balloon payment of 350k.

(On top of 20k plus borrower paid as a prepayment to his other lender, on another bad loan, a repeat of a bad loan was taken by the borrower in stressful times.)

At the time interest rates where about 6-7%.

3. The final and most obvious error the broker made was that by not disclosing the loan in person borrower documents never received a written disclosure of the final day to rescind, 3 day notice of rescission itself was left blank. Borrower received six blank copies one borrower requires for one borrower is 2 copies makes me believe that the lender never got a signed copy back and if they have one the document may have been falsified.

My other concern above all the listed above is that the lender in California where the home is located did not follow foreclosure procedures, borrower was foreclosed late October and not told about the foreclosure until a real estate agent came to his home asking to be permitted to asses the home since he was instructed to place it on the market. Borrower then called the lender in complaint that he had an attorney and there was already a request pending for a modification. Borrower was given 10 days to move out. When stated in a written notice to the lender that he had tenant the lender extended 10 more days and in a phone call was told to move out or that borrower would get locked out. Forcing borrower to remove his roommates, when borrower called his attorney about the incidents that had accrued attorney did not return calls and finally pleading for his money to be returned the blame was placed on borrower for allegedly being at fault in not responding to the lender a matter that the attorney was to be resolving.

What can this Borrower do to fight back?
Also if an attorney here preferably if recommended by Neil as someone that gets it, would consider taking on a case such as this one please email me at:

Help@EquityLoanManagement.com

Note to any Attorney interested in this case Borrower has exhausted his life saving over 60k plus savings in 401k in attempting to save his home and resources are limited but if the law allows you may name the price in settlement with the lender. As with any case it is very important that the borrower in this case receive the best representation available. This home was the original home to his parent (May they rest in peace) and was granted to the borrower by the serving parent. Borrower opted to care for his surviving parent dealing with cancer, and under much stress refinanced the home too allow for a peaceful end….

Thank you,
Bob
S B, on February 6, 2009 at 3:45 am said:

Aloha

It’s no better here in Hawaii. I was scammed by Bryco. Then the loan was sold quickly over and over again. I had an attorney who had no clue what he was doing and before I knew GMAC had gone to court against me and did a motion for summary judgement AND WON.

I never knew there was aMSJ against me. Now GMAC is suing me. My attorney refuses to talk with me other then e-mail. What he has filed was a sloppy nighmere with errors that left me speechless. he did not allow me to attend any of the court hearings so I didn’t know what was going on. No words can begin to describe what a mess this is.

I am now waiting to be foreclosed on from a fraud loan. I called Legal Aid but they have a waiting list for a month or more.

I contacted the FBI and gave them all the info but I am one of millions and was told it could take years.

I contacted my Congresswoman and even signed an agreement to allow her to get info and help. Haven’t heard a word sinse.

I called the 1 888 number the Ohio Congresswoman gave in her interview to the media fighting for people to keep their homes. Wish we had leaders like that here.

I have served my community for well over 20 years. I have service dogs that also serve the community and a non profit program that I have been doing for over 20 yrs. I am about to lose it all.

Worse is all those who have come to rely on my program to help them with food and clothes and whatever we can help with.

My house is not just a home, it’s been the place I have used to help thousands. Because I was scammed I am about to face the worst heart break of my life and that will be letting all those down that needed me.

Please if there is anyone in Hawaii that can help, I would be more then thankful. Serving my community has been a blessed honor. I just can’t imagine letting so many people down in need. Please NO more scams. My trust levels has been dropped to near nothing.

Mahalo
dasmom, on February 6, 2009 at 3:23 am said:

Dan,

You say “nothing will stop them”. If that is true, what is the benefit of going forward with the QWR, etc.?

Are you buying more time?

I am in a judicial state, what impact would that have on the strategy you outlined?

I can’t afford an attorney to fight this, especially if I am going to need money to move.

I haven’t given up yet, but I like Kenny Rogers — “gotta know when to hold’em, when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run”

Maybe a fresh start is in order?
Dan, on February 6, 2009 at 3:14 am said:

Small debts and they go away. I tell them to cease and desist everything (communications, selling/transferring/assigning the debt, reporting to credit reporting agencies, storing my personal information, etc). Small ones I never hear back from them and some of these eventually make it to other debt collectors. Sometimes they “validate” the debt by sending a copy of the contract and/or a printout of payments and/or missed payments. This is NOT validation. I have just done this for my foreclosure and have not heard back yet. However, I assume I will get a copy of my note with a letter that says my debt is valid. Like everything else, I don’t expect this to stop anything. I do expect the servicer and/or foreclosing company to violate the FDCPA so I can add this to my list of “pleadings” when/if I sue somebody. I am in a non-judicial state so I have to sue or declare bankruptcy.

I have sent lots of QWRs and Demands, etc with rescission. As far as I can tell, nothing will stop them. They don’t care about anything (they are not intimidated).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
dasmom, on February 6, 2009 at 2:17 am said:

Dan,

Have you had any success with disputing the debt or that just prolong things?
Dan, on February 6, 2009 at 2:01 am said:

I am not an attorney, but this is what I do:

Whenever I receive a debt collection letter from anyone, the first think I do is reply with a letter disputing the validity of the debt. I send it in within 30 days of receiving the debt collection letter. I send it certified with a return signature required. Sometimes I combine these with other information (such as a QWR or whatever).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
dasmom, on February 6, 2009 at 1:35 am said:

My modification request was denied last week. The lender’s atty just sent me a collection letter giving me 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt. What would be best action to take now? QWR? Wait for notice of default? Bankruptcy?
ashlee b, on February 5, 2009 at 8:38 pm said:

anyone know ay good lawyers in washington state i have mortgage fraud , predatory lending,forgery and much more of a mess
L, on February 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm said:

What would the specific reasons or benefits be to:
1st. Sent the QWR without the RESPA items.
2nd. Resend the QWR to the new acquiring bank if first QWR did not get all the demanded information.

Thank you and NEVER GIVE UP!
livinglies, on February 3, 2009 at 8:17 pm said:

L: Looks right to me. Thanks for reminding the readers that here is another way to keep the burden on the “pretender lenders” — if they blow off (do not answer) your properly executed demand for validation of the debt, it is extinguished.
L, on February 3, 2009 at 6:33 pm said:

Good afternoon. I am pretty sure many of us are very busy and most of these question would be answered one time or another. I thank you very much Neil and Brad.

I am thinking of sending the following as a follow up to the QWR since not all information was provided, process continues and as response to a Debt Validation Notice. I might have to file this as well at the court yet not clear of what the next step would be. Any and all opinions are welcome!

Please feel free to send feedback on the following:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COUNTY FLORIDA

(Insert Name of Plaintiff), CASE No.
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
Vs.
Plaintiff,

(Insert Name of Defendants),

Defendant(s),

DEMAND FOR VALIDATION OF DEBT / CLAIM

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED #:

Law Firm Representing Bank (Plaintiff)
Street Address
City, State zip code
Attn.: File attorney
Alleged Mortgage Account No.:

This Offer of performance is tendered in good faith as full satisfaction of claim with the intent of extinguishing any alleged debt, duty, obligation, liability, accusation, etc. as obligating (Defendants) in this presentment. Validation of Debt Collectors / Plaintiff”s Right or authority, hereinafter Collector, to foreclose on this accusation is hereby demanded.

Demand is hereby made for a commercial agreement or positive law that assigns,
negotiates, or transfers rights to collector custody, by the real parties in interest, with evidence of Demandant’s consent to any such contract. Demandant is held harmless and indemnified against all orders, judgments, liabilities, etc. without the Commercial Agreement, revealing the Nature and Cause of Collector’s Claim. Collector is not a Holder in Due Course, nor does Collector represent the Holder In Due Course. Thus Collector waives all claims, charges, costs, fines and liability against the Demandant. Therein Demandant is exempt from lien and levy (42 USC 1994).

Page 1 of 3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COUNTY FLORIDA
All Collector documents are therefore TAKEN FOR VALUE pursuant to UCC-3-303 and all related endorsements front and back pursuant to UCC-3-419. An obligation, debt, liability, accusation, etc. is extinguished by an unanswered Demand For Validation of Debt.
Collector’s Disclosure Statement must be received by Demandant within 21 days that specifically describes the authority of Collector to issue a public currency collectable against Demandant’s assets, pursuant to Truth In Lending (Regulation Z) 12 CFR 226, or, Collector thereby commits a Slander of Credit in that it has presented no bona fide, lawful, or verifiable claim to cause Specific Performance.
Collector possesses no original Promissory Note to base a mortgage foreclosure upon and may not legally request any court to create a new one. Failure to timely respond to this demand constitutes a Confession Judgment against the Collector or its Attorney’s Bond.
Collector’s documents places it in violation of Title 18 USC 1589. The alleged debt Collector is also in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, amended, 12 USC 3401, the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, amended, 5 USC 552 (a) and the Third Party Summers Act (26 USC 7609).

Therefore Cease and Desist all Collection Activities prior to Validation of Debt.

This Demand is sworn upon Demandant’s Commercial Liability

____________________ __________ Defendant’s Signature Date

____________________ __________
Defendant’s Signature Date

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
Page 2 of 3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COUNTY FLORIDA

I HEREBY CERTIFY that copy of the foregoing was mailed this day of _______,
2008, by U.S. Mail to: (Law firm name),

(Insert name of Attorney) , Esq.,
Street Address ,
City ,
State:
Zip code .
Defendant’s Name
Street Address
City:
State:
Zip code
Tel. [ ]
Fax. [ ]
By:
Signature of Defendant
livinglies, on February 3, 2009 at 4:50 pm said:

Plenty of attorneys are listed on the blog and if you want to get an “audit” started (we call it a forensic review) then go to “In Trouble Now, download the intake form and fax it in. You can get a quick overview and then it will be forwarded to appropriate professionals that we have some confidence (no guarantees) in. Don’t get hooked by low prices, high prices, big promises or any promises. There are no guaranteed outcomes. Chances are you are in far better leagal shape then you have been d to believe. Remember, when you are using this blog you should always check with local licensed counsel. Rules and laws vary from state to state, county to county and even judge to judge.
Eric, on February 3, 2009 at 8:09 am said:

Hi Everyone,
I am looking for a place in California that I can audit the loans with all the details. Is there any place that any one can help me with it?

Also, Any good attorney that can fight the case after finding the violation inside the loan?

That would be awesome if some one can help me with this.
My Email: eric.al29@yahoo.com
Victor B, on February 2, 2009 at 3:23 pm said:

Neil,
I stumbled upon your site via the web. I especially took interest being that we are both in AZ. I too am in trouble here. I am a few months behind w/ Countrywide. A divorce and slower sales at my business have put me in this position. When I bought my house 2 1/2 years ago I did a stupid 4 option loan. 1 and 1/2 years ago I re-fied into a interest only that adjusts in 10 years to try to lower the payments.
That is no longer managable. A banker/mortgage lender turned realtor has helped a little, but this is too confusing for me to handle. Money is tight so I don’t know how much I could afford for a lawyer. I was told that I may be a victim of preditory lending as I paid close to 20K for a loan that isn’t any better than my original one. I was also told that I might be able to call the FTC regarding a threatening letter Countrywide sent stating they were going to foreclose unless I caught up on payments.
This is all just too much for me to process right now and state my own case effectively. Any ideas or someone who could help that won’t cripple me financially in the meantime? I wish I could just sell the place to downsize and keep my credit, but I am about 125K upside down in my place.
Thank you in advance, Vic
steve, on February 2, 2009 at 12:13 am said:

I live in California and my mortgage was transfered to another bank which went belly up. I checked with county and the deed is still registered in the name of the original lender.

My question is , if I were to stop paying my mortgage (due to job loss) can the new bank come after me for payment, even though they are not registered on the deed.

Please help with your advise.
Thanks
Florida Defense Team, on January 31, 2009 at 9:06 pm said:

Floridians in need of foreclosure assistance drop us a line at floridadefenseteam@comcast.net. We have reasonable rates and work side by side with you to get your home back! Depending on the mortgage note you can settle for pennies on the dollar or perhaps even free and clear.
thecreative100, on January 30, 2009 at 2:32 am said:

Hi everybody! Not only am I a believer of this site but I am going through many of the same issues most of us here are. However I have put together a group of legal professionals who get it! And we are now in the process of defending multiple homeowners. Right now we have a federal case started against New Century and Consumer Solutions REO LLC. If there is anybody that has had their loans or mortgages originated with these two or that were taken over by these entities please email me with your name, phone number, email address I will contact you.

We are also getting ready to the same with Indy Mac, Wamu, and Countrywide please respond. In addition we are doing settlements with other lenders, not Loan MODs. This is an epidemic and needs to be dealt with. IT works ladies and Gentleman our attorneys are well versed in federal and State litigation under these laws. We are in California and have a precedent case here in the Fed courts. We can do settlements in any state. I have fought my lender for year and a half before putting together the defense group.
I want to hear from as many of as I can, the more defendants we have the more leverage you will have.
B.Michael White
bwhite@icigroupinc.com
Lawrence, on January 29, 2009 at 10:51 pm said:

I was just informed that Chevy Chase Bank has been granted a summary judgment which I think releases them from liability. I think fraud has been commited against us and Chevy Chase already had a lawsuit won against them on the same kind of merits as our case has. The problem is the broker is running rom the law and the originating company (First Magnus Financial) has filed for bankruptcy. Chevy claims they are the holders in due course of the note. Does anyone out there have any suggestions.
Pablo, on January 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm said:

My mom passed away, and left me her house, but i can’t afford the mortgage payment, I don’t make as much as she did and have no money for an attorney and I’m about to loose the house to foreclosure… Is there any way you can help me? My phone #617-593-5260
Seidu, on January 29, 2009 at 6:52 pm said:

TK , You are running out of time. Please contact me as I am willing to share my experience with you as a reident of maryland as well.
Jose, on January 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm said:

Send this story to the Washington Post they keep advertising for the benefit of NON-PROFITS and the lenders.

We get people coming from all those non-profits with the same story line.

They are overloaded, they have hired, loan officers and realtor that are not qualified and had never been faced with issues as complicated as the ones we are facing. The lenders love them because they make it easy to foreclose on anyone. They have no risk of being sued since most of these non-profits get most of their funding from the lenders themselves.

I visited The Hispanic Committee of Virginia an local Non-profit and as soon as you come into their office they have a huge poster with the logos of all the lenders they have gotten funding from. Just beware of where you end up with.

LO BARATO SALE CARO!
Cheaper does not mean better, it will end up costing you more.
Seidu, on January 29, 2009 at 12:57 pm said:

Your story should be taken as a warning shot to those who still beleive that these so called lenders and non profits are working in your interest. I have a family member who refuses to see the light with regards her dealings with NACA since june 2008. Your story is similar to hers but the difference is that you have found this blog and it seems that you now know what to do. Good luck and keep up the good fight.
msoliman, on January 29, 2009 at 11:42 am said:

Delaying the Inevitable

Caution as you pursue a forbearance deal with the lender. Why? You may have important defenses you jeopardize – you need to see an attorney. Unless you document your offer and agreement, it won’t stop the foreclosure.

The opposing attorney handling the foreclosure may be moving rapidly forward with the recovery without knowing, or even caring the servicer has offered you anything. Any money you give the servicer will be lost if you lose your house to foreclosure.

NLS is an Expert to counsel and consumers pro se under our lawyers guidance. It’s called a limited scope assistance agreement. We step into the matter to quickly prepare challenging arguments and to assit in the preparation of a razor sharp and piercing legal pleading for counsel.

Our dilemma as of late is just another unfortunate case of what can – will go wrong. The attorneys we meet are some of the brightest we’ve seen. They are quick to draw on elementary HOEPA and RESPA “quips” and useless “jargon” such as “it’s a High Cost Mortgage”. That’s not acceptable where before and AFTER we show them the formidable arguments to be made for more sophisticated findings.

Example: the beneficiary disappearing for 8 months and up to a year. “Estopple by Silence” is a interesting argument given the loan changing hands throughout the remainder of the recovery. It also supports the auditors attestation reports in 10 k filing that all you guys must learn to read and thirst for before entering a court of law. If the lender went away for a year with no borrower contact and the attestation mentions failure to report delinquencies and we know the trust enforces a 60 day servicing repurchase trigger…..here are great arguments here with substance and legal standing.

Another is a May and Must argument SOLVED! These mortgage defaults often breach the terms of that deed (i.e. that states ALL NOTICES MUST RECORD prior to notice). In California the use of the word “may” and “must” is a danger for anyone excited about arguing late recording dates and the unrecorded NOD. The NOD may be not be recorded and substitute with all notices recorded prior to sale. (Key: Deed says must be recorded prior to commencement of the 90 day period)

Back to forbearances! Make sure that any deal offered to you is in your interest – get legal help to decide. Seriously examine the deal and if you can sustain and not just afford the payments offered by the mortgage company – otherwise, you are just delaying the inevitable.

Blog is http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com Web is http://www.borrowerhotline.com
Maher Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com

Neil –
I borrowed your “Request for hearing” to show cause and ordering the court to set aside an and stay. In UD cases that ruled against we are 50% in and with as little as 48 hours till a Sheriffs Eviction. Talk about pissing off an attorney for the plaintiff. It’s a little more slat on the wound before we get to the enviable – Counter complaint and Notice of pendency before leaving the UD hearing for the last time.

Thank you (and please have someone CALL Brenda at our office about a contribution. Brother, you can’t do all this on your own. We do support your efforts and contributions – Maher Soliman
Kim C, on January 29, 2009 at 4:27 am said:

To Michael Sullivan…
regarding NACA. They were good when they were not so inundated with people. Now you can’t get a hold of anyone and it is quite a mess. The great thing is they don’t charge you but remember, and I learned the hard way, you get what you pay for.
I had rev’d a great loan modification that NACA neg. for me with Chase…but with a good faith down of $4050.00 I asked NACA for weeks to see if the underwriter would accept the $2500.00? NACA kept telling me no update etc. I sent the $2500.00 in with the notarized paperwork and still kept on NACA about the $1550.00 difference that I didn’t have…..they even told me that the “lender” would accept the $1550.00 along with my first payment on Dec. 1st. On NOv. 28 I called Chase myself to see if they would budge (ps in the meantime before this Chase was calling me for the $1550.00 and that is when I kept asking NACA what is happening??? They kept telling me “we are waiting for an update from the lender”. Well low and behold when I called on the 28th, Chase told me my loan modification had been cancelled on 11/21!!! WTF???? Nobody from NACA told me or let me know…..and still have not told me who told them I had until Dec. 1st????? So during the month of december I worked through Chase Homeownership Preservation Office as well as NACA to see what I needed to do….according to Chase HOP office, resubmit my documents. Great I said, you have everything on file as it was submitted through NACA…..NACA was telling me that they needed to find out what I needed to do in order to resubmit and whether it was possible…..right up until Jan. 5th NACA was telling me that “they were in contact with the lender to see what I needed to resubmit and be prepared to get it quickly…..” Even the nerve to tell me “don’t worry so much hun”….? Are you kidding????
Well Chase sold my house at Auction on January 8th!!!!
I am now involved in the fight of my life for my home…..the bank sold it back to themselves for $180.0K and they said my loan was at $339..K (interest, late fees etc. etc.) The saving grace I have is that Chase sent me a letter (from the HPO on December 10th telling me that I had 30 days to submit my paperwork….30 days would be January 10th but they sold my house on Jan. 8.
So now I have filed a lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, injunctive relief and I will be adding fraud, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (they never reported my mortgage when it was good and I was denied refinancing by them because of it) and TILA violations….very messy.
My advice on NACA….run away fast.
HIRE AN ATTORNEY!!!!! NACA will not protect you and they just don’t have the manpower!
I am considering suing them as well for negligence and some choice things……
Wish I had better info. for you.
TK, on January 28, 2009 at 8:31 pm said:

My house is scheduled to be auctioned in Maryland in two days. The lender filed a loss note affadavit and they weren’t the original holders of the note and there is no documentation that it was sold. Can I file something myself to atleast postpone the auction? If so, what and how? Something to request the original note? Can I ask an attorney to do this for me? I currently have an attorney but he’s impossible to reach and time is running out so I’m willing to pay to get this done again.
Thanks.
MaryAnn, on January 28, 2009 at 6:45 pm said:

My son has 2 houses in Las Vegas and is upside down in both. The lenders are unwilling to even discuss payment plans and have locked us out of the rental property. Should we begin the process of asking for the original note and become pro-active now? They are both up for short sale but with over 1 million foreclosures in LV, what can be done?
Sara, on January 28, 2009 at 6:43 pm said:

Greg in SC:

This was the point I made (in court) and the master in equity told me to see an attorney and SC law prevails in most cases.

Also I did some research and the judges that denied a deficiency judgement (here in SC) were reversed by the court of appeals.

Please email me: midniteburner@rocketmail.com
Michael Sullivan, on January 28, 2009 at 6:01 pm said:

Does anyone have experience with http://www.NACA.com? I would like to refer a client to the best help available for a loan modification. She lives in Orlando Florida.

Thanks!
Mark, on January 28, 2009 at 5:52 pm said:

Looking for help or information in Missouri.Homecoming Won’t even think about trying to help.
seidu, on January 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm said:

Ashley Please email me as soon as possible dulpeck@yahoo.com.
Chris, on January 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm said:

Any attorney in Illinois willing to help? We have been screwed and not sure how much time we have.
ASHLEY, on January 28, 2009 at 3:57 pm said:

we have been on re-payment plan after re-payment plan for the past year we made our 3 payments they said they would do a loan modification and they never did now they want $4800 by next week and our first payment of $2929.00 starting april 1st we could barely afford $2100.00 that our payment was our ex realtor signed our names on much of the documents the builder of the property loaned us the 10% down on the new house and the guys at wells fargo new this we ended up losing our old house we had up for sale with our ex realtor to foreclosure we told them we couldnt take the new house and they forced in on us which made us lose our old house can anyone help we dont want to lose another house and our credit is shot due to foreclosure and wells fargo saying we havnt paid even though all the money we have sent for re-payment plans doesnt count i have a time line of the events of how they happened i have all copies of documents ex realtor signed in our name i had a lawyer but he told me since we havnt lost our house yet that they are know real damages what about the documents she forged to get her sale waht about us losing our other house what about our credit the stress if this nightmare if anyone can help please thank you please e-mail me
Greg, on January 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm said:

I’m in South Carolina and just found this site. Is there any information available regarding deficiency judgment? Foreclosure sale date is Feb 2 and the bank is seeking deficiency judgment. I didn’t realize I had signed away my appraisal rights at closing. This was never explained to me. Seems very unfair. Is there anything I can do? Thanks
Kim C, on January 28, 2009 at 12:10 am said:

And of course, as of 4pm today (Tuesday 1/27)-not even an acknowledgment from Chase.
I sent this letter to NDEX, US Bank N.A., the attorney general of CA, HUD, NACA’s CEO Bruce Marks….yesterday they went out certified. I will be curious if anyone even cares?
Allan Hennessey, on January 27, 2009 at 9:00 pm said:

Kim,

The problem seems to be that you ARE “fully cooperating” with them. They dont care about whether or not you can resume payments, (that was 2007), now they just want the house.

Kim, you need to file a lawsuit. If they have already recorded a deed, your time is running out. Dont wait until the sherriff comes to kick you out with an unlawful detainer, THAT is too late.

We have a homeowner with a similar case currently pending against chase and Ndex.

If you would like some help, let me know.

Allan Hennessey
Foreclosure Protection Expert
1-800-552-9313 Ext. 111
Kim C, on January 27, 2009 at 5:38 am said:

Here is a copy of the letter I just sent to Chase….though they (and NDEx) have sold my house to themselves….
It is long but it explains where I am at. I spoke to an attorney today and he made me feel even worse….that basically I don’t have much hope.

As you know, I have pursued various avenues to try to become current on my mortgage with Chase Home Finance, including a loan modification on my home, for over a year. At all times I have acted in good faith, yet Chase Home Finance and NDEx West proceeded to “sell” my home at auction for a grossly inadequate price while my loan modification was still pending.
As you know, for over one year now, I have diligently attempted to bring my mortgage current and have fully cooperated with Chase in every respect. For that entire time I have been forced to deal with Chase‘s errors, the confusion of your employees, my account being tossed from one person to the next- each either giving me different information from the last, dozens of unreturned phone calls, or finding that the last person on my account “no longer works here.”
Chase’s letter of December 10, 2008 (which I received on December 23rd) purported to allow me 30 days to complete my renewed application. Apparently, that letter was also sent in bad faith as my home was “sold” before those 30 days expired.
All of this time and effort and the chaotic mess inside Chase have resulted in the following:
• First, in late 2007, I was coerced into a “forbearance” agreement with unreasonable and unaffordable terms. At the time of the forbearance, I was never offered or even made aware of the possibility of a loan modification, even though Chase was modifying the loans of thousands of others. Still, I made 4 payments toward the forbearance, totaling over $12,000, until I could no longer manage payments which were nearly double my initial payment.
• Then, after your Loss Mitigation representatives expressed disbelief that I was never offered a loan modification instead of a forbearance, for which they deemed I would have qualified, I was forced to wait seven months for approval of a loan modification which came with a higher payment, an exorbitant “good faith” down payment demand and no change in interest rate (over 10%). This was also unmanageable. You will see in the record of my account that this loan modification, approved in April 2008 was never even sent to me even though Chase claimed it had been sent overnight via Federal Express. It finally arrived on July 23, 2008, and was dated April 25, 2008, and was essentially defective upon its arrival. During all of these many months tens of thousands of dollars in “arrears” accumulated and caused my “balance” to balloon.
• Finally, having failed to successfully navigate with Chase’s ever changing maze of constantly evolving procedures which made a viable solution impossible, I engaged with the Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (“NACA”) for assistance in obtaining a reasonable loan modification. Chase postponed the auction sale, but never informed me or NACA of the “new date” of the auction. Chase then approved manageable terms for this modification which I appreciated. Then, Chase personally told Ioanna Kakoura, at NACA that I had until December 1, 2008 to send the remaining $1550.00 of my good faith payment. However, on November 28, 2008 Chase informed me that they had “canceled the modification” and that I would have to “start all over again” and reapply. Meanwhile, there was a January 8, 2009 auction sale looming of which neither NACA nor I was ever made aware. In fact, as late as January 5, 2009 (three days before the “sale”) NACA emailed me to be patient with Chase’s process.
From what I can tell, the situation is this: Chase’s “right hand” was working toward a solution with NACA and me while Chase’s “left hand”, the lender, was preparing to sell my home to itself for about half of the loan balance or $180, 000. As you know, this has resulted in an unlawful and wrongful foreclosure sale which seeks to strip me of my home and throw me into the street.
After careful research, I have discovered serious defects and violations with the “non-judicial” foreclosure, as well as Chase Home Finance committing numerous violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), and in general, business dealings that would constitute bad faith and unfair business practices in any court of law.
If it were not enough to wrongfully take my home, Chase has also managed to not report my mortgage or any of my first 16 ON TIME payments. This has damaged me by preventing me from refinancing out of this predatory loan as early as 2006.
The violations of the “FCRA” are summarized as follows:
Chase Home Finance violated FCRA and committed gross negligence by failing to report my 2005 mortgage to any of the three Credit Bureaus until November 2008- although I had paid on time and had been in good standing with my mortgage with Chase until April 2007 (for 16 months). Also, the major credit bureaus show my mortgage with Chase as “discharged through bankruptcy” in 2005. One credit bureau report, Experian’s, shows that my mortgage is open and that I am 180 days past as of January 2009 but no report of the payments I made from October 2005 to April 2007. I have a March 2008 Trans Union credit report with NO record of my Chase Home Finance mortgage. This unlawful and severely damaging “non-reporting” is evidenced as late as August 2008 when I met with the NACA representative in Los Angeles and he pulled my credit report. To his amazement, he said that my Chase mortgage is not on my credit report. So as you can see, Chase Home Finance’s negligence has destroyed my credit, my financial standing and the ability I would have had to refinance my home.
In June 2007 I was trying to refinance my “predatory” loan through various institutions, including Chase Home Finance, but was denied because, due to Chase’s non –reporting, my credit score was below the newly increased FICO requirements which Chase had just adjusted. Chase’s new minimum was 520. My score was at 503; but if Chase had reported my PAID mortgage as they are required to do, my FICO would have been much more than sufficient to refinance into a much better loan including me being able to take advantage of the increased value of my home at that time. But again, because of the intentional or negligent practices on the part of Chase Home Finance, I was denied the opportunity to escape the predatory loan and take advantage of a more fair and equitable mortgage on my home. Then, just after I requested the payoff statement of my home for the possibility of refinancing, I received the first notice of default. In my research, it appears, perhaps coincidentally, that many homeowners receive the notice of default just after requesting their payoffs that are required during the refinance period. One could assume that Chase is cognizant that homeowners are trying to escape predatory loans only to be sent into the foreclosure nightmare.
The Notice of Default which I received in July 2007 was defective as it listed the trustee as NDEx West. The true and correct trustee, at that time, was Julia L. Greenfield. There had NEVER been a substitution of trustee until August 2007. As well, the notice of sale I received in August 2008 was defective as the required declaration that is required by law (CA Civil Code § 2923.5 (2) (c)), was absent.
Chase Home Finance has also violated the Federal Truth in Lending Act in regards to my mortgage. The primary violation is the TILA finance charge test (12 CFR §226.18(d) (1)). The disclosed finance charge is inaccurate because the amount disclosed as the finance charge is understated by $245,679.71! The disclosed finance charge is considered accurate when it is understated by no more than $100.00. There is also a violation of the TILA APR test (12 CFR §226.22 (a) (1) (f)). I can provide the details of that violation if you need them.
I have done everything in my power, in good faith, to negotiate, try to bring my loan/mortgage current with Chase Home Finance, including meeting personally with the Senior Vice President-Director of the Home preservation Office, Donna Sheline, on December 6, 2008 in Los Angeles. Ms. Sheline assured me that all that had to happen to reinstate my last loan modification was to “change a few dates.” Then, for weeks, she never returned my calls. All of my efforts have been thwarted, misdirected or simply stymied by Chase in order to take my home illegally.
Now, post auction sale, you have agreed to begin a new loan modification process stating that the sale can be rescinded, yet you have not caused the sale to be rescinded and will not return my calls. I am certain that you will agree that my experience with Chase does not meet the standard of fairness or due diligence on Chase’s part nor does it, even closely, represent what our lawmakers have intended to occur in order to stem our nation’s housing crisis and financial meltdown.
Currently there are over 500 legal actions, (since September 2008) in process in Los Angeles County Courts alone with US BANK, NA, my purported “lender”, as a party. Although I have numerous reasons to become a party in yet another court action, I would prefer for that not to happen. Such an action would result in extreme costs, more time wasted for all concerned and tie-up my property for a very long time.
In order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, I would like to know what Chase Home Finance , and my lender (whomever that may be)propose in order for me to keep my home and rectify their unlawful actions ,bad faith negotiations and unfair dealings in order to make ME whole.
Ms. Monroe if you are not the person with the authority to act on behalf of Chase Home Finance and the lender to make these decisions, please immediately inform me as to who is and how to contact them.
I expect your acknowledgment of receipt of this letter and positive action within 24 hours or I will have no choice but to pursue all legal remedies which are available to me.
——————————————————-
I thought I did everything I was supposed to be doing in order to try to save/keep my house but because of the incompetence of many (including those at Chase and NACA) I may lose everything.
I am just beside myself.
Allan Hennessey, on January 27, 2009 at 5:02 am said:

Folks I wanted to sound off here quickly to repeat some things that Neil and Brad are teaching:

With the minimal assistance of others, for a fee, you can file a suit to stop the sale of your home from being effective.(If you record a Lis Pendens as well)

The best way to get results is to use ALL of the strategies available to your situation. There are many different types of professionals that can assess and offer many different services.

You do not need an attorney to represent you to stop the sale of your home. Many homeowners are fighting their suits until it comes time to argue the case in court. While you are not paying your mortgage, SAVE THAT CASH to pay for your counsel to argue later.

With help identifying your defendants, and the initial claims you may have, you can file a civil suit(non-judicial states), and get through discovery, and deposition, with just knowing what to ask. This way you discover information material to the establishment of your case and any claims that you may have. It is just as important to know your TILA claims, and to file your QWR’s.

In most cases, the Defendants will walk away once they realize you are hip to the truth, leaving you with a default judgment. Worst case, the other parties come to the negotiating table ON THEIR KNEES.

If you don’t have enough time or $ to retain the services of an attorney, contact us for the solutions needed to stop the auction, until a time that you can.

It is important however, that a homeowner NEVER file a lawsuit designed as a just stall tactic. This can become a serious liability, and potential nightmare for years to come.

Allan Hennessey
Foreclosure Protection Expert
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
Kris, on January 27, 2009 at 2:32 am said:

Dan: Thanks for the response. I did send a written request, and followed up with 2 reminders that I had made the written request. I think that the person handling this just doesn’t know anything, so she says she doesn’t have to provide the identity of the investor. What law can I quote, code section or statute, that specifically says that Countrywide has to provide that info to me?
John Ritchie, on January 26, 2009 at 9:33 pm said:

I too am in need of some help for South Carolina?

Thank You
Alina, on January 26, 2009 at 5:57 pm said:

Did anyone here see on Fox Business News either Friday or Saturday night an interview regarding companies that are buying mortgages from banks in bundles of 15-20? I tuned to the channel towards the end but it was a bit troubling. It was an Indian guy and basically he stated that the banks sell him a mortgage with a face value of, say, $300k for $120k. The mortgages are sold in bundles of 15-20 at a time. He then knocks on the homeowners doors and tells them that he is the new mortgage holder and negotiates a lower mortgage payment. At least that’s what he says.

What troubled me was that it was not clear if some of these were MBS’s. Toby, one of their pundits, tried to clarify that point by saying that would be illegal. But the guy did not actually confirm that fact. I have been trying to locate this interview but cannot locate it.
Dan, on January 26, 2009 at 4:31 pm said:

Sara,
If they have not sold the house, you could try bankruptcy and fight it there. Or you could hire the services of any number of attorney’s or foreclosure consultant companies. Many of these have stopped evictions AFTER a sale. Don’t give up the fight. Contact Maher at http://www.borrowerhotline.com – he is very good. Contact Brad here. Look at the lawyers who get it list and contact one of them. Its not over until you give up.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan, on January 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm said:

Donald F,
Have you done an audit? Have you retained an attorney or a foreclosure consultant to help? It is possible to do it on your own (if you have time) otherwise you should find somebody to help. I had time and the interest so I figured out a lot on my own, but I will still need help when it comes to fighting them.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan, on January 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm said:

Kris,
They can say or do whatever they want. Only a litigation would motivate them (if done right) to provide the information. I sent in 4 QWR’s before they finally answered. They didn’t answer everything and declared some things as proprietary (yeah right), but they did send me a copy of the note with the assignments. Remember, they have a bunch of workers and different people will respond to different letters so you may or may not get a response. I don’t feel that they will ever tell you the investor or how securtization works (I could be wrong). You need to find this out on your own. You can do the research (it only took me 2 to 3 months to figure it out) Or you can hire an auditor. Make sure the auditor will find this information out for you. I am not a lawyer or foreclosure consultant and this is not legal advice. This is what I did. Email me for more info on the audit (I don’t sell anything).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Kris, on January 26, 2009 at 5:08 am said:

I consulted an appraiser who confirmed with 5 comparable sales, that Countrywide inflated the value of my home by $60,000 at the time I refinanced the second in May 2006. I have asked them to identify the investor that they sold my loan to (they have been defrauded too and I want them to know it), and Countrywide has said that they don’t have to provide that information to me. Can this be true? What law requires them to provide this info to me?
Lisa Cluett, on January 24, 2009 at 2:01 pm said:

Good Morning Brad,
I am interested in volunteering in the seattle area in support of the work you do. I am not an expert in this field. I found your site researching this field. found Avenue-s ,Robert Tapia, CA. but I would like to help in any way I can. I eventually would like to assist the consumers and Lawyers “who get it” in our state. (only one so far) If Ican be of support, feel free to give me a call.
Regards, Lisa
206-383-1140
Donald F, on January 21, 2009 at 12:36 am said:

Can any one give explain how to proceed I have sent QWR’s to Greenlight (Lender At Closing) GMAC (Servicing rights transferred same day as closing)and ASC (Current servicer) Today I heard back from ASC. They never answered any questions in the Mortgage and assignment sections. They say I need to subpoena them for Servicing related questions and for account accounting and servicing systems. The loan file is unavailable also without a subpeona. The TILA form shows the wrong rate and the wrong amount financed.

How should I proceed?????
JT, on January 20, 2009 at 10:43 pm said:

Here is a link I found which gives a couple of lengthy QWR ‘s.

http://www.qualityloanmod.com/QWRLetter
abby, on January 16, 2009 at 11:29 pm said:

I am in California and won the Motion to Quash the service of the summons/complaint for Unlawful Detainer. The house was foreclosed upon.

I know there are recording irregularities

I got my refi from HOME123/New Century Mortgage. I know there is fraud involved, TILA violations etc.

When I do get served with the Complaint for UD, should I file a demurrer to the complaint in the local state court? OR should I file something in federal court?

If I file the demurrer in State court, will that preclude me from filing in Federal Court?

Thx
Seidu, on January 15, 2009 at 6:04 pm said:

I was in on the podacst last evening and someone asked about Brad’s services and his fees. But he did not provide the actual cost of his services and also he did not provide his contact information. There are a lot of us who are in need of the detailed frensic audit. I hope Brad would kindly respond. Thanks.
Sara, on January 15, 2009 at 5:36 pm said:

Follow-up response:

Ok, I went to court today and lost. The judge ordered the judgment of foreclosure and sale. But I did put up a good fight and made the mortgage company’s attorney sweat. I thought his eyes were going to pop right out of his head, when I asked for him to produce the “wet ink” copy of the original note! He said he didn’t have it. Then I asked him “why not?”.
As our little “lovefest” continued, he started to sweat. I honestly believe that the mortgage company does NOT have the original document.

I goofed up when I didn’t go in accordance with filing motions with the court. My father died the day I was served with the foreclosure papers. My psychiatrist wrote me lots of scripts and I was so “out of it”. I told this all to the judge and he started asking me what day of the week it was, what month it was…

The judge then announced that he had the note on the county record file and continued on.

My next tactic was “planting the seed” of doubt that I ever signed that document. I told the judge that I can’t believe I signed a document giving up my right to an appraisal after the sale. He told me to get an attorney and the SC law prevails over anything that is signed. hmmm…

Question 1: Did the judge tell me the mortgage company violated the TILA?

Question 2: How do I fight the judges ruling?

thanks so much

Sara
bt, on January 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm said:

Florida- How do you defend against a 2nd mortgage lender turning the 2nd mortgage debt over to a credit collection agency, instead of going through with foreclosure?

I have heard this is the new trick for lenders to get around “lost note” and to get something out of property owners, that have properties that are upside down on value and the lender would get zero in second position at a Florida foreclosure auction, due to the devaluation of real estate.

1) loan was sold to “big time” lender
2) “big time” lender sues for foreclosure- files with the claim they “lost the note”
3) voluntarily dismisses lawsuit for 2nd mortgage foreclosure with the court
4) property owner calls to find out the deal. “big time” lender says they are now wanting to work out a loan modification and are turning the debt over to a credit collection agency.
5) how do you fight this? the same way as the foreclosure…when the collection agency mails you a letter, dispute it? do they still have to prove the own the note and the rights to the debt?
livinglies, on January 15, 2009 at 3:26 pm said:

SUE: Countrywide is the servicing entity, in all likelihood. If they get you into a delinquent, default or foreclosure position they get paid more money. They also don’t have the authority to modify your mortgage, so be careful even if you DO get hold of them. You need a forensic review of your loan transaction. In all probability there are violations of TILA, Securities Laws, Deceptive lending practices, Appraisal Fraud, and many other claims. The more claims you can present that consist of a credible threat, the more likely you are to get a favorable result in either nullifying or modifying your mortgage. You need to have a report on the chain of securitization, chain of title, and chain of custody of the various instruments used in closing and selling your loan, if that is what happened (and if Countrywide is involved the odds are about 99% your loan was securitized). Don’t accept one of the cheaper “TILA Audits”. You need the full review by experts. Payments can be worked out. You need to send out a QWR (Qualified Written Request) that establishes either the identity of the true holder of note or the fact that they don’t know. Nearly all these transactions are the same: an investor who put up the money and was not disclosed to the borrower — everyone is a middleman who never had any risk in the loan because the money didn’t come from them — and all the middlemen, including the “lender” you thought you were doing business with at closing, were paid and paid and paid fees, profits, rebates, etc.
Sue, on January 15, 2009 at 7:48 am said:

Does anyone have information on how to deal with Countrywide home loans ? They will not help or do anything to assist you on lowering your mortgage to keep your house. I was behind two months on my mortgage and am now all caught up. I lost my job and can keep up with payments if they would just lower my payments by 400 a month for a year or two until I get back on my feet . They will not even discuss it and said if I fall behind again they will foreclosure . Help anyone.
Rubia, on January 13, 2009 at 12:22 am said:

My mom’s house is being foreclosed on and in litigation in Florida. We have a lender working on a reverse mortgage and has advised how much they are willing to lend for short sale to the bank. Do I make an offer to the attorneys representing the bank for this amount? Do I file discovery to gain more time? How much info do I give to the attorneys? I have no clue how to start the negotiations to get the bank to accept what the reverse mortgage people are willing to offer for the house.
Branco, on January 12, 2009 at 2:58 am said:

Does anyone know an attorney in the Chicago area that understands and knows how to defend using the tremendous info. on this site? I have a case up on 1/23/09 after attempting to fight it myself for 9 months. I filed a motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction but the lender responded by claiming that in Illinois I waived my rights to jurisdiction because my brother hired an attorney who filed a motion to extend a sherriff’s sale that was supposed to happen 10/17/08. The judge gave me until 1/14/09 to turn in my response to the lenders response. Only a couple more days! Can anyone help?
Patti, on January 7, 2009 at 11:01 pm said:

Thank you for your quick response (sorry for posting question twice). Is a loan modification different from a loan stabilization program? Does Regulation Z leave commercial properties out in the cold? What about SBA loans? Where can I get honest, reliable information? Time is running out…I don’t know what to do and the bank is closing in. Thank you again for your help.
livinglies, on January 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm said:

Commercial properties are trickier. You need mortgage audit and review, QWR, demand letters, SEC research etc. Just like the homeowners. Don’t go with a loan modification operation as they leave 95% of the money on the table unless they are versed in securitization and other UCC and procedural issues.
Patti, on January 6, 2009 at 10:49 pm said:

Is there any help for commercial properties (So. Calif.)? Business is suffering (ironically, I work with mortgage brokers) and I am on the verge of losing my building and all I have invested in it.
Patti, on January 6, 2009 at 10:49 pm said:

Is there any help for commercial properties? Business is suffering (ironically, I work with mortgage brokers) and I am on the verge of losing my building and all I have invested in it.
Hart, on January 4, 2009 at 12:29 pm said:

SOUTH CAROLINA!
Anyone in South Carolina who has Deutsche Bank attempting to foreclose or has foreclosed on their properties, please contact me at: notaryacceptor@hushmail.com
I live in South Carolina and am not an attorney.
Ms. Apple, on December 31, 2008 at 4:31 am said:

I am fighting my sister . I borrowed withdrew about $100,000.00 and entered into a contract with her to refinance my mortgage in her name so that I would remain the owner to prevent losing my home. Three months after she went to closing and we entered into a written assignment in which she quit claimed her interest back to me–she induced the new mortgage company into increaseing my loan payments because she failed to provide proof that I had paid the real property taxes. So, I filed a copy of the real property assignment agreement with the recorder of deeds-and entered into a loan modification with the mortgage company which lowed the monthly payments—later she contacted the mortgage company and stated that I had forged her name (which I did not) on the Real property Assignment agreement in which she quit claimed her interest to me. She further stated to the mortgage company that she did not intend to make any of the mortgage payment and that she preferred tha the mortgage company foreclosed on the property. My sister schemes to cause me to lose my home included stealing my mail, mail from the mortgage company and forwarding mail to a mail box in order to prevent me from obtain information about the mortgage and mortgage payments. The mortgage company did not give me notice of their intent to foreclose or any information regarding contacting HUD, i.e. loan closed in 2006 . I an contemplating filing a wrongful foreclosure against JP sucessor to WAMU alleging breach of contract since they are attempting to get out of the July 2008 modification decreasing the payments. I made the first modification payment on the due date in September 2008. After several telephone calls, i.e. taped telephone calls, letters, etc. JP/successor to WAMU have refused to respond to my demands. I am also considering suing my sister who has stabbed me in the back in her attemps to steal my home from under my feet. Please make suggestions.
Donald F, on December 29, 2008 at 1:21 am said:

My wife and I need an attorney in Orlando FL that understands the information on this site. The mortgage is in my wife’s name she recently filed bankrupcy and has been discharged. The loan servicer tried to get a relief of stay we submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and they withdrew before an evidenciary hearing. They have not issued the Lis Pendens yet, however it is sure to be coming as we have not made a payment (due to the loss of our business) since May 2008. We thought we had no choice but to proceed Pro Se
Hart, on December 26, 2008 at 3:59 pm said:

Sara:
Please email me @notaryacceptor@hushmail.com. I’m in South Carolina.
Thanks,
Sara, on December 25, 2008 at 10:31 pm said:

Love This Site!!!

I need help in South Carolina! I am presently in the foreclosure HELL and my loan has been assumed twice, since this proceedure has started. The last one wasn’t even known until I got the court date notice. I was still trying to work out a deal with the last one… Each time it is assumed, the payoff goes up $12,000.

I really need a lawyer!!!

thanks
Robert R., on December 22, 2008 at 9:07 pm said:

Hey everyone! I just had to let the community know that the strategies discussed on this site really work. My foreclosure was filed by my lender back in August, and today just 3 days before Christmas I received the notice that the foreclosure was DISMISSED!!!! I used a lot of the information provided on this site, and prepared a rather thorough Motion to Dismiss after received the complaint. I’m in Ohio so if anybody from the Buckeye State needs a copy of the motion I used as a template just shoot me an email at robert.roach@ymail.com. I know my lender will be back for round two after the first of the year, but I’ll be ready! Thanks everyone for this very valuable resource.

P.S. If you are new to this site, and feel like all hope is gone DON’T GIVE UP!!! You can fight, and you can WIN. I’m further proof of that.
Pat, on December 22, 2008 at 7:08 pm said:

Is there any attorney in Dallas, Texas I can speak with?
Hart, on December 14, 2008 at 6:03 pm said:

Please help. Need an attorney who handles foreclosure defense cases in South Carolina. Sale date on my house is set for Jan 5, 2009. Mortgage co states (letter from them unsigned) they don’t hold the note, mortgage, etc. However, foreclosure docs from court state Deutsche Bank, as trustee for First Franklin. Need help ASAP!
P.S. I just found out about your site & the information is powerful.
Elizabeth, on December 12, 2008 at 7:05 pm said:

I am a single mom of two and I lost my job in September. I am the Vice President of a Condo Association. I have a probono attorney but she has not been able to do anything for me. Countrywide does not want to do a loan modification. Right now the last unit that was sold was for 67.000 a two bedroom two bath. I have a two bedroom one bath and a half. My condo cost 200,000 and my mortgage is upside down. I just received a default notice, I need advise, what can I do? I do not have money for an attorney and the attorney I have has not been able to help me.

Please help me or let me know what I can do.
Mario Kenny, on December 9, 2008 at 2:24 pm said:

Nick,

Neil has listed 20 lawyers in CA,twenty.

Call me up up nick and I will speak to you to help you find the attitude,to consign a lawyer to help you.

Stop what you are doing and get a lawyer.Think jeff barnes or choose from the list of 20 provided herein.

786 274 0527
malibubooks@gmail.com
Mario Kenny, on December 9, 2008 at 2:10 pm said:

Ok I am going to sound off here but firstly I will post the disclaimer:

I AM NOT A LAWYER, OR AN EXPERT AND THE AUTHOR OF THIS SITE HAS NOT EMPOWERED ME TO MAKE ANY AND ALL STATEMENTS THAT I HEREIN STATE.

NOW.

I have spoken to many pro se practitioners over the period and the general consensus is; I cannot find a lawyer and I do not have the money. WRONG.

Neil has worked hard to change this and we must assist, most people feel that somehow someone owes them free council. WRONG

I do not think this site was intended to discourage the borrower from finding a lawyer but to teach us our rights and show how to find a lawyer.

NEIL IS WORKING HARD TO RETOOL THE LAWYERS, he is doing this and we are the people who are the beneficiaries of his hard work.

Why do people think they can do this themselves? I beat myself over the head as I have no answer for this question.

Listen, I happen to know some of the best, most self schooled pro se litigators alive today,in this here meltdown and most of these people have resigned to finding the good lawyer.

These cases are basically very simple, when done correctly on the onset. If the pre se does the wrong things it gets very confusing and you will lose your case for sure I have seen this. I have experience with these sad occurrences of loss.

NICK GET JEFF BARNES esq
Mario Kenny, on December 9, 2008 at 1:46 pm said:

NICK,
THE ONLY LAWYER THAT I THINK,MAY BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU HERE IS THE ** JEFF BARNES ESQ** GOOGLE HIS NAME FIND HIM AND TALK TO HIM HE IS VERY GOOD AND IF YOU PAY HIM HE WILL MOST LIKELY ASSIST YOU.

It would have been better for you to have paid a lawyer to fight your case than to have submitted your family and friends to this agony,that you have wound yourself in,it would have been by far cheaper,in any and every respect,you will lose your case if you continue,as you are.

The lenders you are facing off with are some of the worst,in the existance.

You are able to turn this on them in the best manner to benifit you but if you write one more letter or make one more call or motion the court once more,you would be on the highway to total loss and I have no other knowledge than what you posted.

I am not a lawyer and I have no expert qualifications my gut speaks here and you had better call Jeff right now.

Jeff may be the only hope you have or you may download the CA list of lawyers neil has provided for us on this blog and go see them all,call them all,get the money to pay them.

If you fail to do the correct moves to help yourself you will lose your house.

You have done well in many aspects but your errors were contained in the fact of not having a lawyer. GET ONE NOW.

JEFF Barnes is excellent,he works hard,is as smart as can be and I am very sure he can help you.

You would be so happy to have someone help you,and so would your family and friends.

Do yourself a hugh good by dropping this case and turning it over to the experts.

PLEASE.
nick, on December 9, 2008 at 12:20 pm said:

I don’t understand this lawyer what do they think going in to court knowing there lying to the court I have everything to prove and some.

Nick Ramirez am the Legal Owner of Address 227 Central Ave Alameda Ca. Parcel ID 074-0468-004-00.I appreciates your immediate attention to this matter.
Please take the time to review my case on the Alameda County Superior Court Domain Web page Case No. RG07353134.
I just receive court documents from Argent CR Title “Notice of Motion and Motion Strike Second Amended Complaint Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, AND Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
Court dated March 10, 2009
Time 9.30 am Dept 30
Superior Court in Oakland Ca. Were the Honorable Judge Kenneth Mark Burr point me out and said that known matter how good of a case I have and all of the evidence he would like me to be repented by a lawyer because one error can cost me the case.
Yes I have had Jack Conte from Mortgage Audit Service Pacifica, CA 94044 (605)755-1070
I send all the documents. Neil told me to call him Jack said that I have a real good case. The mortgage mess up big time I give you Jack phone number .If you like to give him a call he can fill you in.
Brief description of my legal issue
About predatory lending. I currently have a civil case pending in Alameda County Superior Court,
I filed the case Pro Per, in October 2007, Please I am in desperate need of some legal representation I do not have a lawyer me and my girlfriend have been doing it on our own filing with the court. You will read about everything that we have come across with the broker and the mortgage company. The broker work for Pinnacle Financial who file bankruptcy and I am the only creditor list for $10,000.Please read there is a few pages and it all true I will be happy to go fax or what ever you need. This is a little mix up but it 1oo%. The department of real let me down so did the district attorney but said in his letter that I can pursue in civil court for wrongdoing by others. If these departments would done a full investigation this would be over almost. I give them everything they needed now with Pinancial going bankruptcy proves that I was right the hold time. They have done so much along with AMC MORTGAGE. . Also included is a letter that was send to the Department of Real Estate Deputy Commissioner Ms. Jenna Boutilier regarding my complaint against Shelly Poe, the Loan Broker with Pinnacle Financial & Real Estate Inc.? Also Mr.Cong Le of Pinnacle Financial, who is Shelly Poe’s boss, insisted to Randall Yip from 7 On Your Side, that he was the broker that helped me with the loan transaction in question. He said that Ms. Poe had nothing to do with the loan transaction at all. Mr. Cong Le is not telling the truth. I have never met or talked to Mr. Cong Le at any point during the loan process, or regarding any other matter. Included my complaint against AMC Argent Mortgage Company the lender that (fail) to provide me their commitment of honesty and good faith. All that has been provide is dishonesty, misrepresentation and filed false information regarding the findings of their own internal investigation regarding my complaint. In this letter is a recap from the start in till this dated? I have been on my own as you can see can not keep doing this with out legal help. Yes we made it though these round one more time no one show up to court. Yes we did. This is what the Court gives us. Today recap January 29, 2008 The Unopposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff Nicolas Ramirez’s Complaint, by Defendants CR Title and Argent Mortgage Company’s (Defendants) is DENIED as follows. Defendant’s request to strike paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint which includes allegations regarding attorney’s fee, is DENIED based on the authority cited .In light of the Court’s Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action ,the remainder of Defendant’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

The unopposed Demurrer of Defendant CR Title and Argent Mortgage Company’s (Defendants) to Plaintiff Nicolas Ramirez (Plaintiff) Complaint is SUSTAINED as follows:

Defendants Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, to allege if possible a cognizable claim against Defendants.

Defendants Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Injunctive Relief is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Korean American Legal Advocacy v. Los Angeles (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 376,399.

Plaintiff shall file and serve an amended pleading within 14 days. From the Honorable Judge Kenneth Mark Burr. January 24, 2008 I received court documents from the lawyer of Argent mortgage Co and CR Title Services., Pinnacle Financial. The lawyers file Notice of Non Opposition to Demurrer to Complaint. Ramirez has fails to file and serve an opposition to Defendants notice of demurrer and demurrer to complaint within 9 court days. And I should be allowed to tardily submit to this demurrer without order. These lawyer no that I don’t no the law that not fair. But I have managed to come this far without one, but am afraid that if I go to court I will lose simply on technicalities. October 25, 2007 I filed a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against Citi Residential Lending (formerly Argent), CR Title Services (formerly AMC Mortgage Services), and Pinnacle Financial Real Estate. To enjoin the foreclosure on my property. . On November 1, 2007. The Judge Kenneth Mark Burr denied my TRO. A Motion to Demurrer and a Motion to Strike Complaint were filed by the Attorneys for Defendants CR Title Services and Argent Mortgage Co. This is a letter I send to Ms Jenna Ms. Jenna Boutilier Deputy Commissioner; Department of Real Estate January 21, 2008 1515 Clay Street, Suite 702Oakland, CA 94612-1402 File No: 507-0926-004 Re: Poe, Shelly Pinnacle Financial and Real Estate Inc. Dear Jenna Boutilier, I am writing this letter to you in response to the letter you sent me on Dec. 12, 2007 regarding your investigation to my complaint against Shelly Poe, a Loan Broker with Pinnacle Financial & Real Estate Inc.I thank you for your time, and your support is not only greatly appreciated, it is also crucial to my case. Currently there is more evidence of wrongdoing by the respondent listed below. I have also recently acquired two credible witnesses that are willing to testify on my behalf. The evidence I have proves them guilty of misconduct, fraud, forgery, and identity theft. According to my legal advice, this new information is more than enough to successfully file disciplinary action. : Ms. Shelly Poe, BrokerMr. Cong Le, Broker Pinnacle Financial and Real Estate Inc.Tel: (510)866-3752 Fax: (408)228-6017
Mark Ver. Planck, Lead Internal Research Analyst Danny H. Hernandez, Office of the President AMC Mortgage Services, Inc.Tel: (866)461-0913 Fax: (714)347-5037
Kinkeo Kangnavong, Legal Analyst II, Legal Dept. ACC Capital Holdings Corporation Tel: (714)558-5355

Ms. Shelly Poe misrepresented herself as a Licensed Broker, and conducted this real estate transaction. Operating without a valid Broker License, this is in direct violation of Financial Code Section and is considered fraud. In addition, my income was falsified and forged all loan documents. This is a serious offense, considering that I should have never even qualified for the loan for which I was approved. Shelly Poe also acted as Notary Public on the Grant Deed dated April 17 2006; she was the broker and forged this document with my signature. On July 25, 2007, I received Shelly Poe phone number and address from the Secretary of the State. I requested from her a copy of my thumbprint and signature of the line item representing the transaction on the Grant Deed. Shelly Poe never returned my calls or responded to my request. I repeated this request, via certified letter, which was returned undeliverable August 3, 2007. I also called Ms. Shelly Poe on the same date, only to find her phone was disconnected. I have never received a response to this certified letter sent July 26, 2007. Still, Ms. Poe has failed to provide me with my official thumbprint and signature, which should be in her Notary Public journal. If necessary I will provide your office with copies of my formal request. Witness #1: Galina Marie Plizga – Notary Public, License/ Commission #: 1383345So. San Francisco, CA 94105 601 Gateway Blvd., 6th Floor, Room 670Phone: (650) 989-0008 Ms Galina Marie Plizga is a true Notary Public officer, who was hired by Ms. Poe and served as the official Notary Public on the original loan documents signed at my home on April 11, 2006. I do not dispute the integrity of the document signed during this meeting, including specifically the Deed of Trust. I did not understand why the documents later filed by AMC Argent Mortgage Company, did not appear to be the same documents I signed at my home. Because of my concerns I decided to contact the Notary Public to confirm my suspicions. On Thursday, December 13, 2007, I finally met privately with notary public Ms. Plizga and she gave me two documents with my thumbprint and signatures from her official journal. These signatures did not match the signature on the Deed of Trust actually filed by AMC Mortgage and dated April 11, 2006. This discrepancy proves signatures on the loan documents including the Deed of Trust were forged and all loan documents pertaining to this loan should be considered invalid. After verifying the signatures, I informed Ms. Plizge that the signatures did not match. My name was not only forged, but Ms. Poe acted as notary public notarizing the Grant Deed dated April 17, 2006. Ms. Plizga informed me that is considered a conflict of interest and Shelly Poe can not legally act as Notary on this loan because she is also listed as the Loan Broker. Ms. Plizga was present and is willing to bear witness that Ms. Poe was also at my home on April 11, 2006 and is the person I dealt with regarding this loan. Witness #2: Randall Yip – Channel 7 on Your Side News900 Front St
San Francisco, CA 94111Phone: (415) 954-7524 Fax: (415) 954-7515 In my quest for help on this matter I contacted Randall Yip, a representative of Michael Finney with Channel 7 on Your Side. I faxed an authorization letter to all parties involved, giving them permission to discuss my case including my concerns regarding the integrity of the loan transactions filed by Ms. Shelly Poe and Pinnacle Financial, executed in April 11, 2006. A phone interview was scheduled and took place on September 18, 2007 between Randall Yip from 7 on Your Side and Cong Le, Broker with Pinnacle Financial and Real Estate. Cong Le of Pinnacle Financial, who is Shelly Poe’s boss, insisted to Randall Yip from 7 On Your Side, that he was the broker that helped me with the loan transaction in question. He said that Ms. Poe had nothing to do with the loan transaction at all. Mr. Cong Le is not telling the truth and therefore he has committed fraud. Ramirez, have never met or talked to Mr. Cong Le at any point during the loan process, or regarding any other matter. I have saved copies of my e-mail correspondence with Ms. Shelly Poe, the only ‘Broker’ I was in contact with during the entire loan process. The messages begin February 28, 2006. There were 6 e-mails during March 2006, and 7 e-mails sent in the month of April 2006. I have a total of 32 e-mails that provide evidence that Ms. Shelly Poe and I spoke on a regular basis though out the year 2006. Upon request, I will be happy to provide your office with copies of this correspondence. Randall Yip questioned Mr. Cong Le regarding the Grant Deed signed April 17, 2006. When Mr. Cong Le was initially questioned, he denied any knowledge of the transaction on April 17, 2006. Shelly Poe’s name was listed on Grant Deed as Broker, and ironically she also signed this document as the official Notary Public – Comm. # 1580710. Since he apparently was unaware of Ms. Poe’s wrongdoing, Cong Le requested Randall Yip to fax him a copy of the Grant Deed. The document was not sent, but unfortunately after this point, Mr. Cong Le would no longer take phone calls, or return messages to Randall Yip 7 on Your Side. I never saw Ms. Shelly Poe on April 17, 2006 and I can prove my signature was forged on this document and on the Deed of Trust which they filed as the official document with the Alameda County Records. Randall Yip forwarded copies of these documents to Mr. Jim Blanco, a handwriting analyst who works for the Department of Justice. Mr. Blanco determined that all the loan application signatures on the loan documents were forged with Pinnacle Financial. An official written report of his findings would cost an estimated $1000; unfortunately Channel 7 on Your Side does not have it within their budget to cover these costs to support my case. Please feel free to contact Mr. Randall Yip at Channel 7 to confirm the findings of their investigation.
——————————————————————————–
In August, 2006 I became delinquent on my house payments, as well as my utilities. Worried about my situation, I called Argent Mortgage to see if they could help – they turned me down because of my poor credit status. To my surprise, Ms. Shelly Poe called me and I updated her on my financial crisis and she offered her assistance in this matter. She informed me that she was going to submit new loan documents to get An Option Arm loan. She told me not to worry, because this was going to reduce my payments in half. Thinking this was the only solution; I accepted her assistance and agreed to the terms of her offer. I finally spoke with Ms. Poe again during the first week in October, 2006. She informed me that we would be signing the new loan documents on October 11, 2006, after the three-day weekend. I told her that my water bill was overdue, and she came to my house, on Friday, October 8, 2006. Ms. Poe gave me $200.00 in cash to pay my water bill. She told me that she would be back on Tuesday to sign the loan documents to get An Option Arm loan. Again, she told me not to worry. On Tuesday, October 11, 2006, she never came by, nor did I receive any phone call. I finally reached her the next day and she informed me that she was not able to obtain the loan she had promised me. She stated that under the terms of this new loan my monthly payments would go from the $3,870 up to $4200.00 monthly. In addition, I would only receive $6,000.00 cash back. I told her that I could not accept that loan, she basically told me that was all she could do. She hung up on me, leaving me in shock. A few days later, she called me and stated that she had a friend with good credit, and that if I signed my house over to her, she could get me the monthly payment I was looking for. Well, I immediately told her that I would not be signing my house over to anyone, and I basically never heard from her again. Argent’s Commitment to Fair Mortgage Lending Practices Printed, November 9, 2006 (fail) to provide me their commitment all that has been provide is dishonesty, misrepresentation and filed false information regarding the findings of their own internal investigation regarding my complaint with AMC Argent Mortgage Company. About there wrongdoing and responsibilities to fulfill truthfulness and honesty, in these 6 (six) pages there are evidence and violations that have been committed. This is fraud. There 6 (six) pages regarding the Broker’s, Argent’s Commitment a higher standard to which we hold ourselves and independent mortgage broker ,for the purpose of ensuring consumers are fairly evaluated informed ,and pay fair costs for receiving mortgage lending services. All the information regarding the findings in this letter is misleading because there has been, identity theft, forgery, fraud though the hold investigation regarding my complaint by. AMC Argent Mortgage Company and ACC Capitol Holdings Company a parent company of, Argent Mortgage About there wrongdoing and responsibilities to fulfill truthfulness and honesty, May 3, 2007 I Ramirez receive a letter from. Mr. Mark VerPlanck of Argent Office of the President. Requesting information response to clam of identity theft. Stating we under stand that identity theft is a very emotional and disconcerting experience. Identity theft victimizes both you and Argent and your cooperation is both appreciated and necessary in order to resolve this issue and this is a very serious matter .Should you elect not to provide Argent with the requested information we will forced to disregard your claim of identity theft. After receiving this letter from Mr. VerPlanck he give me a call said not to worry that he was going to help me and promise to restate the loan and also fix my credit .I Ramirez believe Mr. VerPlanck and provide him with all the information that was request and needed . Mr. VerPlanck could have stopped this serious matter but he was not been honest and truthful. June 28, 2007 I Ramirez receive a letter from Mr. VerPlanck of Argent Office of the President. That they have conducted an exhaustive investigation .After a thorough review of the loan file the documentation provided by you and the information gathered during our investigation, we have not uncovered evidence of any wrongdoing on the part Argent Mortgage Company. We have determined that you were not a victim of identity and that all terms of this transaction were fully disclosed to you in writing at the time of closing. Also in this letter it state that there is many options are available to bring my account current. I never receive the options, Mr. VerPlanck lead Ramirez on with there misleading investigation committed acts involving dishonesty, misrepresentation, they have also filed false information regarding the findings of their own internal investigation regarding the complaint. The following have committed a criminal offense. Mortgage fraud July 31, 2007. Ramirez received a letter from Danny H.Hernandez from Office of the President AMC Mortgage services that has replace Mr. VerPlanck after Ramirez file a complaint of his action involving dishonesty and misrepresentation, also filed false information in his exhaustive investigation.Ms.Hernandez response to the correspondence received in the Office of the President AMC Mortgage services (AMC) on July 19, 2007.Concerning the allegations that the loan documents were forged.Argent completed a thorough investigation and determined that the documents were valid and they did not uncover evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Argent. Also in Ms.Hernandez letter states that there is possible forbearance plan. I receive a letter on August 2, 2007 that left me five day for my home to go on sale on August 7, 2007. Never received a notice of Default, or a notice of Intent to foreclose. I did send the personal financial statement that was request never got any response back. Ms.Hernandez Lead a misleading investigation filed false information dishonesty, misrepresentation in her own internal investigation. On August 29, 2007 I received, via Fed Ex, from Kinkeo Kangnavon, Legal Analyst II, Legal Department ACC Capital Holdings Corporation, a parent company of Argent Mortgage Company, LLC., a letter responding to the complaint that I filed with the State of California Department of Corporations; File No. 413-0578. After reviewing the letter, I found several statements that are not accurate. I immediately called Ms. Kangnavong to discuss these issues. Below is a recap of our conversation.
First, her letter states that based on the information and supporting documentation provided by your Broker, Argent approved me for a loan for $550,800.00 at an adjustable interest rate of 8.100 %. It then states that I acknowledged and agreed to the same, as evidence by the loan documents I signed at closing on April 11, 2006. Please find enclosed some of the loan documents I signed at closing bearing my signature, including the Reduced Payment Adjustable Rate Note, Deed of Trust, Final Truth-in Lending Disclosure Statement, and Notice of Right to Cancel.
I informed her that I never received an 8.100%. According to the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement (Final) Dated April 11, 2006, that was included in the package she sent me the rate was 10.660%. Had it been at a rate of 8.1 % it would have saved me approximately $15,000 to $20,000 or more? When asked where she came up with the 8.1 % she responded that she was not sure where that came from and would have to look it up. Second, her letter states that after reviewing the loan documents I provided, which I claim to have the alleged forged signatures, appears to be similar to the signatures on the loan documents that Pinnacle Financial provided to Argent on my behalf. Of course, they are similar. They are the same documents. Additionally, it appears that Pinnacle Financials loan documents contain the same signing date of March 17, 2006. Furthermore, our review confirms that all of Argent’s loan documents that you signed at the closing on April 11, 2006 appear to match the signatures on my identification and social security card I provided.
I asked Ms. Kangnavong to please explain to me how they came to this decision. I asked if she had tried to contact Ms. Shelly Poe, the broker in question, the answer was no. I asked if she tried to contact the Notary Public to obtain a copy of the line item which should include my fingerprint; the answer was no. I asked her if they used a handwriting analyst to see if the signatures were mine and the answer was no.
I then informed her that I had contacted the Notary Association, who gave me Ms.Shelly Poe’s address and phone number, which by law is to be current. I called Ms. Poe and left two messages on her voice mail asking for a copy of the line item, I also sent her the request via Certified Mail. These requests have gone unanswered. I am entitled to this information by law. I feel that by Ms. Shelly Poe not being able to produce the line item with my fingerprint this is further proof that the documents have been forged. I also informed her that I have sent my loan documents to a handwriting analyst, which works for the Department of Justice and am still waiting for his results. I then asked her to look at the signature. I stated that in the Deed of Trust it states that “all signatures must match” I told her that clearly these signatures that are included in the package that she sent me do not match. They are all different. She then stated that I was correct. That the signatures that were dated prior to April 11, 2006 appear to be forged.
I then asked why she did not include that statement in her letter. I asked her that the letter should have included all of her findings, not just the ones that are favorable to Argent. I then requested that she send to me in writing that she admitted that the signatures prior to April 11, 2006 appear to be forged. She stated that she would have to check with her supervisor and would get back to me. I am entitled to have this in writing, and am entitled to a fair investigation.
She then stated that they rely on the Broker to submit the correct information. I informed her that I also relied on the Broker to submit the correct information. I then asked who is liable when the Broker submits fraudulent documents to a lender. That is why the lender has an underwriter who is supposed to check the documents prior to approving the loan. Clearly this was not done.
On Tuesday September 4, 2007 I called her again. She informed me that she spoke to her supervisor and they are unable to amend the letter to state that some of the signatures were forged. She stated that the reason was because they are not handwriting experts and don’t feel comfortable making that determination.
I then asked her, if that was the case, how they came to the finding that the documents were not forged as it states in her August 29, 2007 letter. I then asked to speak with her supervisor. She transferred me to a voice mail. I left a message for her supervisor. Since then, I have left several messages with no return call as of today. How can this matter be resolved if I can’t even get anyone to return my calls, or prepare an honest report of their findings. Since that time, I have obtained copies of the notary’s book as stated above; the signature that I obtained from the notary book is clearly not the same signature which appears on the Deed of Trust. On October 25, 2007 I filed a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against Citi Residential Lending (formerly Argent), CR Title Services (formerly AMC Mortgage Services), and Pinnacle Financial Real Estate. To enjoin the foreclosure on my property. Attached is a copy of my complaint. On November 1, 2007 the judge denied my TRO. A Motion to Demurrer and a Motion to Strike Complaint were filed by the Attorneys for Defendants CR Title Services and Argent Mortgage Co. I am to appear in Court on January 29, 2008 on these motions. I have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent me in this matter. I have managed to come this far without one, but am afraid that if I go to court I will lose simply on technicalities.

Department of real estate that we learned that Ms. Shelly Poe did not have proper licenses to perform the real estate transaction as stated above. Please don’t let them get away with this. I have worked to hard and come too far. I have been researching the penalties that apply when a broker does not have proper licenses, . I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Thank you
Nick Ramirez
Debra, on December 2, 2008 at 1:46 am said:

ALI,

PLEASE CONTACT ME REGARDING THE FRAUD/TILA/RESPA/SCAM ARTISTS

I’ve done quite the extensive research myself and so far it has resulted in a developing case by the Attorney General’s office.
I’ve even decided to go after the scumbags that send e-mails claiming that your the next of kin to some dead person in Nigeria! I have hundreds of these bogus e-mails and I’m now building a summary on this type of scam. But I need to stay more focused for now on our own mortgage fraud case since we only have until Dec 17.
However, I do have some helpful information for you if you still need it. I’m located in San Jose, Ca.
Where in Ca. are you?

I believe you and I may be able to help each other as I am at the point of filing motions with the courts but I really need to know that I’m filing the proper doc’s in the correct order.

Also, I have compiled 3 years of resources to helpful sites for assisting in fraud, scams, etc.
Many Gov. agencies, Consumer agencies, consumer laws, Federal Laws, A.G. DRE, MERS,
the list goes on!

And they are available to anyone and everyone FREE!! who can use them. Unless this link is active, copy and paste into browser:

http://amazingdreamcatchers.com/id207.html

In fact, the very first link I have listed on this page is to this very site!! Like many others here, I have learned so much from this site and I would really love to say thank you to Mr. Garfield for providing us with this resource in our time of need!
Mr. Garfield……..THANK YOU!

Okay, so Ali, Please e-mail me or call asap and lets see if we can help each other out with this okay?
I wish you had left someway to contact you on your post, but here’s my contact info:
dturtledove@aol.com
4084893911
Debra Caporale

GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!

AND REMEMBER, DON’T GIVE UP THE FIGHT! EDUCATE YOURSELVES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE! BECAUSE THE LESS YOU KNOW THE MORE THEY GET AWAY WITH!
Mike Linton, on November 30, 2008 at 4:38 am said:

Lena,
What State are you in?
lena, on November 29, 2008 at 9:38 am said:

I am defending myself pro se after learning from this site so much. I have filed answer to complaint and motion to compel discovery of note. In my answer to complaint I also raise the issue of predatory loan …I have now received the “Reply to Affirmative Defense and CounterClaim” from the plaintiff….what do I do now? if any lawyers out there can help me from now on I would appreciate an answer…or anyone else that can help me……..
Ed, on November 21, 2008 at 6:50 pm said:

Just a question concerning kentucky.What would constitute wrongful foreclsoure.I mean like foreclsoing in the name on the note but the name on the foreclosure has different name,name on note is released but that is what they used,then they filed lost note after we asked for proof that they owned the note.Any comments Thank You Ed
MB, on November 18, 2008 at 5:24 pm said:

Does anyone know of attorneys in Washington State that work on foreclosure eviction issues? I am having a terrible time trying to get information in Washington State. The trustee sale was Nov. 1, but before I am forced out of the home I want to know my rights. We were serviced by the infamous EMC Mortgage, and the JP Morgan Chase announcement to halt foreclosures for 90 days came the very day of our sale.
SB, on November 18, 2008 at 4:28 pm said:

If anyone needs help defending a foreclosure in
Florida please email me at twins227a@yahoo.com . Even though I am not an Attorney I’m defending my 11 properties ProSe with tremendous success just by spending much of my time researching the law on this matter. I am not looking for any compensation – just pooling resources together so we can fight this together!
Mario kenny, on November 16, 2008 at 7:40 pm said:

I have been helping many people with finding lawyers, ghostwriters and other providers. I do discuss some important points and oversights that some people misunderstand I am no pro but I do know a thing or two. I do not charge a penny for the help I render, maybe in the future that could change.

I invite anyone to contact me for pointers in the right direction. There is allot of help here, more so that in any other place I have found.

There is no reason I have seen thus yet that someone should lose their home I have seen people get back on correct track even after the sale date, believe me.

I am so happy to assist and I have developed my assistance with the help of the Author, directly and indirectly and I am glad to say I am overjoyed he is present to guide me and all the other people who are in desperate need.

This is a developing resource much patience is needed here to get help, but help is available to those who work hard on their project and for those who will not give up.

Florida is getting stronger in the help department there are many competent lawyers here, who are willing and able, though we need more. I have worked hard to help develop this area and it has a lot of potential. Makes me happy and I feel so secure.

I will help anyone as I understand the position since I am there myself. I may have been fortunate to have found the assistance I need, but everyone can, it’s an effort and a great challenge.

We are doing better here than when Neil first started this blog, and I believe we will get better as the time advances. What we are facing now and in the future is grand scale trouble but this is cutting edge here. I hope you all get onboard and take your own personal endeavors to advance the very worthy cause. Greed got us here and I suggest that we stay away from this practice. The ego will not help either, practice to be humble and learn more and more everyday. Help as much as you can send people to the site, to visit.

You may contact me at 786 274 0527 I require that you email me first before I talk to you.
malibubooks@gmail.com
Mario kenny, on November 16, 2008 at 7:35 am said:

Do not ask for an extention,file your vanswer asap.
worthyking, on November 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm said:

I am new to this site and need a point in the right direction. There is a LOT of information here, and much of it from people who seem to be already versed in the process. I am not. I am brand new to the process, having just been served with Lis Pendens in Florida last week.

I have spent hours digging around the site but still am not sure exactly how to get started. is there a step-by-step guide anywhere on how to move through this process myself. I would love to hire an attorney to do it for me but I don’t have the money for that, so I am going to defend myself Pro Se.

I decided the first thing to do is file a motion for extension of time to answer the Lis Pendens, but even on that I don’t know the legal procedure. What if I file it and it is denied? How do I receive the judge’s answer, and if he denies it then is a default judgement entered (because the 20 days will have already expired by the time the judge rules on my extension motion).

Again, I would really like to find a step-by-step guide or some advice on how to move through this entire process.

I can be emailed at blueevoboy@gmail.com
Connie, on November 14, 2008 at 5:49 pm said:

Ali, Give Nathan Fransen a call, he represented spanish speaking homeowners. He is in SoCal.
God Bless.
FR, on November 14, 2008 at 7:16 am said:

I’m in what I believe to be a unique situation. I am holding a 3rd mortgage on a house I sold 3 years ago. The buyer has defaulted on all three loans. Now I need to defend my position. I understand the “lost note” premise, but I need to know what all I can do to get the other mortgages removed. Can I challenge their notes via the “Lost Note” route and if so, how best would I accomplish this? I have a hearing set for 12/12/08 for MSJ. I’ve already put some documents into the case that estopped them (supposedly), but am unsure it they did or not.

Please email directly as I may not review this page on a regular basis.

Thanks in advance.
Eosac, on November 13, 2008 at 6:55 pm said:

HELP! HELP! Neil, help. I haven’t heard anyone on the BLOG mention the state of TEXAS. The BIG REPUBLICAN STATE which we intend to bring to the peoples attention.
We have been fighting with Lender Countrywide who sold to Bank of New York before going bankrupt. After property was fraudulently sold to BONY, they tried to push us out in 2006. We filed a BILL OF REVIEW to stop the process and filed suit on the JUDGE. To make a long story short. We are still in our home and have been going around and around with Lenders and Courts. We are so stressed and tired and ready put this to an end. We have filed for BK twice and they dismissed for whatever reason they wanted to just to keep monies coming in to pay for their club/fraternity memberships. They never challenged or acknowledged our UNCONTESTED AFFIDAVIT, they only challenged us on our AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY.
THERE IS ANOTHER PIECE TO THE PUZZLE THAT EVERYONE WILL FIND OUT THEY ARE MISUSING OUR ENTITY. WE HAVE ALL THIS IN OUR AFFIDAVIT SO IF WE NEED TO DO A CLASS ACTION SUIT THIS IS ALL SUPPORTED.
We are again currently in the beginning of a BK and we need to know how to go to the BK and set an BK Adversary Hearing to hopefully get everything dismissed and have all our fees, court cost and all damages we requested in our suit and our UNCONTESTED AFFIDAVIT PAID TO US.
We have put on notice everyone you can think of. From county clerk, city manager (commissioners), attorney general, sheriff, constables, State Supreme Court, US supreme Court. Now we need something a little stronger to put on them so they will have no way to go. Please help!!!
Ana, on November 11, 2008 at 9:35 pm said:

I have an investment home that is in foreclosure..
I was ignorant to my rights and never responded to the summons..The Final Judgment has been issued and the sale date has been set for November 19..I live in Davie FL is there anything i can do to set aside the final judgment..
I am also filing for BK due to other issues..
I went to the seminar yesterday for Homeowners but there was soo much informaiton I am not sure what to do..I dont have money to pay for an attorney..
One thing i do remember is hearing Brad say that on the schedules i should list the properties I have as unknown value and list the mortgage companies as un secured debt.. Will my attorney allow me to do this..
I may end up paying an addiitonal $300 to get my attorney to file the BK ina n emergency before the sale date to STAY the sale..What are your suggestions??

I dont know what to do??
ali, on November 10, 2008 at 6:59 pm said:

hi all! my name is ali and i’m a california based attorney. i have several spanish speaking clients who were-pardon my french-screwed by a foreclosure scammer. the entity took title for 10 dollars, took “lease” payments from my clients and now the clients have no home b/c trustee sale took place or about to take place and are still in home waiting to be kicked out.

i’m negotiating with the client’s lenders but i was wonderin if anybody out there has a sample civil complaint pertaining to RESPA/TILA and section 1632 (revolving around written contracts to be in the language that agreement was negotiated)? i’ve done some prelim research but since this is somewhat unchartered territory for me i would really appreciate any help.

on another note-if anyone out there has come across such foreclosure scam artists-how did you go after them. i researched a few of the individuals involved and they have quite a few properties that have equity. i was seriously thinking of going after the scam artists b/c such behavior is sickening. if anybody has gone after such scam artists i would love to hear from you.

Thanks

Ali
Debra, on November 7, 2008 at 7:01 pm said:

OKAY….I HIT THE ENTER BUTTON BY MISTAKE SO LET ME TRY THIS AGAIN!

LINDA!!! OMG! …….LOL

I’m going through the same thing trying to save my in-laws home of 53 years and we are in the next county from you! We live in Santa Clara Co. E-mail me when you see this.
There is also another lady who lives in Contra Costa County who also needs help maybe we can pull our resources and get something done to help all of us! I hope you see this soon!
Debra, on November 7, 2008 at 6:56 pm said:

LINDA!!! OMG!
Jose, on November 6, 2008 at 5:56 pm said:

I just called Suntrust Mortgage to request missing documents from one of our clients settlement file, documents they did not get from Suntrust and their god forsaken chosen evil title company, and now these crooks want $15.00 for every page of the missing documents and they indicate they do not care if the clients got them or not at the table.

I guess they need to make it rally difficult for any one to get their documents and to block efforts by most people to audit their docs, and also to make outrageous fees out of documents that have been digitized and that could easily be sent by FREE email.

Abuse them to get them into the home, abuse them through predatory servicing practices, lies and fraud, and now hit them with fees that will prevent them from getting the justice they deserve.

Once again $15 dollars to fax a document and $15.00 per document. for a full closing package we are talking over $250.00, this is great.
steve, on November 5, 2008 at 9:09 pm said:

please email me if you know of any case history so i can help the judge make up her mind on this. wallstgladiator@yahoo.com
steve, on November 5, 2008 at 8:43 pm said:

can anyone help? i have a colorado home thats redemption period is ending on monday. we have filed a new lawsuit against the lender and trustee and a resttraining order to prevent the trustee from turning over the title on monday until the court can hear our newly filed suit. the law clerk has asked me if there is any case law where the judge can stop the redemption period in order to hear the companion case. does anyone know of any case law where this has been done? regards, steve
Abby, on October 31, 2008 at 6:08 pm said:

I’ve been disabled and drained my savings after horrific HOME123 refi. Last night there was a piece of paper (not very official looking) on my door saying I had a 3 day eviction notice. I did not even get told they were going to sell my home to another bank. Something is filed down at clerk recorder, I looked online.

I really need some assistance….I found I probably should talk to an anti-eviction lawyer here in California.

I know there was fraud etc with the refi.
Can anyone refer me to an attorney who’d take contingency? My mortgage was 782K..of course California. I live in SF Bay Area.

I also guess I need a reputable company to handle reviewing the docs for TILA or other fraud. Know of one?

This all just makes my disability worse. I am so sick.

Thanks
Alvie, on October 26, 2008 at 9:58 pm said:

I live in Texas. I was sold a home/land package by a mobile home dealer that did not have a real estate license. During my complaints to the State of Texas and HUD, along with the first “lender” American Mortgage Network and now Wells Fargo, I am now being foreclosed on. The lender refuses to work with us in trying to save a home that had close to $40,000 worth of damge to it before we purchased it. We were never told about the damage. November 7, appears to be when my home goes up for auction in Williamson County, Texas. I am financially drained dealing with this mess. I need someone who can work with me or at least for paying for their services. I get so many letters in the mail from so-called attorneys, but I am afraid that I would become a victim like me neighbor did. They lost their home. Please, can someone help me? Glod Bless you.
Jonathan, on October 25, 2008 at 10:54 pm said:

We need a foreclosure attorney in Bloomington Indiana area desperately with Respa / Til knowledge.

We paid $145k in closing csot and ysp fees plus an additioanl $20k that was never reported on the Loan Docs. The Broker signed all of the forms as the interviewer as the loan officer was not licensed in the state of Indiana – could not be due to Securities Fraud Plea.)

Have Summary Judgement Hearing on 10/25/08… Tried 2 attorney’s and neither know anything about HMDA/Respa/TIL…
Steve Dibert, on October 24, 2008 at 6:03 pm said:

I need a good attorney in the Orlando area for a couple of clients. If anyone has any recommendations, feel free to email me.
Michelle, on October 24, 2008 at 2:49 pm said:

I have a question maybe someone will have an answer to. My house in foreclosure. We were just served the papers. They are claiming the lost note & mortgage deal. But they don’t even have a copy of the note. How can they prove the terms of the note to enforce it?
Linda, on October 23, 2008 at 7:23 pm said:

I have been using this site to assist me in the fight for my properties…. It seems that the banks, reconveyance comp., trustees have done some back door – under the table manuevers to record various documents; but I am getting no love with the Alameda County (California) Recorder’s office – to record documents. Every thing I have attempted to record or set in place to block the banks is stopped at the Recorder’s office. I am told, “We have no provision to record that document” I need HELP! If I don’t save my Parent’s property (rental prop now), I will be totally devastated – there is a lot of sentimental value in that property and I will fight night and day to keep it! So if anyone out there can help me, please do – maybe we can compare notes.
Joyce, on October 22, 2008 at 12:39 am said:

P. S. sorry….I am on a limited income, social security….just turned 69 years old a few days ago…..Joyce
Joyce, on October 22, 2008 at 12:38 am said:

Great website…great work.
Question, do you do any work in Arizona?
In brief, I believed I did a refinance on my
home in 1998 with WMC Mortgage Corp.
They were to pay in full The Money Store
who folded a month after my refi with WMC.

The payments to WMC went from 2700. per month to 4800. per month in September 2000.
I filed Bk to save my home where I lost everything in that Bk Ct. who actually lifted the stay even tho I had a Confirmed Plan for over 2 years…paid timely etc.

Ultimately, my home was sold at Trustee Sale but not before I found out that WMC had given up its interest in my home because 4 months before I filed Bk, WMC sold it to Fairbanks akaSelect Portfolio who in turn sold it to JP
Morgan Chase. Sold at Trustee sale in Arizona
on June 21, 2005.

Its a long story but briefly….
In June 2006 I received a thank you letter along with the Cancelled Note & Deed of Trust for TMS from HomEq who had purchased TMS
loans from First Union sometime in 2004 or 5.

I called HomEq who informed me that on September 7, 2005 and or, 3 months after my home was sold at trustee sale by Chase that my TMS mortgage had been paid by ALTA which is another alias of Select Portfolio.

The purchaser was fully aware of all the fraud. I was the last one to find out.

Currently he has a mortgage on my home for almost one million dollars.

I got zero from the sale…lost everything I own
and now live in squalor. My question, can I file a Quiet Title Action and do you have any Arizona attorneys that may help?
Thank you.
Regards,
Joyce Luciano
Vanessa, on October 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm said:

Hi I need to find an affordable attorney in relation to a foreclosure notice I received on the 9th. Every one I have talked to wants between frm 2500 to 3500 dollars upfront. Does anyone know of a good attorney in Queens, NY where I can be on a payment plan? Need help fast! Thank you.
Marie, on October 19, 2008 at 1:12 am said:

If you or anyone you know a foreclosure attorney in Oregon that can help fight 3 cases and licensed in Portland OR, please contact me ASAP! email me at: tam1012@comcast.net
I have already filed in the court and federal court – however I am fighting a political battle via “pro se” the judges won’t even READ MY PAPERWORK and would like an attorney that understand Neil Garfield process.
Jose, on October 17, 2008 at 1:45 am said:

Dear Seidu, call the people from Brown, Brown & Brown, they are listed in this blog, they are good lawyers and very caring, they will work with you, they have done so for me and for over 65 other clients
Seidu, on October 16, 2008 at 4:46 pm said:

This is a SOS for sttorneys in maryland who wants to make millions of dollars whilst helping people at the same time.
Al Rocky, on October 16, 2008 at 4:19 pm said:

Finance, Banking, Foreclosure, Presidential Elections, and Our

Future
We are indeed a Nation that is is a pitiful state of decline and

embarrassment.
We have kind of learnt in past years that you cannot legislate

morality!
But we have not learnt and embraced the fact that you can legislate

legal and commercial protection to the citizens.
After all, it is the citizens who are the consumers of everything in

the land.
Yes we can and must legislate legal and commercial protection to

the people.
You cannot allow the dirty tricks and backroom tactics of

unscrupulous men to hurt and paralyse our economy.
Yes, that is in essence what has happened to our Nation with this

Banking system Crash.
The Law was so filled with purposely written loop holes, that were

so big that you could drive herds of cattle through them.
The land in America is all that we have, and is all we can hand

down to our children.
It lies at the very heart of the Nation.
The laws governing the ownership of Land is at the heart of the

success or failure of any Nation.
The Foreclosure theft of properties is the point and focus of it all.
Everybody is holding their head and saying,”But our banks are so

big, how can this happen in America”
Very simple: It has happened!
The good news is:
It shall be for a short moment in time! There will not be a

Recession!
The further good news is:
The newly elected government will watch as America is restored to

the leadership position it must occupy as the most powerful Nation

on earth.
This will only start happening when the legislators in Washington

start closing all the loopholes in the law that allowed the

unscruplous men to rape the people of its land.
O Leaders of America it is time that you come to the realization that

when you put your trust in other things disaster shall follow.
It is so clearly printed on our money, In God we trust.
God is not going to allow the apple of his eye to be eaten by a

bunch of worms.
Between now, today the 16th of October and Thanksgiving there

will be a major turn of events that will dictate and set the course for

future events.
Watch and wait and you shall see and hear.
Cindy O'Neal, on October 16, 2008 at 2:16 am said:

Hi Neil:

If not for you, we would be out on the streets right now. “THANK YOU” for all of your wonderful information to us and other people in these situations. Now, I have a question. We have found, through you, the best attorney in the world to help us which he has also hired local counsel, so we have 2 attorneys. Our problem is, we have tried to borrow some money to put in an account to be able to just pay them when they need it, and with 2 foreclosures, and the mortgage company reporting over $35,000 dollars behind on our payments, our credit, well, you can say, what credit? They just laugh at us and say, “Are you kidding”? We have a considerable amount of equity in our home but the bad credit from the mortgage company gets us everytime. What can we do? Where can we go to get some help on this? Please help us with this.
J.Aitkins, on October 15, 2008 at 9:28 pm said:

I live in a state (Washington) where I don’t think there are any “Garfield trained” attorneys. After I initiated contact for help, Neil told me I’d be contacted by a volunteer, which I was. I got a very friendly response from a volunteer. He answered a couple of my initial questions and had me email him the answers to a set of additional preliminary questions as well as the PDF form that asks for details about the mortgage and case. He said I’d be hearing from an attorney. It’s been a couple weeks and I have not heard bak from anyone. This is not a complaint. I know this whole “system” of helping folks is in its infancy and that there are probably a lot of people each trying to help and respond to an overwhelming number of people. If I could just hear back from someone to give even a rough estimate as to where I am in someone’s stack, it would be helpful. It’s now been a month to the day since eviction and I want my house back.
GETTING THE LENDER TO THE TABLE « Livinglies’s Weblog, on October 12, 2008 at 4:54 pm said:

[...] You can see all comments on this post here: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comments [...]
Tim McCandless, on October 11, 2008 at 6:52 pm said:

Law Offices of
TIMOTHY McCandless
15647 Village Dr
Victorville, Ca 92392
TEL (760) 733-8885; FAX (909)494-4214

California as of Sept 6, 2008 has added the following provisions that must be complied with prior to effectuating a foreclosure. It is hoped that lenders will work out things with borrowers as a result of this addition to civil code 2923.5.

The lenders however are running roughshod over borrowers and claiming to make telephonic contact. When they make contact they merely say you are $26,580.00 behind how are you going to pay. That’s working it out.

Most folks don’t have the 10,000.00 retainer to pay an attorney to file the lawsuit to make the lender do the right thing. Here is a way for under $50.00 to get the lender to the table.

File a declaration of non-compliance with 2923.5. In this declaration state that the real beneficiary has not contacted you and has not assessed your financial situation as mandated in 2924.5 (a) (2).

In this declaration state that you do not even know who the beneficiary is that is to say most lenders are not the true beneficiary.

Lastly you should claim the loan you want and the amount that you are willing to pay. When I say file I mean record at the county recorder and be sure to include the legal description of your property. You must have your signature notarized by a notary public. Then send this conformed copy of the recorded document to anyone that is trying to foreclose. The trustee the title company, MERS, the servicer.

This may cause the title company not to insure the title upon completion of the foreclosure. This may force the lender to undergo a judicial foreclosure in most cases in the subprime world they don’t even have the promissory note so a judicial foreclosure would be impossible.

(a) (1) A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until
30 days after contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30
days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in
subdivision (g).
(2) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall contact
the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the
borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower
to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or
she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested,
the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the
meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower’s
financial situation and discussion of options may occur during the
first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that
purpose. In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free
telephone number made available by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency. Any meeting may occur telephonically.
(b) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent that it has contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to
contact the borrower as required by this section, or the borrower
has surrendered the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary,
or authorized agent.
(c) If a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent had
already filed the notice of default prior to the enactment of this
section and did not subsequently file a notice of rescission, then
the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall, as
part of the notice of sale filed pursuant to Section 2924f, include a
declaration that either:
(1) States that the borrower was contacted to assess the borrower’
s financial situation and to explore options for the borrower to
avoid foreclosure.
(2) Lists the efforts made, if any, to contact the borrower in the
event no contact was made.
(d) A mortgagee’s, beneficiary’s, or authorized agent’s loss
mitigation personnel may participate by telephone during any contact
required by this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, a “borrower” shall include a
mortgagor or trustor.
(f) A borrower may designate a HUD-certified housing counseling
agency, attorney, or other advisor to discuss with the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent, on the borrower’s behalf, options
for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That contact made at the
direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact requirements of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or workout
plan offered at the meeting by the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent is subject to approval by the borrower.
(g) A notice of default may be filed pursuant to Section 2924 when
a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has not contacted a
borrower as required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) provided
that the failure to contact the borrower occurred despite the due
diligence of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent. For
purposes of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all
of the following:
(1) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall first
attempt to contact a borrower by sending a first-class letter that
includes the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find
a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall attempt to contact the
borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours and on
different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary
telephone number on file.
(B) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may attempt to
contact a borrower using an automated system to dial borrowers,
provided that, if the telephone call is answered, the call is
connected to a live representative of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent.
(C) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent satisfies the
telephone contact requirements of this paragraph if it determines,
after attempting contact pursuant to this paragraph, that the
borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary telephone number or
numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.
(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the
telephone call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the
mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall then send a
certified letter, with return receipt requested.
(4) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall provide
a means for the borrower to contact it in a timely manner, including
a toll-free telephone number that will provide access to a live
representative during business hours.
(5) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has posted a
prominent link on the homepage of its Internet Web site, if any, to
the following information:
(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to
afford their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and
instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore
those options.
(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be
prepared to present to the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent when discussing options for avoiding foreclosure.
(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss
options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgagee, beneficiary,
or authorized agent.
(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
(h) Subdivisions (a), (c), and (g) shall not apply if any of the
following occurs:
(1) The borrower has surrendered the property as evidenced by
either a letter confirming the surrender or delivery of the keys to
the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent.
(2) The borrower has contracted with an organization, person, or
entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided to
leave their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid
their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
(3) The borrower has filed for bankruptcy, and the proceedings
have not been finalized.
(i) This section shall apply only to loans made from January 1,
2003, to December 31, 2007, inclusive, that are secured by
residential real property and are for owner-occupied residences. For
purposes of this subdivision, “owner-occupied” means that the
residence is the principal residence of the borrower.
(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute,
that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO

You

________________________________________________ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

You

V
Them (Your lender ,trustee ETC.
.

NOTICE OF NON COPLIANCE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 2923.5

NOTICE OF NON COMPLIANCE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 2923.5

Notice is given that the LENDERS AND OR TRUSTEES LISTED ABOVE has not complied with civil code 2923.5. As such all notices of default and or trustee sales and such other recordings and actions are void as a matter of law.
I have in good faith attempted to mediate the loan and the true beneficiary has refused to negotiate in good faith. They have not complied with the provisions in which they were to meet with me in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee,
Beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.

If we had met the property would have reflected a value of ______________. I am willing to pay an interest rate of _____and I will be able to make monthly payments of__________. The principal balance of my loan should be reduced the present market value of ____________.

In the event this is not acceptable I hereby exercise my right to have the security interest in this property rescinded pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.

APN: ______ ________ ___________

And with a legal description of:
Lot __ of Tract No. _________, in the City of _____________________, County of ___________, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book ________, Pages ___ and ____ of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County

Dated ______________ .

____________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______
day of ____, 2008
____________________________________
Notary Public in and for the County of , State of California
LITA, on October 5, 2008 at 3:03 am said:

I am doing a loan modification and my trustee sale was postponed till oct. 17, 2208 agreed by countrywide, BUT we received a notice to vacate, upon checking with countrywide they confirmed that it was on a trustee sale sept. 18, any suggestion what to do? The loan modification company said they received an email from countrywide for the Oct. 17, 2008
trustee sale extension. Any suggestion on what step needed to be done?
Thanks
Henry, on September 26, 2008 at 11:14 pm said:

All this talk of foreclosures scare me. It seems that the mortgage cos want to foreclose on as much as they can, I guess they try to sell them at auction and get to keep the equity for themselves. Those that don’t sell they can afford to hold onto until the market improves. Can they foreclose even where the borrower has never been late on a payment. I have a mortgage with a company for about ten years. have never been late or missed a payment, but my income is not what I stated it to be all that time ago, but I can still afford the payments as the kids are grown and most everything else is paid for. If they find my true income, can they foreclose and keep the equity which is about 80%. I could not refinance now as my income would disqualify me from a new loan
Seidu, on September 25, 2008 at 2:38 am said:

I am a devotee of this website since I discovered it a few weeks ago. I am facing foreclosure in a few days in maryland. I only found out about it through solicitations in the mail. I was not notified when dockets were filed in court as stated by law in maryland. In addition my title agent did not send me copies of the documents I signed at settlement on 09/2006 and it was a refinance transaction. I called the lender and I was told they only have my note and deed of trust. I was asked to call the original lender however, the lender mortgage lendes network is out of business. I contacted a local attorney listed on your website and after consultation I was told that I don’t have a case even though the violations are screaming at their faces. I want to keep my home where my young family has called home over the years. I read the stories of others in this blog with great hope that this battle can be won but all it takes is a lawyer who is willing to fight. I’m now left with only one option which is to file chapter 13 and then add the original lender and the current servicer as contigent liabilities as you suggested in this blog. I am however,hesistant to do this on my own as I did before but the lawyers in this area are behind the curve on this issue at this time. I am kindly asking for help from anyone in this blog to extend an helping hand to me. Thanks.
Steve Dibert, on September 24, 2008 at 8:54 pm said:

We service anyone in the continential US with offices opening in the next several weeks in Boston and Detroit.
Steve Dibert, on September 24, 2008 at 8:51 pm said:

I am a mortgage fraud investigation company located in South Florida. I have over ten years experience as a mortgage broker and have been doing mortgage fraud investigations for over two years. My partner has nearly 35 years experience as real estate broker. We look for over 100 different items that are considered fraudulent. Check out our site at http://www.mfi-miami.com or give me a call at 561-317-9978. We also have a referral network with some of the top real estate litigators in Florida who work on contingency.
Ron Houchins, on September 24, 2008 at 7:42 pm said:

I am a former attorney willing to assist people in Florida and Georgia you may need help in defending their foreclosure cases. If you need help, either call me at (706) 416-9996 or email me at r.houchins@yahoo.com, or snail mail at:

Ron Houchins
P.O. Box 1848
LaGrange, GA 30241
sam, on September 21, 2008 at 5:33 am said:

is it illegal to collect rents while in foreclosure? udge has set a hearing ,wants me to be prepared to explain why im pockecting rents and not paying mortgages…..any help….
J.Aitkins, on September 19, 2008 at 4:25 pm said:

Until I read the below statement about foreclosure, I thought I could get my house back. Is this right?

“The grounds for setting aside a foreclosure are limited to “some evidence of irregularity, misconduct, fraud, or unfairness on the part of the trustee or the mortgagee that caused or contributed to an inadequate price.” Defenses like the absence of adelinquency or violations by the lender of federal or state commercial law may not be raised.

“You have the burden of proof in a lawsuit to set aside a foreclosure. Damages are the only remedy. There is nothing to prevent a third-party purchaser from keeping yourhouse even if he knows of your claim against the lender and even if he believes that your claim is meritorious.”

Is it true that damages are now the only remedy I can seek after the fraud-ridden scenario where they’ve taken my house after the mortgage was paid off in the securitization process?
Mario Kenny, on September 18, 2008 at 5:59 pm said:

Hey Drew,

Please call me I need to talk to you.
786 274 0527
malibubooks@gmail.com
Drew, on September 18, 2008 at 4:37 pm said:

Thank you for the treasure trove of information available on this site.
We are in Palm Beach County, FL and a F/C was filed on us 14 months ago. In my (pro se) somewhat lame answer I alleged Tila violations and that Plaintiff was not the real Party in interest. We have been in Discovery since, with them objecting to just about every question or request. I have found the Trust through exhausting search at SEC/Edgar with my loan
number in it. My question is how to determine which class my loan is in.
The loan numbers cycle from lowest to highest over and over, the number of cycles far outnumber the number of classes shown in the prospectus.
Also should I send the 3 day letter to all involved.
Thank you,
Drew
Mario Kenny, on September 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm said:

Deby Fout,
cALL ME AT 786 274 0527 I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT I DO FIND WAYS TO HELP.MAYBE I CAN HELP.FIRST YOU MUST CALM DOWN AND GET ALL YOUR PAPERS TOGETHER ONE LAST TIME.PLEASE GET THE FIRST COMPLAINT YOU WERE SERVED BEFORE CALLING ME.I WILL TELL YOU WHAT MY LAWYER WANTs ME TO TELL YOU.
HERE IS MY EMAIL
malibubooks@gmail.com
Deby Fout, on September 14, 2008 at 6:02 am said:

We are in a pretty urgent state right now. Home was foreclosed on in June & have just now received 5 day notice to vacate. Both my husband & I have been out of work recently due to health issues and so we have nothing to put towards moving or a rental. We also have 3 sons at home, one of which is disabled. Unbelieveably, we are actually looking at being out on the streets! We’ve been advised to file a motion to stay the notice to vacate, (based on financial hardship)but don’t have the necessary form to do so. Can they actually show up & kick us out? What will happen to our belongings if this happens? Will someone please contact us right away to give us some much needed advice? Our 5 days is up tomorrow! What kind of time line are we looking at? Thanks for your help, time & attention with this.
Rose Garcia, on September 7, 2008 at 1:06 am said:

Is there a way to get back a home after it went into foreclosure. There was a bankruptcy filing, but got dismissed due to not filing all the documents in time. Is there any hope of rescindig the foreclosure?
Lisa, on September 6, 2008 at 11:47 pm said:

My house is in foreclosure after repeatedly trying to get a hold of someone/anyone from chase. We had the funds (borrowed) to become current and were told NOT to send it ,because ,our account was” flagged” and they were unable to accept the payment until they decided whether or not to take it out of foreclosure. We were told to hold on to the payment and call in 2 weeks to for an answer….we called repeated for months and not one phone call was returned, instead we got voicemails that said leave ONE message and someone will get back to you. We were told not to leave multiple messages as it would only take longer to get back to us if we did. Well, months went by and then we owed 17,000 no longer 9,000 which we could have paid up front months ago. My home is now in forclosure,auction to take place in a few weeks. We are sick over this . What can we do?? Please advise. Thankyou, Lisa
lawrence, on August 25, 2008 at 7:59 pm said:

thanks for the info! it’s great- i need more time to find a lawyer and gather evidence on Tila, HOEPA, suspect title company and affadavit misconduct in Wash Dc. I have already been granted two extensions. Who can help that you may suggest. I will have funds for a l;awyer 3o days fron now so i need pro bono help or go pro se!!
Queentee, on August 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm said:

I need to rescind a car loan. It is a 6 days old, past the 3 day rescission deadline. It was bought as a gift to me, but in my name and using my credit (708). Now, the gifter and promisor to pay the note and maintain insurance has reneged and I don’t want the car or the debt. Is it reasonable to appeal to the seller, indicating that I need to rescind, even though I have no good reason, other than, the gifter has reneged on paying, I have no income to pay or to insure the car, I don’t want the car, I am moving to another state in 3 days (truth), and if you don’t allow me to rescind, I will not pay, and you will not be able to access the car. It may ruin my credit but after 3 years, you can not collect on the debt. Being out of state, you will not be able to come and repossess. I need to exit this deal. Can I appeal to him and have hope that he would be willing to rescind? I would be willing to forego some of my deposit as a lease fee, (for the use I had) and even remit the entire $1,000. deposit for the mercy of rescission. In my soul, I believe and hope that there is always an exception to every rule. Is there any reasonable reason why he would be willing to let me out of this deal? Please advise. Thank you.
George Barr, on August 22, 2008 at 10:22 am said:

Looking for desperate help in Chicago. Property was returned to “lender” after not selling at auction. Demand for the company to produce the note and proof of financial interest was entered prior and ignored. Now the Sheriff is trying to serve me. Are there any lawyers in Chicago that know what in the hell they are doing in this type of argument? I have been searching a long time. Any advice would be helpful. Thank You
Chris Duliga, on August 21, 2008 at 7:09 pm said:

Can someone tell me or point me in the right direction of how I can initiatie a Forensic Mortgage Audit myself?

Much appreciated.

Chris@Domerus.com
ph: 929-887-7242
connie allen, on August 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm said:

my adjustable rate mtg has been sold and resold 3 times. first wamu, then quantum, now litton. my mtg is a hybrid based on the 11th district cost of funds. can i get an forensic analysis? i retained a consumer protection lawyer in phildadlephia, but he did not do a very good job with wamu and rolled over for litton. i have many friends in delware county, pa also who need help. many do not know that they have a problem and are being strung along by their loan services.
Steve Dibert, on August 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm said:

Have you done a forensic mortgage audit, yet? I would recommend that before consulting an attorney. It could save you thousands of dollars.
Roger P Rinaldi, on August 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm said:

Loan closed in June of 05. Wells Fargo, 2/28, reset sent us into arrears (5 months after 37). Wells hit me with repayment plans adding past due $$ to loan balance, I did NOT sign. 2nd repayment plan offered, made a payment, still unsigned. After telling them I found the bogus savings account and bogus application in the mortgage docs, I called them screaming for their legal department, v.p. communications, JOHN STUMPF, couldn’t get anyone on the phone to address the fraudulent docs. The silence has been eerie. They are expecting a payment Aug 17, I’m not going to make it. I want to offer the money to counsel as retainer to start Fed suit. PRO SE Wisconsin resident needs help with starting quiet title/fraud suit.

Livinglies's Weblog

Twitter

Pages

Tags

Homeowners

SUBSCRIBE TO LIVINGLIES FOR DISCOUNTED SERVICES, NEWSLETTER AND FREE TELECONFERENCES

ORDER LOAN SPECIFIC TITLE REPORT, COPIES OF DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS HERE

ORDER SECURITIZATION REPORT COPIES OF DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS HERE

What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars

Problems-with-a-loan-modification-10-points-to-consider

Stay tuned 2010 dates to be announced soon

lawyers-workshop-sneak-preview

All the information we provide is free and we are recruiting new people all the time to take your questions. If you are actively looking for help from a professional we will need information from you. If you can take the time to download and printout the following form it will speed up the process.

2,288 Responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

How Long Will it Take?

25

Follow LivingLies Blog

Recent Posts

CALCULATORS

Glossaries

Help Yourself

Landmark Cases

Law Review Articles and Studies

Links to Related External Sites

Living Lies Services

Follow “Livinglies's Weblog”

Twitter

Pages

Tags

Stay tuned 2010 dates to be announced soon

All the information we provide is free and we are recruiting new people all the time to take your questions. If you are actively looking for help from a professional we will need information from you. If you can take the time to download and printout the following form it will speed up the process.

Spread the word

Like this:

2,288 Responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

How Long Will it Take?

25

Follow LivingLies Blog

Recent Posts

CALCULATORS

Glossaries

Help Yourself

Landmark Cases

Law Review Articles and Studies

Links to Related External Sites

Living Lies Services

Follow “Livinglies's Weblog”