WISCONSIN APPEALS CT: AURORA IS NOT OWNER OF NOTE — TRIAL COURT REVERSED

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

EDITOR’S NOTE: WISCONSIN COURT GETS IT: HEARSAY, PROOF, HOLDER NOT THE SAME AS CREDITOR, ETC. AFFIDAVIT THROWN OUT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. In short everything we have been saying here was followed by the Court. Expect more decisions like this coming from other states.

In other words, false papers and representations by counsel are no substitute for good old-fashioned proof. And proof is what the pretenders don’t have which is why they are pretenders — and losers. The parties initiating foreclosures, declaring the defaults, denying modifications, and buying the home at auction with a “credit bid” are and always have been tricksters who have now screwed up at least 10 million real estate transactions and probably closer to 100 million real estate transactions. These are the people who received the bailout, while the buyers of empty bogus mortgage bonds and the owners of homes with undocumented loans looked on in disbelief.

The great securitization scam, the appraisal fraud, the predatory lending and the TILA violations are coming to light in a wave that possibly not even the trillion dollar banking oligarchy can stop. This case is one of dozens of examples.

STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

WIS. APPEALS COURT REVERSED “FAILED MERS ASSIGNMENT, FAILED AFFIDAVIT, FAILED STANDING, FAILED CASE” AURORA v. CARLSEN

WIS. APPEALS COURT REVERSED “FAILED MERS ASSIGNMENT, FAILED AFFIDAVIT, FAILED STANDING, FAILED CASE” AURORA v. CARLSEN

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

DAVID J. CARLSEN AND NANCY L. CARLSEN,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock County:

JAMES WELKER, Judge. Reversed.

Before Vergeront, P.J., Lundsten and Blanchard, JJ.

¶1 LUNDSTEN, J. This appeal involves a foreclosure action initiated by Aurora Loan Services against David and Nancy Carlsen. Following a court trial, the circuit court granted judgment of foreclosure in favor of Aurora, finding that Aurora is the holder of the note and owner of the mortgage and that the Carlsens were in default. We conclude that the circuit court’s finding that Aurora was the holder of the note, a finding essential to the judgment, is not supported by admissible evidence. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Background

¶2 Aurora Loan Services brought a foreclosure suit against David and
Nancy Carlsen, alleging that Aurora was the holder of a note and owner of a
mortgage signed by the Carlsens encumbering the Carlsens’ property. The
Carlsens denied several allegations in the complaint and, especially pertinent here,
denied that Aurora was the holder of the note. Aurora moved for summary
judgment, but that motion was denied.

¶3 A trial to the court was held on June 9, 2010. Aurora called one of
its employees, Kelly Conner, as its only witness. Aurora attempted to elicit
testimony from Conner establishing a foundation for the admission of several
documents purportedly showing that Aurora was the holder of a note that
obligated the Carlsens to make payments and that the Carlsens were in default. It
is sufficient here to say that the Carlsens’ attorney repeatedly objected to questions
and answers based on a lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation, and
that the circuit court, for the most part, sustained the objections. Aurora’s counsel
did not move for admission of any of the documents into evidence. After the
evidentiary portion of the trial, and after hearing argument, the circuit court made
findings of fact and entered a foreclosure judgment in favor of Aurora. The
Carlsens appeal. Additional facts will be presented below as necessary.

Discussion

¶4 It is undisputed that, at the foreclosure trial, Aurora had the burden
of proving, among other things, that Aurora was the current “holder” of a note
obligating the Carlsens to make payments to Aurora. Because Aurora was not the
original note holder, Aurora needed to prove that it was the current holder, which
meant proving that it had been assigned the note. There appear to be other failures
of proof, but in this opinion we focus our attention solely on whether Aurora
presented evidence supporting the circuit court’s findings that “the business
records of Aurora Loan Services show … a chain of assignment of that … note”
and that “Aurora is the holder of the note.”

¶5 As to assignment of the note, the Carlsens’ argument is simple: the
circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous because there was no admissible
evidence supporting a finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. The
Carlsens contend that, during the evidentiary portion of the trial, the circuit court
properly sustained objections to Aurora’s assignment evidence, but the court then
appears to have relied on mere argument of Aurora’s counsel to make factual
findings on that topic. We agree.

¶6 We focus our attention on a document purporting to be an
assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems to Aurora. At trial, this document was marked as Exhibit D. Although
Aurora’s counsel seemed to suggest at one point that certain documents, perhaps
including Exhibit D, were certified, the circuit court determined that the
documents were not certified. Under WIS. STAT. § 889.17,1 certified copies of
certain documents are admissible in evidence based on the certification alone.
Aurora does not contend that Exhibit D is admissible on this basis.

¶7 Aurora argues that Conner’s testimony is sufficient to support the
circuit court’s finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. Our review of her
testimony, however, reveals that Conner lacked the personal knowledge needed to
authenticate Exhibit D. See WIS. STAT. § 909.01 (documents must be
authenticated to be admissible, and this requirement is satisfied “by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
claims”). Relevant here, Conner made general assertions covering several
documents. Conner either affirmatively testified or agreed to leading questions
with respect to the following:

  • · She works for Aurora.
  • · She “handle[s] legal files” and she “attend[s] trials.”
  • · “Aurora provided those documents that are in [her] possession.”
  • · She “reviewed the subject file” in preparing for the hearing.
  • · She declined to agree that she is the “custodian of records for
  • Aurora.”

  • · She “look[s] at documentation … [does] not physically handle
  • original notes and documents, but [she does] acquire
    documentation.”

  • · “Aurora [is] the custodian of records for this loan.”
  • · She is “familiar with records that are prepared in the ordinary course
    of business.”
  • · She has “authority from Aurora to testify as to the documents, of
    [Aurora’s] records.”

As it specifically pertains to Exhibit D, the document purporting to evidence the
assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems to Aurora, Conner testified:

  • · Aurora has “possession of Exhibit D.”
  • · Exhibit D is “an assignment of mortgage.”

With respect to possession of Exhibit D, Conner did not assert that Exhibit D was
an original or that Aurora had possession of the original document. For that
matter, Conner did not provide a basis for a finding that any original document she
might have previously viewed was what it purported to be.2

¶8 Thus, Conner did no more than identify herself as an Aurora
employee who was familiar with some unspecified Aurora documents, who had
reviewed some Aurora documents, and who had brought some documents,
including Exhibit D, to court. Although Conner was able to say that Exhibit D, on
its face, was an assignment, she had no apparent personal knowledge giving her a
basis to authenticate that document. See WIS. STAT. § 909.01.

¶9 Aurora points to various provisions in WIS. STAT. chs. 401 and 403,
such as those relating to the definition of a “holder” (WIS. STAT.
§ 401.201(2)(km)), to a person entitled to enforce negotiable instruments (WIS.
STAT. § 403.301), and to the assignment of negotiable instruments (WIS. STAT.
§§ 403.203, 403.204, and 403.205). This part of Aurora’s argument addresses the
underlying substantive law regarding persons entitled to enforce negotiable
instruments, such as the type of note at issue here, but it says nothing about
Aurora’s proof problems. That is, Aurora’s discussion of the underlying law does
not demonstrate why Exhibit D was admissible to prove that Aurora had been
assigned the note and was, under the substantive law Aurora discusses, a party
entitled to enforce the note.

¶10 Similarly, Aurora discusses the relationship between a note and a
mortgage and, in particular, the equitable assignment doctrine. But here again
Aurora’s discussion fails to come to grips with Aurora’s failure to authenticate
Exhibit D, the document purporting to be an assignment of the note to Aurora.
Aurora points to testimony in which Conner asserted that Aurora acquired and
possessed Exhibit D, but possession of Exhibit D is meaningless without
authentication of the exhibit.

¶11 Aurora argues that we may look at the “record as a whole,”
including summary judgment materials, to sustain the circuit court’s factual
findings. Thus, for example, Aurora asks us to consider an affidavit filed with its
summary judgment motion. In that affidavit, an Aurora senior vice-president
avers that the note was assigned to Aurora, that the assignment was recorded with
the Rock County Register of Deeds, and that Aurora is the holder of the note. This
argument is meritless. Aurora was obliged to present its evidence at trial. It could
not rely on the “record as a whole” and, in particular, it could not rely on summary
judgment materials that were not introduced at trial. See Holzinger v. Prudential
Ins. Co., 222 Wis. 456, 461, 269 N.W. 306 (1936). For that matter, even if Aurora
had, at trial, proffered the affidavit of its senior vice-president, the affidavit would
have been inadmissible hearsay. See WIS. STAT. § 908.01(3) (“‘Hearsay’ is a
statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”).

¶12 In sum, Aurora failed to authenticate Exhibit D, the document
purporting to be an assignment of the note. Thus, regardless of other alleged proof
problems relating to that note and the Carlsens’ alleged default, the circuit court’s
finding that Aurora was the holder of the note is clearly erroneous—no admissible
evidence supports that finding. Aurora failed to prove its case, and it was not
entitled to a judgment of foreclosure.

By the Court.—Judgment reversed.

_______________________________________

1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.

2 Our summary of Conner’s testimony omits several assertions Conner made that were
stricken by the circuit court. Similarly, we have not included examples of the circuit court
repeatedly sustaining hearsay and foundation objections. For example, the court repeatedly
sustained objections to Aurora’s attempts to have Conner testify that Aurora “owns” the note.
Aurora does not and could not reasonably argue that the Carlsens have not preserved their
authentication objections. The Carlsens’ attorney repeatedly and vigorously objected on hearsay,
foundation, and authentication grounds. The record clearly reflects that the Carlsens were
objecting to the admission of all of Aurora’s proffered documents on the ground that Conner
lacked sufficient knowledge to lay a foundation for admission.
About these ads

46 Responses

  1. [...] ROBO SIGNERS OF AURORA LOAN SERVICES (Scottsbluff, NE) Aurora failed to prove ownership of the Note: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/wisconsin-appeals-ct-aurora-is-not-owner-of-note-trial-co… [...]

  2. Oh, I see neither was Carlsen. That is a dirty little thing, not reporting cases that help Plaintiffs. I have seen it for the past 20 years and it sucks. Whatever, you have to print them out and attach them to the pleadings, another deterrent to Justice.

    Welcome to Amerikkka.

  3. Let me know I can send you the actual case in an email as it is unreported.

  4. Neil you got this?

    Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 2011 NY Slip Op 4184 (May 17, 2011) (Attachment___) HN12In order to commence a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the mortgage (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 207, 887 N.Y.S.2d 615). A plaintiff [*7] has standing where it is both (1) the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and (2) the holder or assignee of the underlying note, either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action with the filing of the complaint (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d at 207-209; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578). Thus, as long as the plaintiff can establish its lawful status as assignee, either by written assignment or physical delivery, prior to the filing of the complaint, the recording of a written assignment after the commencement of the action does not defeat standing (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754). We find that Aurora has failed to make this showing.

    Here, the note and mortgage at issue were originally comprised of a first and second note and mortgage, which were consolidated into a single note in the amount of $704,000 and the [**24] single lien reflected in the CEMA. The document submitted by Aurora in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the Weisblums’ cross motion purports to be an assignment of only the first note and mortgage in the amount of $672,000 to Aurora by MERS, as nominee for Lehman Brothers. However, Aurora failed to produce evidence of MERS’ authority to assign the first note. On its motion for summary judgment, Aurora failed to provide a copy of the first note but submitted a copy of the original first mortgage and a series of assignments culminating in the purported assignment of the first note and mortgage to Aurora. The first mortgage was originally held by MERS, as nominee for Credit Suisse; the mortgage document recites that the lender on the first note is Credit Suisse, but there is nothing in this document to establish the authority of MERS to assign the first note. MERS later assigned the first mortgage “together with” the underlying note, and thereafter, successive assignees assigned the first mortgage “together with” the underlying note. While, in some circumstances, the assignment of a note may effect the transfer of the mortgage as an inseparable incident [**25] of the debt (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754), here the assignment instruments purport to do the opposite, without any evidence that MERS initially physically possessed the note or had the authority from the lender to assign it (see LPP Mtge. Ltd. v Sabine Props, LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 32367[U]; OneWest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton, 29 Misc 3d 1021, 1038-1041, 910 N.Y.S.2d 857; Bank of N.Y. v Alderazi, 28 Misc 3d 376, 900 N.Y.S.2d 821; cf. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674, 674-675, 838 N.Y.S.2d 622).

    Moreover, Aurora produced no documents indicating an assignment to it of the second note and mortgage or of the entire consolidated note and CEMA in the amount of $704,000. Although Aurora’s vice president averred in conclusory fashion that Aurora became holder of the mortgage which is the subject of the action “by delivery without a written assignment,” the affiant failed to give any factual detail of a physical delivery of both the consolidated note and the CEMA to Aurora prior to the commencement of the action. Thus, Aurora failed to establish its standing to commence the action.

    Accordingly, the appeal from the order dated February 25, 2010, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated [**26] May 19, 2010, made upon renewal. The order dated May 19, 2010, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and, upon renewal, the order dated February 25, 2010, is vacated, the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference are denied, and the Weisblums’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.
    DILLON , J.P., BELEN and ROMAN , JJ., concur.

  5. Question in thread re ‘Aurora’ .

    For every transaction you must ask yourself Who, What, When, Where, Why, How?

    1993: Colorado Secretary of State
    Corporations Office
    1560 Broadway, Suite 200
    Denver CO 80202

    RE:
    Non-Profit 501(c)(3) of Internal Revenue
    (3) Directors
    Harold B. Dunning-345 Titan St, Aurora CO 80011
    Alvin Curtis-PO Box 470876 Aurora CO 80047-0876
    Judity Curtis-same

    Aurora Schollarship and Loan Trust, Inc.,
    55 Madison St., Suite 555, Denver, CO 80206
    John M. Hanson JR

    Department of Regulatory Agencies
    Division of Banking
    State Bank Commissioner
    James T. Dillon
    Chief Deputy Bank Commissioner 9/16/1993
    ‘Colorady State Banking Board, at the 9/16/1993 meeting, had no objection to use of the word ‘trust’ in Aurora Scholarship and Loan Trust, Inc.’ All info retained by Colorad Div of Banking will be retained in state banking file
    Colorado State Banking Board
    James T. Dillon Deputy Bank Commissioner
    1560 Broadway, Suite 1175, Denver CO 80202
    (303) 894-7575
    PDPA 303-894-7572
    Fax 303-894-7570

    I wonder about WHO is ‘Titan’ in the address below regarding WHAT ‘Aurora’ –and HOW Aurora could be related to GE and ‘Titan’.. as listed WHERE (SEC as copied below?

    WHY is the CO State Banking approving non-profit
    Aurora under Lehman is under supervison of Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

    6/23/2050 – Registered Agent from Corporation Services Co filed on behalf o
    Aurora Loan Services LLC
    with State of Colorado the last Annual Report filed statement dated 5/01/2010 by Registered Agent Aida Y.Sarmast.

    Auroa Loan Financial (division?) created to move transactions from itself to Lehman Commodites for the benefit of who?

    The tradename used in the public domain.
    Was it Zerox who did not record their valuable tradename?

    What about using a name so often in advertising it becomes a trademark and is not a registered trademark?

    Are all Zerox copies made on a Zerox copier?

    The ‘beneficiaries’ who lost a valuable resource can use the logic to place value on something that is not valuable.

    When is a bank not a bank? When a private brand label affixed to a transaction to mask who they are doing business with.

    To Stay On Point

    May I be clear that you must not “lump” every nametag into a category like a lump of coal into the coal bin next to the stove.

    Aurora. as recorded In the State of Colorado

    AURORA LOAN SERVICES INC
    2530 South Parker Rd, Suite 601,
    Aurora CO 80014

    Status 4/29/2011 – Good Standing
    Jurisdiction ‘DE” incorporation 5/15/1997

    Proposed Registered Office in CO
    Registered Agent responsible for info 2004
    Aurora Loan Services, Inc.
    c/o Corporation Services Company
    Aida Y. Sarmast
    1560 Broadway
    Denver, CO 80202
    County of Douglas
    Formation 7/22/1997
    Perpetual
    Jannine M. Cozzati
    Assistant Secretary

    Directors:
    Neal B. Leonard
    Brian Libman
    Bruce M. Witherell
    All Directors from:
    3 World Financial Center, NY NY 10285

    Officers:

    Brian Libman Chairman
    David E. Quint (Co-Chief Exec Officer)
    Ralph A. Lenzi (Co-Chief Exec Officer)
    Karen C. Manson VP & Secretary
    Jeannie M. Cozzati – Assistant Secretary
    Nigel Walker – Treasurer
    Kathryn M. Bopp-Flynn – Assistant Treasurer
    All from 3 World Financial Center, NY NY 10285
    Rick W. Skogg President
    – 2530 So. Parker Rd
    Suite 601
    Aurora CO 80014

    Regina Lashley VP
    Leo C. Trautman, Jr. EVP
    Pamela J. Pedersen VP
    601 Fifth Ave
    Scottsbluff, NE 69361

    NOTICE: January 7th, 2005
    NAME CHANGE from ‘INC’ to ‘LLC”
    AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC

    Filing Agent:
    Karen Manson
    745 Seventh Avenue, 24th Floor
    New York, NY 10019
    Rev. 7/13/2004 Page 4 of 4 filed with Secretary of State of CO.

    1/7/2005
    Statement of Change
    ID 19971116192
    Registered Agent Address
    10350 Park Meadows Drive
    Littleton CO 80124

    President who signed above

    “Richard K. Roeder” Group Member with following 4 Registrants

    “Richard K. Roeder” has been a Group Member with the following 4 Registrants:
    Aurora Capital Partners II LP
    Aurora Capital Partners LP
    Aurora Equity Partners LP
    General Electric Co
    (NBC no news reports) owner Kidder&Peabody

    Look on SEC for current:
    who -27 Closely Related include:
    GE Asset Management Inc.
    GE Capital

    (Could Aurora) be a ‘Trojan Horse’ ?

    Frankly, the firms losing big cases – and some really good cases out there if I were researching for them they would be winning!

    I’m scratching your head wondering why they are not winning?

    General Electric Co (continued)….

  6. CERTIFICATEGATE!
    Did E.Todd Whittemore robo-sign as Officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC 10K misrepresenting who?
    Aurora Loan Services not listed in Federal Reserve Repository Report
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    Note: Todd Whittemore no longer at Aurora Loan Financial LLC now at Digital Risk LLC
    • Executive Vice President at Aurora Loan Services a Lehman Brothers Company
    • Senior Vice President at Lehman Brothers
    • Executive Vice President at Mortgage Project Group
    • Supervisory Accountant at Resolution Trust Corporation
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/todd-whittemore/6/193/820
    • __________________________________________________________________________
    Leo Trautman SVP-CAO Loan Administration at Aurora Loan Services
    Location Cheyenne, Wyoming Area Industry Financial Services
    Overview Current
    • SVP-CAO Loan Administration at Aurora Loan Services
    • Vice President at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
    • VP Loan Administration at Lehman Brothers Bank
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/leo-trautman/7/8b1/45b

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________
    Aurora Loan Services, LLC originates and services prime and subprime residential mortgage loans through wholesale and correspondent channels. The company also buys mortgages originated by other mortgage bankers, banks, and credit unions. Aurora Loan Services, LLC was formerly known as Aurora Loan Services, Inc. The company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Littleton, Colorado. Aurora Loan Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB.

    About Aurora: They call themselves ‘Aurora Loan Ser vices’
    Recognize this infamous SEC-robo signer’as E. Todd Whittemore? Same person?

    Todd Whittemore Former EVP of Aurora Loan
    Chris Zimmerman – now VP Foreclosure & Bankruptcy at BankUnited
    Past: AVP Foreclosue & Contested Default at Aurora Loan Services
    Managing Paralegal at Aurora Loan Services
    Default Supervisor at NPB Mortgage
    Education: Judge Advocate School
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-zimmerman/9/292/61b
    Summary Results driven management executive with 10 years experience in default servicing. Strong managerial skills with a demonstrated ability to motivate staff to achieve established goals
    Specialties Expertise in:

    Foreclosure Timeline Management
    Contested/Litigated Case Resolution
    Bankruptcy Processing/Timeline Management
    LPS Desktop Conversion & Process Implementation
    REO Processing
    FHA/VA/GSE Servicing Requirements
    Team Building/Staff Training/Development
    Policy & Procedure Development
    Legislative & Regulatory Changes
    Vendor Management & Oversight
    Janet Martin Vice President Special Servicing Location Greater San Diego Area Industry Financial Services Overview Current Vice President Special Servicing at Vericrest Financial
    Past Executive Consultant at Martin Consulting LLC ; Vice President Loss Mitigation at Aurora ; Vice President Loss Mitigation at Select Portfolio Servicing

    Education Stringham Real Estate School Van Ed Real Estate School January 2009
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/janet-martin/15/84b/497
    Auroa Loan Services, Denver – Real Estate
    Master Servicing – VP Investor Reporting Systems @ Aurora Loan Services
    Past: VP Aurora Loan Services
    VP – Master Servicing Operations at Aurora Loan Services
    VP Servicer Balancing at Aurora Loan Services

    E.Todd Whittemore – EVP – Carla Wise – SVP, Robert Simpson- EVP, James Park – Chief Appraiser and SVP Janet Martin – VP
    10350 Park Meadows Drive
    Littleton, CO 80124 United States
    Founded in 1997 Phone:720-945-3000 Fax: 720-945-3084
    http://www.alservices.com

    Observation on Linkedin: SVP Aurora Bank FSB Indianapolis, Sr VP at Lehman Indianapolis, Sr. VP at New Century Indianapolis and the Carla Wise Portfolio Mgr at Charter One Bank OH
    State of Colorado

    continued…

  7. Funny Lehman Commodities is registered in Wyoming but not in New York?

    Aurora Loan Financial not reported (under that name) inside of the FRB Repository where all banking currency moves thru parent Lehman?

    Aurora is ot a division, of Lehman.

    The employees reveal they work for (or worked for) Loan Mitigator. Business intelligence reveals one way transactions of Aurora Loan Financial to Lehman Commodities who is registered in Wyoming.

    There are big boys in New York.

    7/25/1995 – Lehman Brothers Commodities Japan Inc. renamed 8/23/1995 to Lehman Brothers Commodites Far East Inc.
    Jusrisdiction Delaware, County NY and are Active 5/1/2011

    CEO Madeline L. Shapiro
    747 7th Ave
    New York, NY 10019

    Lehman Brothers G+ Commodities Fund, LLC registered 8/29/2008 and renamed self to
    Neuberger Berman G+ Commodites Fund LLC.

    Wonder what happend to all of the ‘Lehman’ BUYER transactions sold by SELLER (Wells Fargo Bank NA) and intermediary funding of Deutsche Bank Trust Americas during the refinancing freenzy.

    Wonder why Aurora Loan FInancial business intelligence reveals all transactions flow directly into Lehman Commodities?

    Aurora is not a LENDER.

    Let’s see. In New York State,
    8/13/1997 Registered County NY
    Jurisdiction DE
    Inactive 4/15/2005.

    Jeffrey L. McFadden, General Counsel
    2530 So. Parker Rd
    Suite 601
    Aurora, CO 80014

    CEO
    Ralph A. Lenzi
    2530 So. Parker Rd
    Suite 601
    Aurora CO 80014

    NEW BUSINESS ENTITY REGISTERED
    8/15/2005
    Aurora Loan Services LLC
    Jurisdiction: Delaware
    Active: County New York

    Registered Agent Only
    c/o Corporation Service Company
    80 State Street
    Albany NY 12207

  8. [...] View the original article here LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  9. cubed2k

    That is okay. I am hardened – have to be.

  10. Anon,

    sorry, it’s just a Yoda quote, google search of famous yoda quotes.

    Just interjecting in your conversation with Soliman with some non sequitur humor. No harm intended.

    Soliman speaks a bit like Yoda, that’s all.

  11. cubed2k,

    What happens???

  12. Anonymous,
    and Soliman.

    Happens to every guy sometimes this does.

  13. msoliman,

    Know Roger directed at me — but not Roger. And, typos — shall we keep a scorecard??

    Would like to call and chat — but cannot. And, DO NOT want to interfere with your business. Whatever you can do — all for it. Just do not get too focused — tend to overlook when we do that. Keep open mind.

    I do not speculate.

  14. Roger – the typos stuff is getting old…really ! But , As always , your the man . Call me will you .

  15. Accounting is always a good argument — problem is no judge is going to give the time of day for corporate accounting in discovery.

    If you want to look at accounting — start looking at trusts that were supposedly pre-paid by refinance — should be easy to check out — in fact — supposed to report it. Will find no records exist. That is evidence — you can present. How do you get a mortgage when your prior loan was not paid off by you??? And, how did this happen??

    And, if want to get into ledgers — only DOJs/government/Congress can do this — but they will not. They support it. Because the schemes are the only thing that has falsely held economy together for a long time.

    The Florida AG – and others — who got to them??? “Moral hazard” ?? when people – including elderly/sick/children/veterans — are being thrown out on the street???

    I do not care what fraud — accounting or otherwise — (including big insurance fraud) — was done in the past. FIX IT NOW — FIX IT for the victims. And, again, stop the excuse of “moral hazard” —
    which is absolutely absurd. But – right now — this is the biggest weapon they have. This is Mr. Ben Bernanke’s brainstorm — that is, how he will make sure every foreclosure goes through as planned — clear the market — all in the name of “moral hazard.”

    We will not fix it with a court decision here and there that demonstrates a tidbit of hope for so many victims.

    The power is huge — against us – no matter what you demand in court — you will not get it. Cases that do win — are won on mistakes made by the foreclosure attorneys – and they do make mistakes — but cannot count on this.

    We have let this happen. Understandably, we are concerned with our own individual situation. Reasonably, will not succeed as a whole without a joint effort.

    Can promote all our ideas and theories here — none of them matter — unless something is done to stop the fraud.

    No posts, no editorials, no articles, no little County court foreclosure decision is going to change what is happening.

    Only YOUR voice will change it.

  16. Maher, easy on the espresso! You need the machine that types while you speak! Your chubby little fingers can’t keep up with your brain. Or, you need a new keyboard.

    Thank you for that explanation. Now if you would just have me proofread for you……

    Maher, the county judges refuse to hear any defenses to these foreclosures. You are at the apex of the issue. Accounting. No doubt.

  17. This is what we need in America:

    Thousands Crowd Central London in Budget Protest

    A quarter-million mostly peaceful demonstrators marched through central London on Saturday against the toughest cuts to public spending since World War II, with a small breakaway group smashing its way into a bank, breaking windows and spray painting logos on the walls.

    Snip

    Britain is facing 80 billion pounds ($130 billion) of public spending cuts from Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government as it struggles to get the country’s large budget deficit under control. The government has already raised sales tax, but Britons are bracing for big cuts to public spending.

    After the country spent billions bailing out indebted banks, and suffered a squeeze on tax revenue and an increase in welfare bills, Treasury chief George Osborne has staked the coalition government’s future on tough economic remedies.

    As many as half a million public sector jobs will be lost, about 18 billion ($28.5 billion) axed from welfare payments and the pension age raised to 66 by 2020, earlier than previously planned.

    The TUC, the main umbrella body for British unions, says it believes the cuts will threaten the country’s economic recovery, and has urged the government to create new taxes for banks and to close loopholes that allow some companies to pay less tax — an argument that chimes with many of the protesters.

    “They shouldn’t be taking money from public services. What have we done to deserve this?” said Alison Foster, a 53-year-old school teacher. “Yes, they are making vicious cuts. That’s why I’m marching, to let them know this is wrong.”

    Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition Labour Party, likened the march to the suffragette movement in Britain and the civil rights movement in America. “Our causes may be different but we come together to realize our voice. We stand on the shoulders of those who have marched and have struggled in the past,” he told protesters at the rally.

    In my mind this is way overdue. Enough is enough. It’s time we show our so-called representitives who they really work for. And it’s also way passed time to tar and feather anyone in a $4K suit.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/42284526

  18. Neil’s final words in this commentary:

    “This case is one of dozens of examples.”

    That line says so much and it’s not good. Three years I’ve been hanging out here and many other places, reading, absorbing, holding out hope for change to quote our president who is back down on bended knee blowing the bankers again as we speak.

    Three years, and we now have “dozen of examples”? That’s a pretty pathetic math equation when you do time over quantity. And like has been mentioned here, only on appeal was this badly fought battle lost. They almost squeaked by with another free home.

    Yes, there may be some hopeful signs on the judicial horizon, but my fear is that the tide will turn shortly after the nearly 10 million more foreclosures occur. If Obama, Geithner, Bernanke, Walsh, and all of congress get their way, we will all be served up on a huge platter for the banksters. They all seem determined to see to this end.

    You say you want a revolution? I sure do.

  19. We can ask for the moon and the stars … But must know what to ask for must be asked for in the right way at the right time would it not? And then know what WE are looking at…. My attorney would not would Any attorney maybe that’s the fear of asking …The judges blessing is needed ofcourse

  20. Soliman you know I dig your arguments but only from my lil perspective… the mers moot thing YES. I’m on it and I shall have my attorney read your posts. My case is still evolving day by day as we learn more. Appreciate your posts.

  21. Look my Dear,

    There is nothing to chart out here. Charts are for Doctors and graphs are for skin. These Assets are offset by liabilities and create an accounting scheme known as derecognition?

    Premise – Common stock is issued against bank lines, by means and methods known as Derecognition (See FAS 140 GAAP Rules)

    1) Company “C” is thefore an “Obligor”.
    2) Company “D” is an Obligee and thefore paid dividedness from Company “C” the Obligor.

    Question – Are the loans considered a receivable? YES and, will Company “B” the Bank hold the collateral “Note” [1] YES (Sorry Lost Note Fans)

    If Company “C” holds the rights to collateral what changes? The answer is recognition and the Government is cringing you DO NOT figure this one out! Call the FDIC yourself or spend 10 hours on the phone with Washington if you wish. I dd, but yur counsel was not interested!

    Look, Recognition In United States tax law is among a series of prerequisites to the manifestation of gains and losses used by the Internal Revenue Service for determining federal income tax liability. Internal Revenue Code section 1001(c) provides that gains and losses, if realized, are also recognized unless otherwise provided in the Code. This default rule has several exceptions, called “nonrecognition” rules, which are scattered throughout the Code.

    IN ACCOUNTING IT IS THE SERIES FOR MANIFESTING GAIN AND LOSS A TAXPAYER MUST “REALIZE” GAIN AND LOSS.

    These exceptions often apply in situations in which a taxpayer shifts his investment from one piece of property to another piece of property. HELLO – AYONE OUT THERE ? YOU CANNOT FORECLOSE ON A TRUST ASSET – DONE! SLAE OF HOME NO HARM, REFI – NO FOUL , FORECLOSURE – ROBUST MARKET TO HIDE OR CONCEAL , NO ROBUST MARKET – QUEIT TITLE !

    In such cases, where the taxpayer is merely continuing his investment, it makes sense to defer the recognition of any gain or loss realized until the taxpayer truly ends the investment. Sections 1031-1045 provide the most commonly implicated nonrecognition rules, . . . .

    including the section 1031 rule for Like-Kind Exchanges YEAH RIGHT – IMPOSSIBLE WIKIPEDIA NICE TRY

    So I ask, who are the Parties your suit is relying upon to service the assets? Answer – What Assets?

    Who is entitled to receive the monthly payments from borrowers? Answer – The Creditors

    Who are the Creditors? Answer – the Depositors?

    So then who is paying the Preffered Trust investors? Answer – The QSPE

    So, What makes this scheme stay alive? Answer – Derecognition and confused planitffs and their attorneys

    Who are the principal parties to the litigation? Answer – The Seller and the Depositors

    Who is the Seller?
    WINNER – Ahhhhhhhhhhh! Now we are getting somewhere! (Hint its REMS speeled backwards)

    Without MERS we have a taxable trigger of over one trillion in recapture from domestic and world investors.
    What does that mean? over 75% of of this toxiicity was owned by smaller banks floating their own depsoitis and using these certificates as a hedge.

    And? The governemnt loved it as it was tax free enhancement for banks that allowed the buyers – smaller and med banks and offshore banks to operate and grow with out having the burden of excessive corproate tax base and gviing away profits to the IRS- it was one big shelter that got out of hand!

    So who is it …who …who does your attorney tell you are culpable ….and culpable for what?

    Who did what is the question I am asking? Does he know? Is he in the know?

    Does your counsel consider a dividend account held for depositors an asset he can attach a claim to? Has he? Will he? Step up and file a motion here to stay and rescind the sale for bank driven misfeaseance under FDIC authority !

    Can your Counsel explain why MERS is the one and only chance we have of crashing this party ?

    Or, are you attacking MERS, ROBO signers and still looking for the amazing, the incredible the insane LOST NOTE Yawnnnnnnnn!

    Come-on Now…..Ask your attorney …Will you?
    LOOK – IF YOU CANNOT HANDLE THIS (AND I DO CARE ABOUT YOU / JUST QUESTION YOUR ADVISERS TO DATE ) WHAT DO YOU THINK THE OTHER SIDE WILL DO IF YOUR STARTING TO PREVAIL …STEP UP HERE AND MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT – GOT A GOOD CASE ? THEN FILE THE MOTION MONDAY …

    MSOLIMAN

  22. Deb Wynn, on March 26, 2011 at 5:38 am said:
    So Jose the banksters pimp attorneys are paid 3 times what my attorney makes
    ——————————————————————
    Read my post here –

    Deb

    Why are you crying out loud here? Ask to see the general ledger and WHO is booking the daily interest.

    You’re making payments for God’s sake. Correct. WHO then is collecting (ACCRUING) the payments? A servicer?

    Then who engaged the servicer?

    Does your attorney know? If he did the MERS argument is moot!

    In your matter the Parties you’re challenging in court represnt a finaincial Menagerie , capital orgy , a Grab Bag of material misrepresentations and Cluster Flunks . It does not help naming indispensible parties to a misjoinder claim if you cannot target the culprit versus alleging the implied misjoinder – (right Raja!).

    MISJOINDER OF PARTIES

    Lender “A” ORIGNATED & SOLD THE LOAN. It is a smaller bank, broker, and builder. Call it the SELLER who is likely out of business or uninterested in this lawsuit.

    Party “B” BANK / WAREHOUSED THE LOANS / WIRING THE FUNDS; It’s the bank sitting with loans that you and other borrowers are obligated to pay according to the promissory note.

    Party “C” QSPE / COMMON TRUST STOCK / INVESTORS here is the QSPE formed to purchase the banks lines of credit as a receivable.

    The loans funded by Lender “A” were through a Warehouse line and now represents the basis in assets. Common stock is issued in exchange for the warehouse line used as paid in capital.

    Company “D” SPE / PREFERRED TRUST STOCK / INVESTORS purchased at up to ten times the value of your loan. Company “D” is formed as an Equity and Debt Trust (not Qualified) relying on the trusts registration and promises in a pooling and servicing agreement authored by Company “C” the registrant.

    Lender “A” is existed having transferred its loans “whole” at time of funding / concurrently on a forward commitment issued to company “B” the bank by Company “C” who sold trust common shares. Company “B” is a failed bank in receivership. The FDIC is the conservator.

    MERS should not MERIT at any time as a holder of the notes. The notes that Company “C” bought are transferred under a reverse sale or reciprocal transaction for purposes of avoiding FIERREA need for purposes of Derecognition. It is solely for exchanging “lines” for “loans”.

    Company “C” is the banks holding company owning the Cash Flow Due Company “B” The Bank.

    The transferring of liabilities and receivables to Company “C” require an asset to offset the capital structure. What is the missing asset – ask your attorney , please ?

    M.SOLIMAN
    expert.witness@live.com

  23. So Jose the banksters pimp attorneys are paid 3 times what my attorney makes ( I have a pretty good one too as far as I can tell) they are intheir Armani suits my atty has had holes In the sole of his shoes ( serously) the banks have trillions and they try to exaust us wear us down and drag the thing out it’s alwAys on appeal but we know this…they are thinking we will quit …. All we must do is not quit. Easier said than done but that’s what it takes. So I say no whining just grit your teeth and keep the pressure on fir.
    as long as your body will let you. I would love it if they were punished to the full extent of the law but baby steps.

  24. Jose here is a song about Lawyers which rhymes with Lyer.

    LL Cool J-That’s A Lie
    http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=a-2oDpUYU­lc

    “You lied about the lies that you lied about.”

    there is always an exception Neil Garfield.

  25. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION
    By M.Soliman

    From one hand to another – follow the accrual:
    Loans Originated = Settlement Date
    Loans Purchased = Transfer Date
    Loans held for Sale = Accrual
    Loans held and Sold = Cutoff Date

    I. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION
    a. Loan Accounting Records
    i. G/L Entries for Assets Held

    1) Loans Originated = Settlement Date
    2) Loans Purchased = Transfer Date
    3) Loans held for Sale = Bank Assets
    4) Loans held and Sold = Cutoff Date

    Each and every loan has three cycles to its life. It’s not a theorem but fact.

    I. Loans accounted for ; originated through transfer date.
    II. Loans Sold to Secondary; evidenced by booking a gain on sale (loss)
    III.Reversion The mandatory event for determining the actual CPR on a loan.

    Like a crime fighters DNA each cycle has its own DNA. It’s called per Diem and there is the critical argument. It’s a shattering MERS Buster needed to defeat claims by a nominee or any imposter. The accrual is the secret to defeating imposter holder claims and works all the way through to foreclosure. Consider the basis for arguments. If the asset is charged or “deleted” as they say, basis in assets can no longer accrue to the subrogor in an FDIC argument under D’Oensche doctrine. It just cannot stand the scrutiny of the court.

    Suggestion: Calculate the total accrual from settlement through 90 days delinquent . If the PAS agreements are true to form the loan is cast as a reversion due to default. there is no REPO (they are trying and that would suggest someone file an injunction against FASB)

    What Blacks defines as law , I can assure you will be defeated by Wiley’s. On a Chess board Blacks is the Queen that drives a Chess game. But if you cannot reach teh King – - – No checkmate !

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Counsel – you do not need case law to defeat claims of one plus one equals three..

  26. Ok, I put it to you this way.

    Lets say I owe a home. Sell it to somebody, we do a note thing, and deed of trust thing. So somebody buys it and owes me 2k/month for 30 years. He stops making payments. I let it go for a few months, and yet a few months go by. Lets say I still had a note on it too to somebody else, and because the buyer stopped paying, why I still had to pay on my note. So, don’t you think I would foreclose rapidly on the guy since I’m losing money now. I have all the paperwork and proper assignments recorded. It’s easy. I get the property back since I’ve been paying on it since the buyer defaulted.

    So, one has to ask why have I have been not paying on my mortgage for a year now and nothing has occurred? Why am I not foreclosed on? The answer would be the real owner doesn’t care? Why, he’s been paid. If the real owner has not been paid, he would be on me. If you were the real owner of my note, don’t you think you would be on it and get the situation resolved as you are losing income. Right?

    Why are foreclosures taking so long? They only take so long as people question it, ownership. Those that do not question it as they do not know, leave or get foreclosed on.

  27. Sp I ask thee all,

    I keep getting letters from HOPE NOW,

    Dear Homeowner,
    blah blah, etc. we reach out to and attempt to assist homeowners who may be having difficulty paying their mortgage. Your mortgage company, IBM Lender Business Process Services is a member of this alliance.

    blah, blah, etc.
    To learn more call this number.

    And on the bottom is the “this communication is fro a debt collector as we sometimes act as a debt collector. blah, blah.

    Ok, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? IS Hope Now in with IBM BUS LEnder Serices? Are they trying to get me to call to REAFFIRM THE DEBT? This is weird and does not seem right? Does anybody agree?

    I don’t know but I will investigate further. I haven’t paid on my mortgage a year now. If you ask me and my gut tells me, they are trying to get me to call so as to reaffirm the debt. But, I ask where is the proof? I have asked for it. This whole thing sounds lkike credit card debt scene.

  28. Last minute Motions to intervene in NJ Order to Show Cause — proposed settlement. If you live in Florida — please send to Attorney General Pam Bondi — (and other 3 AGs who support rejecting any 50 state settlement due to “Moral Hazard.”

    Bottom line — no one knows where collection rights lie — real party/current creditor is not the servicer, not the trust, not the trustee, and not MERS. Any settlement that purports to resolve issues — but does not demand identification of current creditor/real party — is simply a continuation of the same.fraudulent foreclosure practices.– and will resolve nothing.

    And, any defense attorney who continues to do loan modifications under the name of the servicer/trust/trustee — needs to go back to law school (and take a few finance classes while you are at it). Any loan mods done in this false manner are NOT a mortgage and not a valid.
    contract.

    SEE – last minute Motions

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/superior/motion_intervene_center_social_justice.pdf

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/superior/motion_intervene_legal_services.pdf
    .

  29. Have to take whatever wins we get. But, this is a technical decision based on authenticating.

    Problem on the whole — is with defense attorneys — they still do not get it. I would think that by now they would — but, not seeing evidence of this.

    This case should not have been won simply based on authenticating.

    Until defense attorneys start to grasp what is really happening — cases will remain a battle in court.

  30. jose just gave you a big round of applause,,,
    and everbody actually

  31. i just cant get excited by a judge following the law…& after an appeal no less .The1st judge should be defrocked,reflogged,disbarred, disemboweled ,or whatever they do to remove that type of cancer. meh …maybe its just ME?!
    Take heart in…. OUR OWNERS are not pleased.

  32. Marie is correct ….(Submission disengaged)

    I was deposed by stipulation of the CA Appellate court before deciding the matter to remand or affirm.

    The matter was concerning a foreclosure and decision by the trial court for a case dating back to 2002. It’s a whole different game there as compared to a burdened Superior Court calendar. (See Graupner vs. Select Portfolio / Wells fka Fairbanks CA Appellate 2010)

    Many trial courts would agree, it’s not a decision that should be made outside of the appellate level

    MSoliman..

  33. Marie is correct ….I was deposed by stipulation of the CA Appellate court before deciding the matter to remand or affirm.

    The matter was concerning a foreclosure and decision by the trial court for a case dating back to 2002. It’s a whole different game there as compared to a burdened Superior Court calendar. (See Graupner vs. Select Portfolio / Wells fka Fairbanks CA Appellate 2010)

    Many trial courts would agree, it’s not a decision that should be made outside of the appellate level

    MSoliman..

  34. Marie, on March 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm said:

    These cases are not being won at the trial level. To be required in almost every instance to rely on reversal on appeal is to me, not reassuring.

    Marie is correct ….I was deposed by stipulation of the CA Appellate alte made before deciding the matter to remand or affirm for a tial court decision the Ca Appeallte

  35. Hate to be a thrill killer, but this decision was reached as a result of sloppy work and does not address salient issues. There is no indication that ALS was in possession of the note or if it weren’t.. ALS didn’t even try to get the bs assignment of the note and dot admitted. I wish it would have, since it’s a false document. ALS appeared to rely only on an unauthenticated copy or original (can’t tell) of the (bs) assignment of the note and dot by “MERS”. I can’t access the underlying circuit case to see some rel info, unfortunately. I wish these judges would get it that these bs assignments are actually done by an ALS employee wearing a MERS’ bs certifying officer hat. It was probably signed by Theodore Schultz, on info an belief, and ALS’ employee.
    The real question is when these servicers do come up with a note endorsed in blank, why are they entitled to enforce? If they do come up with such a note, they still have no interest in the note and are acting as a debt collector only. And I give, where’s their authority to do this?
    The decision to overturn the circuit court on the laws of evidence (no personal knowledge, etc. = hearsay), is refreshing, but this case does not represent the real issues courts need to rule on
    appropriately.
    But, the fact that ALS did not move for admission of the bs assignment might be indicative of the fact that ALS knew it was bs and only went as far as it did because it had painted itself in a corner by initially claiming fiction as fact. Looks to me like they had thrown a foreclosure claim up against the wall to see if it would stick. Sound familiar?

  36. WHAT DOES A LONE AG OR LOCAL MAGISTRATE EXPECT TO ACCOMPLISH
    Under these overwhelming set of cicumstances.
    By MSoliman

    Aurora is by its own admission acting as a Bad Bank. Its a holding tank for Lehman Bros assets and Aurora toxicity thanks in part to the Lehman Bros debacle. The assets are the charge of a United States receiver appointed by teh FDIC as a conservator.

    1.Is the justice drawing line for a civil showdown or NOT AWARE of something deemed open and notorious. D’Oensche Doctrine, power to repudiate; avoidance powers, US Trustees office, Repeal of Safe Harbor and SEC enforcement and…..What is it the court is saying here? ( I know , what it means to say but , maybe there is something for the local courts to proffer in anticipation of retribution actions sure to be filed by homeowners displaced to date.
    2.The fire meets the frying pan in the next twelve months when the CBS comedy “60 Minutes” announces – - Tonight’s story “How America Stole your Home”.
    3.”Let the ignorant and deceived, who fall victim to a scheme or breach of unlawful acts leave the court as they entered . . . ignorant and deceived.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  37. These cases are not being won at the trial level. To be required in almost every instance to rely on reversal on appeal is to me, not reassuring.

    This case does not seem to have much value as precedent: lack of certified copies, poor lawyering by the banks lawyer(s), and excellent preparation by defense. No great black letter law was enunciated here.

  38. Freddie Mac Tells Servicers NOT To Foreclose In MERS – 2011-03-24 14:26:15-04
    Effective April 1, servicers managing Freddie Mac loans will no longer be allowed to foreclose on properties in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS).

  39. Finally, somebody applied the existing law. You know, there are many, many, laws already in place that need to be applied. Most states require that you file and RECORD an assignment of mortgage. Also, the debt was retired by the following or any combination thereof: CDO’s (credit default swaps) a form of insurance that hedges the loss, TARP funds, other bailout funds, insurance (possibly more than one) . The servicers are taking the houses that they do not own (free house) and selling them for still MORE PROFIT. The Constitution is reeling from the crimes against it. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  40. Friday, March 25, 2011
    By Brian Collins

    When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was first being discussed in Washington there was little emphasis — if any—on its role in regulating residential servicing. But in the wake of the nation’s “robo-signing” scandal all that has changed.

    Like what you see? Click here to sign up for a National Mortgage News free trial and daily newsletter to get the latest feature stories, news headlines, data, and in-depth analysis on the issues impacting the mortgage industry.

    It is now clear to the industry that the CFPB will be the first federal agency with the authority to monitor and regulate all mortgage servicers, or so says its de facto director, Elizabeth Warren.

    President Obama’s pick to get the agency up and running by July 21, Warren recently clarified to members of Congress that the CFPB will have enforcement authority over all bank servicers—nonbank as well as depositories.

    Warren said the current servicing “scandal” illustrates the importance of fair and consistent enforcement of servicers.

    If the new consumer protection agency were created six years ago, “the problems in mortgage servicing would have been exposed early and fixed while they were still small—long before they became a national scandal,” she said.

    “We need a cop on the beat,” Warren testified last week before a House Financial Services, saying the CFPB will be that cop.

    Although the former Harvard law professor will not be heading the agency, she serves as a special advisor to the Treasury Department and is said to be pulling the strings behind the scenes as head of its implementation team. She told the congressmen that the president is planning to nominate a director soon to run the bureau.

    The new consumer protection agency also has the authority to set national servicing standards, which is why Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner asked her to work on the issue as it applies to any type of global settlement between servicers and the states. (As a technical matter, the CFPB will not will not be a party to the formal settlement with AGs.)

    The Department of Justice, federal regulators and state attorneys general are negotiating with the nation’s top five servicers to settle allegations of shoddy foreclosure and loss mitigation practices. Republican lawmakers have complained that Warren, a political appointee, should not be a participant in those talks.

    Members of the GOP have linked her to a draft term sheet that DOJ presented the servicers. The draft includes tough servicing standards, which one securities trade group called “unprecedented in its scope and prescriptiveness.”

    The draft also requires servicers to employ principal writedowns, which some industry officials liken to “cramdowns” that Congress rejected in 2009.

    Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., recently called for an immediate committee inquiry into this “regulatory shakedown by the new Bureau for Consumer Financial Protection…led by Elizabeth Warren.”

    Last week, Warren testified before a congressional committee for the first time since her appointment by President Obama last September. Several House Financial Services Committee Republicans committee questioned her about her role in the settlement negotiations.

    The leader of Treasury’s CFPB implementation team insisted she is not involved in the negotiations. “We do not negotiate with private parties,” Warren said at one point. “We have been asked for advice,” she said, by DOJ and other federal agencies.

    “When asked for advice we have given our advice,” Warren testified. “And we are proud to be helpful.”

    Meanwhile, it appears negotiations are not going well. Not all the state AGs are on board with the draft settlement. There are disagreements among federal regulators regarding the amount of the penalties, which could range from $20 billion to $30 billion. Most of the penalty money is expected to go toward principal reductions.

    But the nation’s megabanks are pushing back. If the settlement talks break down, they could face the prospect of lawsuits from up to 30 state attorneys general, according to Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. the Senate Banking Committee member warned that mortgage bond holders and even homeowners harmed by foreclosures could pursue additional litigation.

    “The legal process would take several years to determine multiple cases of liabilities and responsibilities,” Sen. Reed said. “That itself would have a significant impact on the market—both the value of these companies and their ability to move forward and more robustly contribute to the recovery.”

    Geithner chimed in that, “All the parties have a stake in bringing this to resolution as quickly as possible.”

    Mortgage servicers may be wary of entering into a global settlement since the agreement may not be binding on the CFPB since it is not open for business quite yet. The agency can issue cease and desist orders for past violations and require restitution and payment for damages along with civil money penalties.

    “The bureau will have broad authority to write servicing rules,” according to Anne Canfield, president of Canfield & Associates. “Servicers may not see any advantage in agreeing to restrictions that could change soon,” the Washington consultant said.

  41. NOW REAL counsels can represent me now…Come on to the Homeowners side…and use whatever u learned in law school

  42. HERE WE GO, PEOPLE!!!

    FINALLY, A LITTLE “TRUTH” COMING OUT OF WISCONSIN.

    WE ARE ALIVE!!!

  43. DEAR LAWYERS, EVEN THE PREDATORY ONES. THERE YOU GO, INSTEAD OF CLEANING OUT YOUR CLIENTS BANK ACCOUNT, LOOK MORE INTO CLEANING OUT THE BANKERS BANK ACCOUNTS.

  44. FINALLY, GREAT AMAZING AND UNDENIABLE TRUE VICTORY.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: