Florida 2d DCA Decision Looks to REALITY not Legal Theory

FL 2nd DCA: Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. – Foreclosure Judgment Reversed Based on Genuine Issue of Material Fact of Wells Fargo’ s Standing

Editor’s Comment:  The Court clearly states that if the bank does not  meet the prerequisites of standing at the commencement of the action, the case must be dismissed. But as stated in the concurring opinion it is doing so while at the same time holding its nose, which means that eventually they are going to NOT rule in favor of the borrower.

The reason is simple, and stated in the concurring opinion — if the real facts are that BNC loaned the homeowner money and the homeowner did not pay BNC, technicalities like standing should be overlooked if it can be cured before judgment. I don’t agree because it opens up a Pandora’s box of moral hazards which the banks have shown quite plainly they will jump at if given the chance. But the fact remains that reasonable people can disagree on this point and the courts are NOT enthusiastic about ruling for borrowers who clearly owe the money to the plaintiff and just got off Scot free or bought another two years without making a single payment.

This sis the moment, that fork in the road I have been harping on fro years. In the end the reality of the transaction is what will govern even if it takes the courts to come around to sound legal theory to back up what they really want to do, which is to rule in favor of an unpaid creditor.

It is for this reason that I say that you must immediately attack and learn the reality of the transactions in order to make the Judge feel OK about ruling for you. The reality of the transaction is MONEY. If you first follow the MONEY trail and the compare it to the documentary trail then your defense sounds very different than the one currently being used out in the trenches. Instead of saying that the bank did not conform with this rule or that rule, you are saying that BNC, in this case never loaned a dime to the homeowner, which on discovery can be shown with very little difficulty.

The second hurdle is to show that the money that ended up on closing table and applied to the “BNC Loan” did not arrive there through any real connection or privity between BNC and the source of funds.

NOW you can say that not only doesn’t the Plaintiff have no technical standing, it has no relationship to the homeowner at all except that it deceived the homeowner into signing papers that referred to a transaction that never occurred. And you can say, Judge, we are not seeking a free ride here, we are seeking reality justice. If you let BNC proceed here or any of its alleged “Successors” you are stripping the collection and lien right of the true lenders as part of the Plaintiffs’ PONZI scheme.

You can say that BNC is interfering with your rights under the various state and federal programs to seek settlement or modification with the actual creditor, who would obviously want to mitigate damages as much as possible and who does not need to mitigate liability more than they need to mitigate damages. (see previous post)

When BNC is unable to show a wire transfer or canceled check for the origination of the loan, when each assignee is unable to show a wire transfer or canceled check for the  “sale” of the loan, the house of cards falls apart. And THAT is why condo and homeowners associations are going to win their priority claims against the alleged 1st and 2nd mortgage holders, and why the cases are going to be dismissed with prejudice or judgment entered for the homeowner — not because the paperwork wasn’t technically correct, but because the loan (unknown to the borrower) never came from the pretender lender and the real lender’s identity was concealed from the borrower. Whether a cause of action exists against the closing agent for applying proceeds received from a stranger to the transaction remains to be seen.

At the end of the day, the court’s are going to find the reality of these transactions and enforce the obvious real terms of real transactions. If you received a loan from BNC, you won’t be able to escape from the liability although you might be able to attack the balance they are claiming and therefore the the note (but those are set off against eh original liability, not negation of the original liability). If you didn’t receive a loan from BNC, then you should be able to get the information on who DID loan you the money because the one thing everyone agrees is that money was put on the closing table at the time of the loan.

Whether the lender is secured is going to get tricky but it looks to me that there is no airtight theory to create an equitable lien without opening up a box of moral hazards that will interrupt commerce in the marketplace. But on the flip side, most of my interviews with homeowners indicates they would be happy to to execute a new, clean mortgage in favor of the real lender for fair market value. So the real lenders clearly have some right of action in unjust enrichment or some common law claim to recover the real money that was really received by the homeowner — and in fairness, most homeowners even under no legal compulsion to do so, are willing to secure that liability by executing a real mortgage lien that creates a perfected encumbrance on the property.

The balance of he money is coming from the banks, which is only right. They sold junk bonds masquerading as triple A insured bonds. And the issuer of the bonds never got the money from the investor. The investors are suing but settling on terms that are absurdly favorable to the banks that defrauded them, which is why there is an Article 77 hearing pending in New York for an $8.5 billion settlement with AIG et al, for claims of more than $100 Billion.

As I have said more than a hundred times on this blog — the investors and the homeowners (i.e., the lenders and the borrowers) need to get together, compare notes and file actions together, taking away the curtain behind which the the banks are dodging bullets and questions about what really happened to the investors’ money and what is really being done to mitigate damages from loans that were not worth the paper they were written on from the very beginning.

39 Responses

  1. UKG, there is always FIRREA. Much longer statute of limitations used during the 1980s for the savings and loan nightmare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Institutions_Reform,_Recovery,_and_Enforcement_Act_of_1989


  2. get to read below and understand how money is prohibited from being created by our US Constitution and we all can get our stolen properties back.


  3. To ALL
    Subject: File No. S7-35-11
    From: marilyn h Lane
    Affiliation: concerned individual
    September 5, 2011
    The abominable banking system that is in place today, gives a bank great incentive to foreclose on an Ultra Vires contract, as the bank demands lawful money returned for the unlawful money lent.
    By what Authority are the Banks doing this? There is no authority for doing this. This is in complete prohibition to Art 1 Para 10 Cl1 of our US Constitution.
    All of our cases with slightly different facts all stem from the same Fraud.
    The Bank did not lend you LAWFUL MONEY but the Bank intentionally wrote
    a bad check and gave it to you –to circulate as money
    I certainly did not know this kind of fraud was going on when I signed my mortgage and note. Did you?
    The Mortgagor puts up a down payment, the Mortgagor pays a lot of fees and probably paid an attorney to represent them, all in order to get this bad check
    Would a Mortgagor have put in all that money, if one knew the truth of how the Banks ran their illegal business. I bet not.
    Did anyone notify you after that big day – the Banks check bounced – of course not. When the check that the Bank wrote came back to the Bank that wrote it, the bank didnt say we only have 5% , if that much and it was not stamped insufficient funds the bank stamped it paid
    So since the Bank did not have the money sitting in the banks account when they wrote the check, what the bank gave you is their credit.
    That is exactly what is prohibited by Art. 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the US Constitution.
    What authority gives the Bank the right to make contracts with bad checks
    Nothing- Nada.
    Lawful money is needed to make a contract valid.
    Over and Over Mortgagors gave a Bank a mortgage on their castle , in return for a Bank giving you a credit entry on their books and charging you Interest on this credit. Also illegal.
    Did the Bank give you lawful money or is that what you got, credit?
    Banks are not allowed to lend their credit- Banks are in the business to lend
    lawful money There is not a Bank charter that allows a Bank to lend their credit.
    And as we continued to make monthly payments the Bank collected more money on their fraud.
    You try writing a check when you dont have funds sitting in your account to cover it.
    You can be sure that check is coming back markedinsufficient funds You are not allowed to do it and either is a Bank.
    This scam of Ultra Vire contracts caused injury to us, the true homeowners.
    In addition the banks are laundering bad checks.
    The Banks violate Truth in Lending Laws.
    The Banks are collecting Interest on money that doesnt exist. (Lending you 5% and collecting Interest on 95% of thin air)
    And once the Bank gets their Ultra Vire contract going, they start flipping them to MERS, Securitizations , Wall Street, Title Companies etc. there is no shortage of people all wanting to get their piece of the illegal profits


  4. To Al- Someone is trying to block my knowledge of the detailed expose of how a banks origination scam goes. A banks origination scam is what started the whole Ponzi scheme of stealing our properties.


  5. What is going on at the Living lies word press page?


  6. @BobHurt – a number of the docs on your website are illegible. Are you doing us a favor? After all, your arguments on Focht just don’t hold water.

    For example you wrote “Only then did Ms. Focht raise a defense of
    standing. At that time and for the last five years, there has been no practical risk that any other entity might claim ownership of or a
    right to enforce the note. Certainly Ms. Focht is not claiming that she is making timely payments to some other putative owner of the note.”

    Whether there is an unidentified beneficiary is outside of the jurisdiction of the court to consider. Whether the Note has been paid by an unidentified third party may be. The question is if the Plaintiff bankster has a right to elect to foreclose on the Subject Property. Before the Note was introduced the case was only one of equity. The Note changed the circumstances from solely contract to contract / title. If assignments were made after the notice of default, then holder in due course is not available to the assignee. But I explained this already, so I don’t expect you will understand it now.

    Despite your website plea to call you for help, I think I’ll pass.


  7. Wall Street Cash Is Still Pushing Ordinary Homebuyers To The Curb

    Posted: 09/26/2013 2:00 pm EDT | Updated: 09/27/2013 3:38 pm EDT

    2013-09-27 — huffingtonpost.com

    “All-cash purchases made up a whopping 45 percent of all residential sales in August, up from 30 percent over the same period last year, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, an online real estate company. Some of these buyers are local flippers, looking to make quick renovations and sell at a markup a few months later. Others are institutional investors backed by Wall Street money, who typically convert homes into rentals.

    The influx of cash buyers in cities across the U.S. poses a steep challenge to ordinary people looking to purchase a home for the old-fashioned purpose of simply living in it. That’s because cash buyers have a huge advantage: They don’t have to go through the lengthy, more uncertain process of seeking mortgage financing.”

    Know who those cash-loaded buyers are? Russians, Chinese, Indonesians and quite a few Arabs. And anyone who invests $500,000 in this country automatically qualifies for permanent resident status. After that, it only takes 5 years to become a citizen with full voting rights…


  8. JPMorgan Audit Director Laban Jackson: ‘We Actually Are Guilty’

    Reuters | By Ross Kerber Posted: 09/27/2013 8:26 am EDT | Updated: 09/27/2013 3:39 pm EDT

    “… Asked what he learned from JPMorgan’s troubles, Jackson said that while few boards or managers could stop malfeasance, JPMorgan made sure its response to problems like the so-called “London whale” trading losses were correct, such as by bringing in law firms to investigate its actions.

    Jackson quoted JPMorgan’s top director, former Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, as saying: “our job is to get the respect back in the market.”

    Jackson received a polite [meaning “pretty icy and distant”, as it should be] reception from attendees at the conference, which included hundreds of officials from state pension funds, endowments and other institutions.

    Several said, however, they wished the directors had taken a harder line. “I think he was very light on the board’s self-evaluation,” said Dieter Waizenegger, executive director of CtW Investment Group, an adviser to union pension funds. CtW previously had opposed Jackson’s re-election to the board.

    Jackson noted that after problems emerged, JPMorgan had clawed back millions of dollars from executives, demoted some and fired others to send a strong message the bank’s rules and culture had to be respected.

    “I don’t know what else we could have done because we’re not allowed to shoot people [Might be where lies the problem… In China, Iran and most Muslim countries, they don’t hesitate to permanently and physically get rid of them…],” Jackson said. “That’s what happened. I’m sorry to all you shareholders.”



  9. KC,

    I’m not angry. Impatient is more like it. Actually, I can see the slow unraveling of the entire banking system. Too slow for my taste but it is unraveling. Along with many other things.


  10. At some point and time all MERS mortgages will have to be litigated, taken to court for a court order to clear the titles and return the household estate back to the REAL Beneficiaries! Everyone … current or not …. will eventually end up in court. No exceptions unless these morons actually pass a bill into law to save us the trouble and expenses for correcting baskerds NON ERRORS.. but their Greed and Willful disrespect for U.S. citizens and the LAW of the LAND!,.. don’t hold your breath thou …. and don’t let it eat you alive, ok Christine?
    Being angry and hateful only gives them more Power and Control over you. Laugh in their Face and Love as if there were no tomorrow.

    Live~Love~Laugh and Learn

    Many Blessing to All! And a Happy Birthday to KC!


  11. You’re welcome, Deb.

    Methinks (you-know-who) doth protest too much…makes one wonder about motivations…


  12. Bob Hurt, nice article. Thanks.
    But I would like to re-iterate that most of the fraud causes of action related to the origination are expired on time.
    I suggest that the foreclosure fraud is actually a cause of action that can be brought, namely abuse of process.


  13. Tactics 101. Questions of law precede questions of equity.So request early discovery, and to produce all documents relating to the sale or purchase of the Subject Loan by any party claiming holder of beneficiary interest at any point in the chain of title. Likely you will have to followup with motion to compel. In MTN Compel, you state that it is directed to question of legal jurisdiction of court to provide equitable relief to a party that does not show damages. Then when you go to Appellate Court, you refer back to your discovery request, and the obstruction of justice by the trial court in denying your MTN to Compel.

    So yes, you have to lay the groundwork of appeal issues in the trial courts as a reality for now, until the judges are comfortable questioning the public trust held by the banksters in the past.

    IANAL – I am not a lawyer, and you would be a damned fool to take this as advice, more of a fool to act on it, and an even greater fool to pay money to an attorney who doesn’t “get it”.


  14. FYI, everybody, in the State of South Carolina there is a lawsuit against Bank of NY Mellon by the pension plan for the judges, clerks of court, etc. for selling them loser mortgage backed securities. The judges are still finding against the homeowner. Not too smart.


  15. It seems to me that the courts/judges are missing the point that their retirement plans are suffering the same fate that all are. The banks committed fraud upon the investors, the homeowners and all the other parties involved. The part the judges don’t get is their retirement accounts were most likely vested in a huge pile of Mortgage Backed Securities and when the market tanked so did the retirement accounts. This is because the banks set up a scenario, get rich quick scheme, that affected the judges too. Wake up. You are a victim too and now you want to reward those same banks by allowing them to foreclose on a property they don’t have a financial loss in and allow them to make a 100% profit. Where is the justice. And what about the constitution and the right of contract for the homeowner. Homeowners have the same constitutional protection as the banks would. If you can’t prove financial harm by producing the paper money trail, then pack up and go home. It is over, no harm, no foul. Show us who paid what and when an to whom, and then the courts just might understand what has happened to us all, including the judges and their retirement accounts.
    For the judges to even think that they can ignore the issue of standing for a bank that continues to violate the Consent Orders for the 50 states attorney’s general lawsuit, is not even going to pass the absurd test. Let’s be honest, judges, and look at the whole picture. The next time a defendant asks for discovery to prove or disprove financial harm, allow it and see where it goes. I think you will be most surprised to finally learn the truth. And one more question, by what authority do BOA, Wells Fargo, CITI, Chase and any other pretender lender just happen to be the banks that are filing foreclosures. Where are their contracts with the investors, the pools, the PSA’s that give them this right to be the foreclosing entity in the majority of foreclosures? Oh, and don’t forget, when the attorney defending the homeowner ask in discover for the payouts from the various insurance policies covering this alleged mortgage, give it to them. Another truth just might open your eyes as to who had no financial harm.


  16. Chrustine
    Appreciate what you write about.but i do not always have time to research everything wish i did because what we dont know the oppositiin will use. I try to hold on to a little bit of so called balance in my life and encourage others to because tbis chit will consume you whole if you allow it to.(stripes)
    Im doing alright acthally but i still have a long wAy to go. Not funny but ill take a step at a time.


  17. Deb,

    I wasn’t throwing in anything other than a puzzled comment.

    Believe me, I respect everyone who still fights after so many years. May not like them as people but i sure as heck respect them for what they accomplished or tried damn hard to accomplish with the tool they had at their disposal at the time. Won’t go for personal attacks, though. Never been my style (people who take everything personally have a serious problem. If the shoe fits…)

    Where I’m having a serious issue is why anyone would ask second-hand advice from anyone who did not try and simply folded, period. Wouldn’t you be better served by asking your question directly to Anon and getting her direct answer? Why should you need to go through some go-between who hasn’t experimented with any of it? As far as I can tell, time is of the essence for everyone in the crux of the fight. Time means jack for long-time folding chairs…

    Let me ask you this: assume someone on this site had won on appeal and announced it here. Would you go to him/her directly or would you defer to LL to ask your questions on your behalf? Anon is fighting (present tense). Anon had theories she presented to court and did great with, ok with, so-so with and lousy with. Anon knows which ones worked for her and which ones didn’t and every day is a learning curve for her and for everyone of us fighters. Why go through someone who has no present tense experience left because he/she folded years ago? How can a past loss help with a today’s potential win when there is no rational, no analysis, no… nothing to back it up except emotion?

    Courts don’t deal with emotions. They deal with facts and the ability to present them. Do you need emotional go-betweens?

    Deb, you know me. I won’t sugarcoat it and you know how insecurities irk me. You deserve better than second-hand. Send me an e-mail. Ask your exact question. I’ll forward it. You’ll have your direct answer. Remember a few months ago, when Bob G. asked for Anon’s e-mail? I sent Anon his request, they got in touch and they’ve been corresponding back and forth. S-I-M-P-L-E.

    Get out of the go-between mentality. It’s pure, 320 people v. 7 billion people insane paranoia. We’re past that.


  18. Christine
    im not going to spill my guts on here , seriously. I try to help but the opposition are watching, question is how long can I do this, – ill die trying.


  19. did they not nail Al Capone for tax evasion?? anyone ?like Neil said, “whats good for the goose is good for the Gander.”


  20. and…ask where the heck is your 1099C. I did, no reply thus far, ill get on that IRS fraud agent ASAP too. thank you.


  21. @ Deb: when you refer to Anonymous, keep in mind that she has been putting 9 years of her life into the fight, it goes far deeper than simple foreclosure, it started with something altogether different and she is nowhere close to home free. An uphill battle thus far and a long, windy and tortuous road still ahead of her.

    Shouldn’t you get your info from the horse’s mouth rather than a go-between who never attempted to fight and folded as soon as the going got tough?

    Another puzzling one I can’t seem to figure out. Fighters relying on folders to win their fight…


  22. sorry I wrote “being the atty for One West,” wrong, I meant the “trustee” foreclosure Mill Atty. same thing, Collusion.




  24. ok Carie – thanks for posting, ill digest it in a min,
    thing is the firm representing “HSBC” and “trustee” for HSBC ARE THEY AUTHORiZED. only the beneficiary (who is at time of the action? ) can sub a trustee, being the atty for one west- look at your players look at your recorded deeds.look at anything that they filed in court, look and you will find. bear in mind SIX (6) years to file suit under FOIA. no SOL re FRAUD- or until fraud is discovered- key DISCOVERY- our stumbling block I agree on that one.


  25. It may very well be that I shall go to my grave pondering the same question over and over: how can reasonable human beings, who work hard for their money and barely survive still choose to funnel it to government agencies, knowing full well that it is used to make it even more difficult for them to enjoy their lives? How can the same reasonable people willingly pay for the same torture twice: as fees to their internet and phone providers and as taxes to the IRS they have no way of tracing back and have been, for decades, used to make their lives even more unbearable?

    Forbes has never been accused of being anything but rigidly conservative. When Forbes starts denouncing outrage, people ought to start thinking…


    ATT, Verizon, Sprint Are Paid Cash By NSA For Your Private Communications

    Robert Lenzner, Forbes Staff

    The National Security Agency pays AT&T T -0.73%, Verizon and Sprint several hundred million dollars a year for access to 81% of all international phone calls into the US, according to a leaked inspector general’s report, which has been reported by the Washington Post, AP, and the New York Review of Books. In fact., this secret report says that “NSA maintains relationships with over 100 U.S. companies, underscoring that the U/S. has the “home-field advantage as the primary hub for worldwide communications,” the New York Review of Books reported in its August 15 issue. These secret cooperative agreements reveal that NSA pays surveillance fees to telcos and phone companies were first made public by Edward Snowden, the former NSA administrator, now resident in Russia.

    AT&T charges $325 for each activation fee and $10 a day to monitor the account, according to the AP. Verizon charges $775 per tapping for the first month and then $500 a month thereafter, according to the Associated Press today. The article reported that Microsoft MSFT +1.49%, Yahoo YHOO +2.38% and Google refused to say how much they charged to allow the government to tap into emails and other non-telephonic communications.

    In a separate report the Washington Post reported that NSA pays the telcos roughly $300 million annually for access to information on their communications; where and when they occurred, the identity of the person called and how long the conversation lasted. This surveillance is accomplished by tapping into “high volume circuits and packet-switched networks.” The ability to obtain this information was authorized by the US Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, passed in 1994 by the Clinton administration.

    While $300 million for giant telephone companies is only a slight fraction of their overall revenues, it is quite a shocking revelation to think that the telcos consumers pay every month to hook them up with the world are also being paid by the U.S. government to maintain watch over our daily communication whether over wired instruments or unwired communications equipment like I pads and cell phones. Snowden recently released information by means of a slide which revealed that the government ” was able to access real-time-data on the live voice, text, e-mail, or internet chat services, in addition to analyzing stored data.” (like your Facebook account)


  26. and carie- look at the “manner” in which they foreclosed. im not sure of your scenario but im 100% sure of mine- and my 1099A may be moot in some respects but not in others – and that’s all I have to say about that forest,


  27. @Deb Wynn

    FYI—below is from my friend re. your link about Deutsche—and also her response regarding that servicer letter I got:

    “…As to the attachment, now trustee is going after originator!!! Amazing. But, about time — trustees do not have a clue as what is going in foreclosures. They are not the creditor, nor the investor, and the not the note holder — they do not even know foreclosure is occurring.

    As to (servicer letter), One West is wrong. They were obligated to provide the creditor under the TILA 1641 g. Creditors do not include servicers, and trustees. According to the law, any investor with the largest position in your loan, has to identify itself to you — and, I would assume to the IRS. …you may be over the statute of limitations for the TILA 1641 g law. But, the IRS is not. You have to file a complaint with the IRS — as a whistle blower, and with the SEC, as a whistle blower, that the trust claimed, and by IRS 1099 as to “servicer”, is invalid and fraudulent. You have to file complaint that the stated trust, to which One West claims to be servicer, never received the PAYOFF by the foreclosure. Thus, this is not only tax evasion, but also securities fraud. You need to get whistle blower forms in. And, inform One West that this is what you are doing. Unless it can be shown the specific trust that claims to have your loan, for which One West, servicer, and trustee, acts on behalf, actually received the foreclosure payoff — we have IRS and Securities fraud…”


  28. you know Christine and all who try..
    there is a general malaise around where its always someone elses problem, to solve, and the old accountability thing 101,
    did our forefather’s fight in vain for our human and civil rights or are we going back to the dark ages. I have said this a million time ” im still in shock” no heads have rolled.


  29. Ahhhh! The old, true and tried “standing” issue… Litigation 101

    What Discovery?

    Put on Notice … QWRs sent. No Response, Not Standing.
    Just wasted air?

    Pay those Taxes and Insurance Creditors!

    Many Blessings to All!


  30. Another incredibly sobering piece by Taibbi. The thing is… everyone knows about it. Many have written about it. It hasn’t been a hidden secret for quite some time now and yet… there’s no change. As though spelling out the outrageous abuses was completely meaningless because it has not become so ingrained in this culture that no one wants to tackle down the problem since it has become the foundation of this country’s economy.

    Looting the Pension Funds
    All across America, Wall Street is grabbing money meant for public workers

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926#ixzz2g7UprUW0
    Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


  31. The banks/servicers are still going to try and avoid discovery just like they have been doing all along. Judges are still not supporting the law as they should.


  32. It would be good to know if whether the 98.9% of problem loans are just “technicalities” . If there is predatory lending,fraud on part of original lender how are we supposed to team up with them? In the end the emphasis on securitization ignores the rights issues and even racist policies.


  33. Most 1099A mean absolutely nothing for the homeowner foreclosed upon. If the 1099A concerns a principal place of residence (versus investment property), more often than not, it does not trigger reporting to the IRS and/or payment of any penalty. People ought to read the IRS code before jumping the gun.


  34. “…the curtain behind which the the banks are dodging bullets and questions about what really happened to the investors’ money and what is really being done to mitigate damages from loans that were not worth the paper they were written on from the very beginning…”

    Speaking of the “curtain”—here’s another example of a BS response from OneWest re. my inquiry of the 1099A form, IFR, and the repeated non-disclosure of a “real” creditor:

    dated 09/27/2013


    We have confirmed that the 1099 form was correctly prepared. That field is populated by OneWest Bank as the servicer of your loan. I understand that the form states “Lender” but we have verified that it is accurate in the manner in which it was provided.

    As for the creditor, I am unable to elaborate on the investors of the MBS. An MBS can be owned by many people, both public and private, the names of which are not available. For the purposes of identifying the creditor, your loan’s inclusion in the MBS, along with the Trustee and Servicer information that has been previously provided, sufficiently identifies the responsible parties in accordance with applicable servicing standards.

    Regarding the Independent Foreclosure Review, the results of our review have not yet been released. The third party auditors and responsible regulatory agency continues to finalize the results of the review and will make the information available to the public upon completion. Once completed, eligible parties will be notified of any potential remediation. Since the process is being conducted by third parties, I am unable to provide the individual results until made available for release. We are approaching the end of the process and hope that this will be resolved in the very near future, however, I am unable to confirm when that might be as the decision will not to be made by OneWest Bank directly.

    I apologize that I am unable to provide any additional information related to these requests. Please let me know if there is any other matters of concern that I might assist with at this time.


    Michael T. Albers

    Default Escalations, AVP

    IndyMac Mortgage Services

    Office: 1.512.918.7598

    Fax: 1.866.591.5546


  35. Absolutely none of the foreclosure documents submitted by the banks claim financial harm. That should tell us something. But for the judge in this case to assert the “reality” vs. the law is absurd. These homeowners have been paying and they are not getting a house for free. In this case, the original note goes back to 2002, so how can anyone say that she is getting the house for free. She is the victim of a ponzi scheme on steriods, the banks have been paid 3 times over and now they want 100% profit and sometimes 120% in the case of FHA loans. This does not even come close to “reality” Judge Williams. It seems he is crying in his soup because he has to do what is right and legal. Sorry about that, but that is the law.


  36. Ahhhh! The old, true and tried “standing” issue… Litigation 101.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: