$5.4 Million!: Jury Finds Wells Fargo Committed Fraud When It Used Robo-Signed Document

Congratulations to the experts and attorneys on this. As Marie McDonnell states in the article reproduced below this case is important because it is the first time that Robo-signing has resulted in an award of damages for fraud. I would add that the lawyers must have done a fine job at trial — because ordinarily we don’t see jury instructions that would support punitive damages for robo-signing. The pages are turning on a new chapter.

As for the rest, I’ll let Marie speak for herself ———-

H/T Marie McDonnell

Below, I have attached the jury award from the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial. The jury concluded its deliberations on Tuesday afternoon, November 10th.
It is my belief that this is the first jury verdict of its kind where the jury was asked to determine whether a robo-signed Transfer of Lien (assignment of mortgage) was fraudulent, and on that basis, award damages.
The jury awarded the Wolfs $190,000 in actual and emotional distress damages; $190,000 in attorneys’ fees — which is sufficient to take them through an appeal all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court; and $5 million in punitive damages to be paid equally by Wells Fargo and Carrington.
Plaintiffs David and Mary Ellen Wolf testified on their own behalf, and I testified as their expert.
I explained to the jury the sequence of “true sales” that were necessary to properly securitize the Wolfs’ mortgage loan using my “Securitization Flow Chart” which I have attached below.
Once the jury understood the requirements of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, they were able to see why the Transfer of Lien executed by Tom Croft was fraudulent on the face of the document.
The Defendants called robo-signer Tom Croft and Clayton Gordon as witnesses, both of whom are employed by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC.
The jury also found that even though Wells Fargo Bank was in physical possession of the original note, it did not own the mortgage loan because it was never securitized into the Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC3 over which Wells Fargo serves as Trustee.
The jury verdict, and especially their finding that the Transfer of Lien was fraudulent, supports my findings in all of the registry of deeds audits I have conducted for:
  • John L. O’Brien, Register of Deeds, Essex Southern District, MA
  • Nancy J. Becker, Recorder of Deeds, Montgomery County, PA
  • Seattle City Council, Seattle, WA
  • In re: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Litigation, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, AZ
The jury verdict in the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial is epic. Among other things, it demonstrates that when given all the facts, average people can distinguish the difference between “deadbeat borrowers” and a family who fell upon hard times and always tried to do the right thing.
This case should send a message of hope for others; it also provides a road map for cutting through the complexities of modern finance to arrive at a just result.

57 Responses

  1. Who was the attorney for the wolf

  2. My latest research indicated that the AFTER the Jury trial, Wells Fargo asked the judge to reverse the decision WITHOUT filing an appeal. The arrogance of these A-holes is beyond my comprehension. And while I could not find the filing, I spoke briefly with another Attorney who stated that the Judge ordered the plaintiffs to mediate with Wells Fargo AFTER the jury ruled in their favor. They also asked for a reduction of the award. And lastly, the Class Action against Wells Fargo that was certified in May of 2013 listing the Wolf’s as the primary members was De-Certified since that time, according to the attorney I spoke with.

    Sadly, I cannot find ANYTHING on the Wolf case after the Jury reached a unanimous agreement and determined their award.

    Does anyone on here have access to the Wolf vs. Wells Fargo case AFTER the juries ruling?

    I would like to review the Judges order for mediation as well as Wells Fargo request for a reduction and permission to resume foreclosure on the Wolf’s property AND the De-Certification order for the Class Action Settlement.

    Thank you to anyone that can help!!

  3. In my case Neil, I had John O’Brien certify my assignment was robo-signed with 4 different cases of assignments, company representation (few) and signatures all differed.

    Prose’ we will never win.

    On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Livinglies’s Weblog wrote:

    > Neil Garfield posted: “Congratulations to the experts and attorneys on > this. As Marie McDonnell states in the article reproduced below this case > is important because it is the first time that Robo-signing has resulted in > an award of damages for fraud. I would add that the lawye” >

  4. here’s my story
    Illinois/Cook County
    5815 – rough timeline

    1999 Original Lender (purchase)
    2004 Garfield Mortgage – Broker Refi
    2004 New Century Mortgage (BK) Originator on Refi
    2004 WILD Recording of Assignment on County Record (not attached to the property number) defective – shows NO MORTGAGEE, no legal property description or other essential info
    2006 assignment to Trust (2004-HE8) not executed till 2 years after trust closed
    2007 complained to OCWEN – servicer – regarding New Century Mortgage BK – was told to do a Loan Mod to “fix it”
    2007 1st Notice of Rescission – plain mail to New Century Mortgage (going through BK) – (IGNORED)
    2008 attempted loan mod – not recorded or countersigned
    2008 Original Lender did not issue satisfaction or release mortgage or lien until 2008 – 4 years after Refi
    2009 hired CPA to examine – discovered fraud – ceased payments
    2009 US Bank – Trustee (foreclosing party)
    2010 fired all Trustees for fraud and appointed CPA as Trustee
    2010 made QWRs and demands to US Bank et. al. through their attorneys Fisher-Shapiro -IGNORED
    2010 issued 2nd Notice of Rescission – this time through CPA as Trustee and Certified Mail w/Receipt -IGNORED
    2010-2011 recorded rescission & other docs in the county land records and in the court file as notices to the court – not motions
    2013 OCWEN hired property protection company – burglarized house prior to foreclosure judgment – police report – DNA evidence
    2013 default foreclosure – we are past foreclosure
    2014 because it seemed that US Bank would not relent and pursued foreclosure even after rescission, provided offer of tender/tender to court clerk for all related claims – IGNORED
    2014 Corrective Assignment of Mortgage recorded (for the first time all the info presented- After Foreclosure judgment – after New Century Mortgage was liquidated and no longer existed – in federal receivership – as such, it had no standing to assign or correct anything, and any POA for a dead entity would be void – unless executed by the receiver/new owner)
    2014 US Bank sale (to itself)
    2015 Police identified one of the 2013 burglars from DNA – felon – arrested – admitted being there – released (drug addict)
    2015 found financial proof that OCWEN paid “someone” to come to my house in 2013 and burgle it before foreclosure judgment
    2015 multiple additional liens in addition and clouded title
    2015 still in home
    never received proper service (sewer service, perjurous service, and publication service)
    never argued the merits of the case – only standing and proof of the bona fide’ of the debt and right to foreclose
    the tender i submitted to the clerk of court to settle all claims has disappeared

  5. christine

    then just publish your procedural outline here on the blog and call it a day…

  6. @Melissa,

    “The only thing that bothers me is, you always speak about how to win, but never offer up the path. You do not need to hold anyone’s hand, but give a court case ( yours), the direction to beat the bastards that have taken everything away from people.”

    I did. Several times. And as far as giving directions, I spent 5 years also doing so. I’m not going down that road again: better things to do with my life than try and teach unteachable people with an attitude.

  7. 427. Countrywide/BAC similarly breached servicing standards and mortgage contracts when servicing loans for borrowers who sought to save their homes through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. According to the FTC, Countrywide/BAC made various representations to those borrowers about their mortgage loans that were false or lacked a reasonable basis, and failed to disclose to borrowers during their bankruptcy case when fees and escrow shortages and deficiencies accrued on their loan. After the bankruptcy cases have closed and borrowers no longer have the protection of the bankruptcy court, Countrywide/BAC collected those amounts, including through foreclosure actions.

  8. 426. According to the FTC, when borrowers fell behind on their payments, Countrywide/BAC imposed a number of default-related services (such as property inspections and foreclosure trustee services) “by funneling the work through panoply of Countrywide subsidiaries.” In its mortgage servicing operation, Countrywide/BAC follows a so-called “vertical integration strategy” to generate default-related fee income. Rather than obtain default-related services directly from third-party vendors and charge borrowers for the actual cost of these services, Countrywide/BAC formed subsidiaries to act as middlemen in the default services process. These subsidiaries exist solely to generate revenues for Countrywide/BAC and do not operate at arms’-length with Countrywide/BAC. Countrywide/BAC and their subsidiaries – “[a]s a matter of practice” – added a substantial mark-up to their actual costs for the services and then charged the borrowers the marked-up fees. The inflated fees were both contrary to prudent servicing standards and violated the mortgage contracts, which limit fees chargeable to the borrower to actual costs of the services and as are reasonable and appropriate to protect the noteholder’s interest in the property and rights under the security instrument.

  9. 425. Highly publicized government enforcement actions and settlements reached with the servicers demonstrate that the servicers have systemically and pervasively violated these prudent servicing obligations. For example, on June 7, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a civil enforcement action against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (f/d/b/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America, National Association, (collectively, “Countrywide/BAC”) for their “unlawful acts and practices in servicing mortgage loans.” See Federal Trade Commission v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, No. CV-10-4193 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2010). In March 2008, prior to being acquired by Bank of America Corporation, Countrywide was ranked as the top mortgage servicer in the United States and had a servicing portfolio with a balance of over $1.4 trillion. In September 2009, after its acquisition of Countrywide, Bank of America was ranked as the nation’s top mortgage servicer with a servicing portfolio of over $2.1 trillion. As noted above, Countrywide/BAC are servicers for many of the Trusts. The FTC emphasized that many of the loans improperly serviced by Countrywide/BAC are the same “risky, high-cost loans that had been originated or funded by Defendants’ parent company, Countrywide Financial Corporation [], and its subsidiaries [].”

  10. @ david belanger

    B. The Servicers Have Violated Their Prudent Servicing Obligations
    424. The PSAs require that the servicer service and administer the mortgage loans for and on behalf of the Certificateholders, and, consistent with the terms of the PSAs (i) in the same manner in which it services and administers similar mortgage loans for its own portfolio or for other third parties, giving due consideration to customary and usual standards of practice of prudent institutional mortgage lenders servicing similar loans; (ii) with a view to maximizing the recoveries with respect to such mortgage loans on a net present value basis; and (iii) without regard to, among other things, the right of the servicer to receive compensation or other fees for its services under the PSA, the obligation of the servicer to make servicing advances under the PSA, and the servicer’s ownership, servicing or management for others of any other mortgage loans.

  11. @ david belanger

    421. Further, as noted above, the servicers have regularly modified mortgage loans held by the Trusts. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in the process of modifying these mortgage loans, the servicers have discovered that specific loans breached applicable seller representations and warranties because the loan modification process involves scrutinizing the underlying origination and mortgage loan files, and any supplemental information provided by the borrower to assess the borrower’s ability to pay. Thus, in the process of performing loan modifications, the servicers had to have discovered breaches of representations and warranties regarding the characteristics of the loan, the creditworthiness of the borrower, the adequacy of the collateral and the title status of the mortgages. Nevertheless, the servicers systemically failed to notify the other parties of these breaches.

  12. @ david belanger

    420. Additionally, for the benefit of the Trusts, and pursuant to the PSAs, the sponsors acquired primary mortgage guaranty insurance (“PMI”) policies for loans that had a LTV ratio in excess 80%, which served as “credit enhancements” in order to offer additional security to Certificateholders in the Trusts and to induce rating services to provide a higher credit rating for the certificates, thereby making the certificates more attractive to potential purchasers. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, servicers have tendered claims to mortgage insurers under the PMI policies on the Trusts’ behalf on defaulted loans. The mortgage insurers have denied coverage, canceled or rescinded the mortgage insurance policies, or invoked policy exclusions for a high percentage of claims as a result of misrepresentations regarding the insured mortgage loans, including on the basis that the originator engaged in predatory lending or systemic fraud in the underwriting of the mortgage loans. After these mortgage insurance claim denials, the servicers failed to observe or perform in a material respect the covenants and/or agreements on their part contained in the PSAs by failing to notify parties to the PSAs that the mortgage loan sellers violated the required representations and warranties at the time they sold loans to the Trusts, although such violations were discovered through the claim tendering process. Moreover, the servicers failed to tender the defective, defaulted loans to the sellers for repurchase. Instead, the servicers charged the over-collateralized accounts for losses, causing damage to the Trusts and their Certificateholders.

  13. @ david belanger

    417. Much like other private-label RMBS trusts of the same vintage, each of the Trusts suffer from ongoing Events of Default caused by the servicers’ failure to observe and perform, in material respects, the covenants and agreements imposed on them by the PSAs. The servicers’ breach of their covenants is confirmed through several federal and state government investigations and published reports, well publicized news reports, and public and private enforcement actions that have described RMBS servicers’ systemic and pervasive deviation from usual, customary and lawful servicing practices in their administration of the mortgages and, more specifically, illegal and illicit servicing activities by the same servicers who service the loans held by the Trusts.

  14. @ david belanger

    X. THE TRUSTS ALSO SUFFERED FROM PERVASIVE SERVICER VIOLATIONS
    416. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the mortgage loan servicing industry has received increased scholarly, popular, regulatory and political attention as a result of rampant servicing abuses in connection with the administration of and foreclosing on mortgage loans backing private-label RMBS.

  15. @ Melissa

    Will you please elaborate on the historical background and facts as to your own story of success?

  16. Christine,

    I think your comment in reply to mine was the first time I have read something of value from you.

    Neil is not the saving grace, but he does offer a lot of information that should always be researched, no matter if a person is pro se or has a attorney.

    The only thing that bothers me is, you always speak about how to win, but never offer up the path. You do not need to hold anyone’s hand, but give a court case ( yours), the direction to beat the bastards that have taken everything away from people.

    I am one of the lucky ones, I am still in my home. I did not pay a lawyer thousands of dollars, like some did. I have read the stories how people have lost everything and are trying to start over, at ages 40, 50, 60 and older. That sucks. It is bad enough for the banks to lie and steal a home they don’t give 2 shits about, then the lawyers finish off what’s left of any money the homeowner had.

    This site is here to help, not name calling and negative remarks. People get that in the world everyday. If I had listened to people when I tried to tell them what goes on in the banking, mortgage, and investing world I also would have been out of my home. Many of the non believers are friends and family. People don’t want to know the truth, people believe that you don’t pay your mortgage you should lose your home period! Why, because they have to pay theirs .Period.

    So all I am saying is try helping, I believe that’s what Neil is doing. If he makes money along the way that’s his business. It is up to the people to do their own research on any legal theory or law.

  17. Bob G.,
    First of all I am no TWIT! I don’t believe in name calling, telling people they are going to lose, etc. I can tell them what works and try to show them the truth, but in the end people have to make up their own minds.

    You only show up around here when you have something negative to sound off about. You don’t help anyone, but your own ego.

  18. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 37

    On page 8 of the Memo, the OIG states its conclusion of the investigation into Wells Fargo’s foreclosure process as follows:

    Wells Fargo did not establish an effective control environment to ensure the integrity of its foreclosure process. Because it failed ot establish proper policies and procedures to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, its affiants robosigned foreclosure documents, and its notaries failed to authenticate signatures. As a result of its flawed control environment, Wells Fargo engaged in improper practices by not fully complying with applicable foreclosure procedures when processing foreclosures on FHA-insured loans. This flawed control environment resulted in Wells Fargo’s filing improper legal documents, thereby misrepresenting its claims to HUD.

    During the period October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2010, Wells Fargo submitted 14,420 conveyance claims for payment in the 23 States and jurisdictions totaling about $1.7 Billion. DOJ used our review and analysis in negotiating the settlement agreement.

  19. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    C. U.S. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL’S MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW: WELLS FARGO BANK FORECLOSURE AND CLAIMS PROCESS

    Paragraph 36

    On or about March 12, 2012, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) released Memorandum No. 2012-AT-1801 entitled “Wells Fargo Bank Foreclosure and Claims Process Review.” On page 4 of the Memo, the OIG listed the results of its review as follows:

    Wells Fargo did not establish effective control over its foreclosure process. This failure permitted a control environment in which:

    — The affiants routinely signed and certified that they had personal knowledge of the contents of documents, including affidavits, without the benefit of supporting documentation and without reviewing the source documents referred to in the affidavits and verifying the accuracy of the foreclosure information stated in the affidavits. A number of affidavits signers admitted having signed up to 600 documents per day.

    — A number of employees engaged as robosigners had little or no education beyond high school and little or no experience in banking or real estate.

    — Work histories (when available) showed a lack of qualifications to hold the titles held by affiants; for example, vice president of loan documentation. Moreover, interviews disclosed that the titles were given for the sole purpose of allowing the individual to sign documents and came with no other duties or authority. Employees who notarized documents, including affidavits, routinely did not witness the signature of the documents and notarized up to 1,000 documents per day.

  20. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 35

    When a servicer files an affidavit that claims to be based on personal knowledge, but is not in fact based on personal knowledge, the servicer is committing a fraud on the court, and quite possible perjury. The existence of foreclosures based on fraudulent pleadings raises the question of the validity of foreclosure judgments and therefore title on properties, particularly if they are still in real estate owned (REO).

  21. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 34

    The problem with affidavits filed in many foreclosure cases is that the affiant lacks any personal knowledge of the facts alleged whatsoever. May servicers, including Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and GMAC, employ professional affiants, some of whom appear to have no other duties than to sign affidavits. These employees cannot possible have personal knowledge of the facts in their affidavits.

  22. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 31

    This is a pattern and practice of Wells Fargo common and uniform across the State of Texas.

  23. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 30

    In each affidavit, “Tom Croft” swears he has personal knowledge about specific facts relating to each foreclosure, is the attorney-in-fact for the applicant, is the vice president for several different entities, is the business records custodian for several different entities, personally reviewed all foreclosure documents relating to each foreclosure action, and swears the applicant is the owner and holder of the note and security instrument and is in possession of both.

  24. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 29

    There are twenty-four separate Harris County District Courts. During the past three years, the sworn affidavit of “Tom Croft” has been filed in all twenty-four Harris County District Courts in support of numerous foreclosure action by Wells Fargo:

    a.
    b.
    c.
    d.
    e.
    f.
    g.
    h.
    i.
    j.
    k.
    l.
    m.
    n.
    o.
    p.
    q.
    r.
    s.
    t.
    u.
    v.
    w.

  25. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 27

    In support of its application for expedited foreclosure on February 11, 2011, Wells Fargo attached an affidavit of “Tom Croft.” This time, “Tom Croft” signed the sworn affidavit as “attorney-in-fact” for Wells Fargo, and “custodian of records” for Wells Fargo, and vice-president of REO for Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC.

  26. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 23

    Wells Fargo cannot prove a legal and valid chain of title, or the required series of transfers of the notes and the mortgages of Plaintiffs, from the originator (New Century Mortgage Corporation), to the sponsor (Carrington Securities, LP), to the depositor (Stanwich Asset Acceptance Company, LLC), to the 2006-NC3 Trust. Defendants are fully aware of the broken chain of title, and attempt to fraudulently transfer the notes and mortgages through the invalid “Transfers of Lien” and “Assignments” in an effort to legitimize and fix the broken chain of title.

  27. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 22

    The mortgage loans, mortgage liens, mortgage notes, or deeds of trust of Plaintiffs were not properly transferred into the 2006-NC3 Trust, a valid chain of title does not exist, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee of the 2006-NC3 Trust is not the mortgagee.

  28. From the drive.google.com link, below, the document is entitled:

    63_Wolf v. WELLS_Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition

    Paragraph 21

    The mortgage loans, mortgage liens, mortgage notes, or deeds of trust of Plaintiffs were pooled and securitized into the 2006-NC3 Trust, along with thousands of other mortgage loans and notes, However, the notes and mortgages of Plaintiffs were not properly transferred into the 2006-NC3 Trust. This is a critical issue because:

    a. the 2006-NC3 Trust has standing to foreclose if, and only if it is the mortgagee; and

    b. the 2006-NC3 Trust is the mortgagee of Plaintiffs if, and only if, a legal and valid chain of title is present from the originator (New Century Mortgage Corporation), to the sponsor (Carrington Securities, LP), to the depositor (Stanwich Asset Acceptance Company, LLC), into the 2006-NC3 Trust.

  29. Kalifornia, on November 19, 2015 at 12:51 pm said:

    Questions to be studied:

    (1) How was the build up of Wolf’s case accomplished?

    (2) What did Goliath strike at Wolf with?

    (3) Wolf defeated Goliath with the support of whom and in what way?

    (4) Why was the jury persuaded to tip the scales of justice on Wolf’s behalf so strongly as to award $5.3 MILLION?

    The answers are contained in the previous link.

    Go to the Harris County Court Website (attribution) and review the register of action/docket (hint: images).

    An answer/roadmap is there for all the world to study.

  30. Kalifornia, on November 19, 2015 at 12:48 pm said:

    greg, on November 19, 2015 at 1:27 am said:

    kali & all

    as promised…
    here is the complete wolf v wells fargo as collected by kali – but in ONE complete zip file…(saves you 1-1/2 hours downloading 64 discrete pdf files)

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4032131/WOLF.zip

    greg

  31. Kalifornia, on November 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm said:

    New Link for Wolf v. WELLS FARGO. Other than the Third Amended Petition, the balance should be in the general chronological and procedural order.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxiFFqZR7JZ7eWZWWk5BN0cyY0U&usp=sharing

  32. Bob G…

    you have shared a bunch of helpful information… however…
    sometimes your “wet-blanket” approach is a bit self-serving and annoying

    from time to time, at least acknowledge and celebrate a victory for a troubled family… it is about the spirit of the fight as much as the letter of the writings…

    it would go far to increase your welcomeness here
    greg

  33. @James: ” I’m owed $5.5 million !!! But strange I can’t seem to find an attorney in NJ who want to make money on robosign and backdated assignment of mortgage paperwork. I did all the work. It’s all here. In black and white. Documented. Argued pro se.”

    Yeah James – same here in Baltimore – argued all the way up to our Supreme Court (called the Court of Special Appeals here). I had everything laid out from the very beginning, forged documents, fabricated liens and allonges out of thin air, robo signed every which way,a certified forensic loan audit, sworn affidavit from the same audit people here in Maryland, the foreclosure mill (Shapiro & Burson) that was fired by Freddie and Fannie in Maryland in 2010 because their paperwork was so shoddy – I had it ALL laid out in spades. NOT ONE FUCKING bit of it made a fucking difference to a single judge in Baltimore. My third and final attorney was competent but also didn’t know the damage that the attorney before him did until it was too late.

    That would be the incompetent lazy prick of an attorney named Cos who signed my rights away in BK court – in 2012. We had successfully fought off BONY and Shapiro & Burson since 2009-10 until he admitted that they BONY were owed (they were not) – without our consent. We lost everything because of him. We took him to the State Bar – it didn’t matter – they sided with him. Why? Because we were ‘behind’ or ‘in arears’ as like to say. Why were we behind – the uninformed reader here might ask? Because we couldn’t get ANYONE to take our payments! Regular readers here will know what I am talking about.

    All of our money including 401k went into clawing our property back. We lost it all anyway. The only bidder Greg Dorn saw our unique property and house from his boat and wanted it for his own – apparently he was tipped off (most likely by Shapiro & Burson employee) early that we were in distress (we admitted this from the get go) and he moved in for the kill. It took him five years but he got what he came for. At the age of 60 we have had to start all over again with a stripped 401k and that asshole living in our house on my ancestral waterfront property. Ask me how I sleep at night. I don’t. I can’t help but wonder how Greg Dorn and William Savage (Shapiro & Burson/Brown) sleep at night. I will never be whole again.

  34. Melissa, on November 23, 2015 at 3:56 pm said:

    Bob G. & Christine,
    You are horrible people!!! Isn’t there enough problems in the world for you 2 to go and deal with that you have to spend time here!!!
    Hit the road and don’t come back!

    Bob is right. We simply can’t. See… we have that utopian idea that, after making/spending so much money, Garfield and/or his cult followers will come up with ONE winning case based on his theories and his securitization reports. Because neither Bob nor I follow his lead and pay him one cent and yet… WE ARE WINNING and collecting money while living in houses we pay no mortgage for.

    We owe it to ourselves to see how long it will take for people to finally … wake up and get it! There is the right way and the wrong way to fight. We are not “horrible” people. We believe in people and it hurts us to see how far ahead they will kick rationality in exchange for a dream (an expensive one, at that) that never realizes, while becoming bitter, disillusioned, disabused and overall pretty unpleasant.

    That case will definitely BE appealed. Not a threat. Just a promise, if I still understand the legal system. And if, by any chance that case weren’t appealed, I can promise you that banks are in a much, much dire shape than anyone wants to know and that judgment will NEVER be collected in any kind of sound money.

    Foreclosure then will be the least of your problems…

  35. @Bob G. can you just go away? Read up and do you homework. Just about anything here can be fact checked- try that. Otherwise to away. You are wasting almost as much time and space as ivent.

  36. melissa

    No, i’m afraid that Christine and I can’t do that. We need to stick around here and bug the hell out of twits like you.

  37. Maybe Neil Garfield can do a breakdown of how the law was applied in this particular case to determine that the assignment of mortgage is void, fraudulent, etc.

    And why in all of the other 99.999% of cases with similar assignments the courts prevent the borrowers from asserting affirmative defenses against the same fraudulent, void assignments …

    The courts have stated that we are not a party to the assignments and therefore have no standing to point out the fraud of those assignments.

    Can someone please explain how this case was any different …

    It seems to have all boiled down to the fake assignment … I raised this in my case and showed proof of known robo-signers used, and showed the notary was a blatant forgery when compared to the true notary signature …and my judge dismisses my argument with Prejudice and tells me that I have no standing to contest an assignment between two other party’s ?? And people like Shadowcat are trying to tell us that it’s not the judges who are the problem???

    Our court system is a friggin joke … It took a jury of citizens to finally tell the truth …citizens sitting in a jury box …not the Judge sitting up high on his bench who spends his days denying due process and justice to the victims of this crime.

    So how do we get to argue our fake assignment of mortgage docs?

  38. The Justice Dept knew this was occurring but hoped it would go away, however now that Lynch is in charged she got to correct the MERS & Wells Fargo fraud issue that exposes the entire fraud over at the Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities program!

  39. Bob G. & Christine,

    You are horrible people!!! Isn’t there enough problems in the world for you 2 to go and deal with that you have to spend time here!!!
    Hit the road and don’t come back!

  40. Shelleystotalbodyworks- thanks for the update on Marie McDonnell Seattle audit. If she says it, then it is true.
    She did the amicus brief for the MSJC Ibanez case. And she is forcing the hands of banks being sued by investors i have heard. Get her, you get results!

  41. Sorry, I should explain and not assume you all know of this review. Marie McDonnell was hired by the City of Seattle to do a review of King County Records, in the Seattle area. The review states out of 197 assignments about 185 of them MERS, 100 percent of the assignments are Void, Void ab initio and fraudulent. Marie has a certified copy available if you contact her. The City is fighting the public exposure of the review and not allowing Marie to give her results to the people as it states she is to by contract.

  42. James attorney’s have changed their minds since five years ago. Some have seen the crime and are fighting for us. I had a hard time finding one in 2010 that believed me. Not the case now. Check out cases in your area and look to see who the attorney is.

  43. The City invited the MERS attorney to a meeting to oppose Marie’s findings without inviting Marie McDonnell. It appears the city is supporting the criminals and not the people.

  44. Bob G.,

    It will appealed anyway.

  45. The Seattle City Counsel is attempting to conceal Maries report. We are having a battle with them to make this report public. They were going to allow her to give a partial report gutting out the meat of the report and she stood strong and would not allow them to conceal the truth.

  46. Bobg- the flowchart is on the stopforeclosurefraud (dinsfla) site. Was posted almost 2 weeks ago.
    Read it and weep.

  47. Securitization Flow Chart? Flowed away.

  48. So i have to ask and HOPE i get an answer.. now that things are coming out I’d love to know Wells Fargo foreclosed on me, FreddieMac OWNED my mortgage Wells fargo told me FreddieMAc owned my Mortgage..and I would have assumed were supposed to be the one to foreclose on me YET wells fargo was listed as the beneficiary and foreclosed on me instead. freddieMac was NOWHERE to be found? can I finally say that it was wrong? and maybe get some traction? I couldn’t get a lawyer to believe that was possible 5 years ago? Wells Fargo could NEVER do something wrong? the FreddieMac site said they owned my mortgage, Wells Fargo was the only name that was recorded as the beneficiary?

  49. Looks like I’m owed $5.5 million !!! But strange I can’t seem to find an attorney in NJ who want to make money on robosign and backdated assignment of mortgage paperwork. I did all the work. It’s all here. In black and white. Documented. Argued pro se.

  50. typical. no case cite provided, no flowchart. way to go.

  51. We need some more of this type of verdict. My fearless forecast is that the Wolfs will have to answer an appeal from WFB. We are standing behind them in spirit.

  52. Consumer Rights Defenders can assist in all phases of your litigation by calling 818.453.3585. Congrats on this fabulous strike against financial terrorism the banks have been using for years….

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

%d bloggers like this: