US Bank v Mattos: Ocwen’s Witness unable to collaborate U.S. Bank’s Records

Thanks to Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency for the heads up on this case.  Furthermore if you are suing U.S. Bank please note that THERE ARE NO RECORDS KEPT BY US BANK OF ANY KIND other than receipt of a monthly fee.  Bill Paatalo will be dropping a bombshell on these findings in the next month.

Please see ruling:  US Bank v Mattos – No Standing 06-06-17

The Supreme Court of Hawaii on certiorari to the Hawaii Court of Appeals reversed a prior summary judgment when it was determined that Ocwen’s witness was unable to speak for the validity of U.S. Bank’s records.   Hawaiian attorney Gary Dubin did an exemplary job demonstrating why the fraudulent assigments were void, not just voidable and that US Bank could not prove standing to foreclose.

The Defendants complained that the circuit court improperly granted summary judgment when there were genuine issues of material fact including two mortgage assignments that were robosigned by persons with insufficient authority or personal knowledge as to what they swore to.  There were also two assignments to the securitized trust in the chain of US Bank’s alleged ownership that were only supported by hearsay declarations inadmissible pursuant to Hawaii’s Civil Procedure Rule 56 and Evidence Rules.  Therefore, the court ruled that the Defendant’s loan violated the requirements of the securitized trust’s Pooling and Servicing agreement.

U.S. Bank’s declarants also had no idea how earlier business records had been compiled in regards to the two invalid mortgage assignments allegedly assigned to the securitized trust.

It was ruled that the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) incorrectly concluded that the declaration of Richard Work, the Contract Management Coordinator of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), rendered him a “qualified witness” for U.S. Bank’s records under the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 803(b)(6)- hearsay exception for records of regularly conducted activity.  In addition, U.S. Bank failed to establish that it was a holder entitled to enforce the note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed(see Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawaii(2017)).

 

Unfortunately in regards to the first issue on certiorari, the court was unfamiliar with the term “robosigning” and ruled that since the legal effect of “robo-signing” was not necessary to  the determination of the case, the court sidestepped the issue and set aside the ICA’s holding that, “conclusory assertions that fail to offer factual allegations or a legal theory indicating how alleged “robo-signing” caused harm to a mortgagee” are insufficient to establish a defense in a foreclosure action.

 

Addressing the factual allegations underlying the “robo-signing” claim, however, the court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ocwen had the authority to sign the second assignment of mortgage to U.S. Bank. With respect to the second issue on certiorari, the court affirmed the ICA in part and followed the majority rule in U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Salvacion (Hawaii App. 2014) and held that, “a third party unrelated to a mortgage securitization pooling and servicing agreement lacks standing to enforce an alleged violation of its terms unless the violation renders the mortgage assignment void, rather than voidable.”  However the court limited the holding to the judicial foreclosure context not impacting non-judicial foreclosures.

 

The court issued a reversal and vacated the prior March 9, 2016 Judgment on Appeal, as well as the circuit court’s August 26, 2014 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure against all defendants and remanded the case back to the circuit court.

It is unfortunate that the circuit court and Intermediate Court of Appeals were so obviously biased towards the homeowner that they refused to apply prior rulings of law that would have quickly resolved this case.  However, part of the MegaBank-Lower Court game is to exhaust the homeowner of financial resources, while abusing them with delay strategies, discovery deficits and the misapplication of established law.  When these unethical methods are employed and a homeowner is forced to return to the lower courts and start all over again, the banks and courts should immediately be held responsible for violations of due process and the deliberate use of legal abuse tactics. The homeowner should in time be compensated for the stress incurred, emotional trauma, any lost earnings, and any resulting physical and mental health degradation.  Only when there is a sufficient financial penalty will the banks and courts consider following the rule of law.

 

 

7 Responses

  1. our court system and the los angeles police department are no different? why would anyone expect anything different lets do some psych testing in that line of the system and see whats really going ” we all bleed red”

  2. FWIW the courts are starting to be cleaned up ,, the Obama shakedown where losers were forced to earmark the majority of a settlement to a leftist/communist front group are over… we saw this recently where a $42million settlement was divvied up with leftist front groups and universities getting $40M and the plaintiff only $2…
    **********************

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/breaking-judicial-watch-sues-doj-records-obama-policy-shaking-corporations-fund-leftist-groups/

    BREAKING – Judicial Watch Sues DOJ For Records on Obama Policy of Shaking Down Corporations to Fund Leftist Groups

    Cristina Laila Jun 12th, 2017 12:16 pm

    Conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch announced today that they have filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records relating to an Obama administration policy of shaking down corporations to fund left-wing groups such as La Raza.

    Barack Hussein Obama continued his community organizing as President because that is all he knows how to do. Steal money, shake down businesses, destroy and agitate. Obama’s main goals were to destroy capitalism and empower Islamic groups.

    Via Judicial Watch:

    Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records relating to an Obama administration policy of settling agency lawsuits against corporate defendants by requiring that the corporations make “donations” to left-wing interest groups La Raza, the Urban League and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01064)).

    Judicial Watch filed the suit after the Justice Department failed to respond to its April 7, 2017, FOIA request seeking:

    All records discussing the policy or practice of settling [Department of Justice] lawsuits against corporate defendants by requiring donations to La Raza, the Urban League or the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
    The time frame of the request was identified as January 1, 2013 through January 20, 2017.

    The investigation, announced in February by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), revealed that the Justice Department used the mandatory “donations” to direct nearly a billion dollars to liberal activist groups over the past two years. According to the investigation, “activist groups which stood to gain from mandatory donation provisions were involved in placing those provisions in the settlements.”

  3. “Much ado about nothing, the case gets remanded back and the homeowner loses at trial.”

    Maybe. (Or maybe not.) But a finding of abuse of process and or bad faith comes with sanctions and awards of attorney fees, and may result in a comeuppance for the bad-actor attorneys, also. See Chambers v Nasco, 501 U.S. 32 (1991). Also see a case relied on, Bank of Nova Scotia v U.S. And one better see them, because you can bet the network attorneys do.
    I don’t know what happened in the following case, but someone went after Aurora and its attorneys for these strong-arm, bs rote tactics used against homeowners. Goldenhersh v Aurora in DC Colorado
    In my lay opinion, Mattos (Dubin) is far from out of ammo.

  4. So much hurt and suffering! How those Bank Mobsters still exist & allowed in I s modern country bullying puppet like us insulting all the $ effort we put in our resident Forclosed auction while I still thinking doing modification nothing make sense for what happened to us

  5. “When these unethical methods are employed and a homeowner is forced to return to the lower courts and start all over again, the banks and courts should immediately be held responsible for violations of due process and the deliberate use of legal abuse tactics. The homeowner should in time be compensated for the stress incurred, emotional trauma, any lost earnings, and any resulting physical and mental health degradation. Only when there is a sufficient financial penalty will the banks and courts consider following the rule of law.”

    Hear, hear! Abuse of process is made up of wicked acts, is an entirely legitimate claim or counter-claim, and one imo which has been badly overlooked and under-researched by homeowner advocates. I do have at least one good case on point. If I can remember the name, I’ll
    post it. But at any rate, there are surely many in general.

  6. it is legal abuse tactics.

  7. Much ado about nothing, the case gets remanded back and the homeowner loses at trial.

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: