Forbes: TBTF Banks have $3.8 Trillion in Reported Loan Portfolios — How much of it is real?

The five largest U.S. banks have a combined loan portfolio of almost $3.8 trillion, which represents 40% of the total loans handed out by all U.S. commercial banks.

See Forbes: $3.8 Trillion in Portfolio Loans

I can spot around $300 billion that isn’t real.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

When interviewing the FDIC receiver back in 2008 he told me that WAMU had originated around $1 Trillion in loans. He also told me that most of them were subject to claims of securitization (i.e., they had been sold). Then when I asked him how much had been sold, he said that Chase had told him the total was around 2/3. Translation: With zero consideration, Chase was about to use the agreement of October 25, 2008 as an excuse to claim ownership and servicing rights on over $300 billion in loans. Chase was claiming ownership when it suited them. By my count they foreclosed on over $100 billion of those “WAMU” loans and, for the most part, collected the proceeds for itself.

Point One: If there really were $300 Billion in loans left in WAMU inventory, there would have been no receivership nor would there have been any bankruptcy.

Point Two: If there were $300 Billion in loans left in WAMU inventory, or even if there was 1/10th that amount, neither the FDIC receiver nor the US Trustee in WAMU bankruptcy would have allowed the portfolio to be given to Chase without Chase paying more than zero. The receiver and the US Trustee would have been liable for civil and even criminal penalties. But they were not liable because there were no loans to sell.

So it should come as no surprise that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase for falsely claiming the payments from performing loans and keeping them, and for falsely claiming the proceeds on foreclosure as if they were the creditor when they were most clearly not. whether the lawyers know it or not, they might just have filed the largest lawsuit in history.

see Young v Chase Class Action – WaMu Loans – EDNY June 2018

This isn’t unique. Chase had its WAMU. BofA had its Countrywide. Wells Fargo had its Wachovia. Citi had lots of alter egos. The you have OneWest with its IndyMac. And there are others. All of them had one thing in common: they were claiming ownership rights over mortgages that were falsely claimed to have been “acquired through merger or acquisition using the FDIC (enter Sheila Bair screaming) as a governmental rubber stamp such that it would appear that they purchased over a trillion dollars in residential mortgage loans when in fact they merely created the illusion of those loans which had been sold long ago.

None of this was lost on the insurers that were defrauded when they issued insurance policies that were procured under false pretenses on supposedly non-securities where the truth is that, like the residential loans themselves, the “securities” and the loans were guaranteed to fail.

Simplistically, if you underwrite a loan to an family whose total income is less than the payments will be when the loan resets to full amortization you can be sure of two things: (1) the loan will fail short-term and (2) the “certificates” will fail along with them. If you know that in advance you can bet strong against the loans and the certificates by purchasing insurance from insurers who were inclined to trust the underwriters (a/k/a “Master Servicer” of nonexistent trust issuing the certificates).

see AMBAC Insurance Case vs U.S. Bank

The bottom line is that inside the smoke and mirrors palace, there is around $1 Trillion in loans that probably were sold (leveraged) dozens of times where the debt is owned by nobody in particular — just the TBTF bank that claims it. Once they get to foreclosure, the presumption arises that everything that preceded the foreclosure sale is valid. And its very hard to convince judges that they just rubber stamped another theft.

Bank of American Class-Action Certified: Countrywide via LandSafe used inflated Real Estate Appraisals

First a little background.  On February 6, 2018 a California federal judge certified a nationwide class of borrowers accusing Countrywide Financial Corporation of using inflated real estate appraisals to inflate its loan origination business from 2003 to 2008, overturning successor Bank of America’s claims that borrowers won’t be able to back up their racketeering claims with  proof.

The class-action covers borrowers who received an appraisal from LandSafe Inc. between 2003 to 2008 in connection with a loan that was originated by Countrywide. Countrywide, that owned LandSafe, was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008. LandSafe was sold and is now owned by CoreLogic Inc.

The Plaintiffs have submitted substantial evidence that could be used to prove an alleged RICO scheme existed.  The lead attorney is Roland Tellis who believes the class-action reflects the fact that borrowers were scammed by phony appraisals but never received a refund, despite the fact that there have been massive settlements with regulators and investors.

The suit states that prior to the financial crisis, Countrywide and LandSafe “knowingly, fraudulently, systematically and uniformly” generated false appraisals so Countrywide could close as many home loans as possible.  Borrowers were required to use LandSafe to close, but thought they were paying for an independent, objective appraisal service when the appraisals had a “predetermined value”  to ensure the loans would close rapidly.

The plaintiffs claim they were charged between $300 and $600 each for allegedly corrupt appraisals.  While it is great news that the courts are starting to recognize that a mass-fraud was perpetrated on homeowners, it is unlikely the Appellate court will see the situation the same way as the lower court.  There is also the fact that most class-members receive much in the way of compensation.  The cases typically settle once the numbers get high enough to satisfy the class-action attorneys.

However, there is still a lot of proof that will come out if the case is isn’t settled quickly — damaging proof.  And it is worth noting that the Judge is giving at least some credence to the idea that the entire mortgage meltdown was based upon multiple frauds perpetrated by the banks — not 30 million people waking up one morning and deciding to borrow more than they could afford. I might add that affordability is the responsibility of the lender, not the borrower.  See TILA.  It is presumed by all lending laws that borrowers lack the sophistication to understand the deal they are signing.

Matt Taibbi likened securitization and Goldman Sachs in particular to a vapid squid with many tentacles reaching into the pockets and lives of millions of people. I would extend the analogy further if memory serves, to wit: the squid has three hearts. Appraisal fraud at the instigation of the banks was one of the hearts of the illegal securitization fail scheme — a plan that was, at its heart, nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. They could mollify investors by having them receive monthly payments and even encourage the investors to buy more “mortgage bonds.”
It was the purchases of those bogus securities that fueled everything. When that stopped the entire system collapsed — the hallmark of every Ponzi scheme. And it all happened because of the revolving door between Wall Street and regulators who quickly discovered that by accepting placement inside a regulatory agency, they could emerge within 2 years and take jobs at salaries that were geometrically higher than where they started.
So the people who were working as regulators didn’t want to kill the golden goose, much the same as the appraisers who ultimately caved under pressure from the banks. Of all people the appraisals and the banks knew exactly what was happening. And people who worked in the agencies were loathe to restrain or punish the banks because the banks were their next employer. It was no accident that so many agencies and even the Fed were asleep at the wheel. They were not asleep. They were just biding their time until they left the agency and took a job with the perpetrator of the scheme that they were charged with monitoring.
The banks were flooding the market with money — other people’s money, not their own. I personally witnessed the appraisal fraud in Arizona on several closings where in each case the appraiser came back with an appraisal that pegged the value of the property $20,000 higher than the contract price. In each case the appraiser was given the contract or at least the contract price and the direct or tacit instruction to come back with an appraisal that made the deal appear viable. It wasn’t. Looking at the Case-Schiller Index it is easy at a glance to see how PRICE was driven far above VALUE of property. All housing prices and values were closely related to household income. There was no spike in income for household, but prices were moved ever higher by the banks who were manipulating appraisers.
In 2005 8,000 appraisers petitioned Congress saying that they were being coerced into false appraisals. They either did the appraisal as instructed or they would never see another appraisal job. Congress ignored it. Many appraisers dropped out of the market. The rest were tempted by oversize fees (that in many cases were partially kicked back to the loan originator) or felt compelled to stay in the market because they had nowhere else to go.
The banks were trying all sorts of ways to maximize the amounts of money being moved from the investment sector to the benefit, as it turned out, of themselves and nobody else. The entire time they were driving demand up for loans sold by fraudulent promises from mortgage brokers, who in some cases were convicted felons who had been found guilty of economic crimes. At one point there were 10,000 felons who were registered as salesman for loan products that had no possibility of being sustained.
And it wasn’t that the banks were unaware of the defective loans that violated TILA in multiple ways. They were counting on it. On the way up they sold defective loan products that were never subjected to due diligence by anyone. They, above all others, knew the loans would fail; in fact they were counting on it. They were betting against the performance of the loans by negotiating insurance contracts for either the loans or the “mortgage bonds” or both and selling derivative futures that in many cases were disguised sales of entire loan portfolios that were never owned by the “Seller.”
The big payoff came when the loans and the “mortgage bonds” failed and all sorts of people and entities were caught having to either cough up money or declaring bankruptcy. The AIG insurance [packages were specifically written such that AIG would NOT be subrogated and be able to make claims on the underlying loans nor the “mortgage bonds”].  For a few dollars in premiums the suckers on Wall Street had bought themselves a world of trouble.
Appraisal fraud lies at the heart of the scheme. The illusion of an ever-climbing market kept people refinancing their property, buying overpriced property, and, most importantly buying bogus “mortgage bonds” issued by the underwriter of the bonds utilizing the fictitious name of a REMIC Trust. This was the holy grail of securities underwriting: what if you could sell shares of a nonexistent entity, keep the proceeds, and then sell securities and contracts that derived from the nonexistent value of the Trust?
The average homeowner knows nothing of any of this and reasonably relied upon the representations by sellers of defective loan products; besides reposing trust in such entities just because they appeared to be an institutional lender, borrowers believed the rationale that banks would not lend money they knew they would never collect. That would be true if the banks were making loans. In truth, they were intermediaries with contractual and legal duties to everyone with whom they did business. They breached those duties to everyone in multiple ways but none so glaring as appraisal fraud and kickbacks on fraudulent appraisal fees.

The judge also certified a subclass of Texas borrowers who are bringing an unjust enrichment claim under Texas law and appointed Baron & Budd PC and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to serve as class counsel.

All plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Baron & Budd PC

The cases are Waldrup v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al., case number 2:13-cv-08833, and Williams et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al., case number 2:16-cv-04166, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

FDCPA Claims Upheld in 9th Circuit Class Action

The court held that the FDCPA unambiguously requires any debt collector – first or subsequent – to send a section 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-
If anyone remembers the Grishom book “The Firm”, also in movies, you know that in the end the crooks were brought down by something they were never thinking about — mail fraud — a federal law that has teeth, even if it sounds dull. Mail fraud might actually apply to the millions of foreclosures that have taken place — even if key documents are sent through private mail delivery services. The end of month statements and other correspondence are definitely sent through US Mail. And as we are seeing, virtually everything they were sending consisted of multiple layers of misrepresentations that led to the detriment of the receiving homeowner. That’s mail fraud.
Like Mail Fraud, claims based on the FDCPA seem boring. But as many lawyers throughout the country are finding out, those claims have teeth. And I have seen multiple cases where FDCPA claims resulted in the settlement of the case on terms very favorable to the homeowner — provided the claim is properly brought and there are some favorable rulings on the initial motions.
Normally the banks settle any claim that looks like it would be upheld. That is why you don’t see many verdicts or judgments announcing fraudulent conduct by banks, servicers and “trustees.”And you don’t see the settlement either because they are all under seal of confidentiality. So for the casual observer, you might see a ruling here and there that favors the borrower, but you don’t see any judgments normally. Here the banks thought they had this one in the bag — because it was a class action and normally class actions are difficult if not impossible to prosecute.
It turns out that FDCPA is both a good cause of action for damages and a great discovery tool — to force the banks, servicers or anyone else that is a debt collector to respond within 5 days giving the basic information about the loan — like who is the actual creditor. Discovery is also much easier in FDCPA actions because it is forthrightly tied to the complaint.
This decision is more important than it might first appear. It removes any benefit of playing musical chairs with servicers, and other debt collectors. This is a core of bank strategy — to layer over all defects. This Federal Court of Appeals holds that it doesn’t matter how many layers you add — all debt collectors in the chain had the duty to respond.
.

Justia Opinion Summary

Hernandez v Williams, Zinman and Parham, PC No 14-15672 (9th Cir, 2016)

Plaintiff filed a putative class action, alleging that WZP violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692(g)(a), by sending a debt collection letter that lacked the disclosures required by section 1692(g)(a) of the FDCPA. Applying well-established tools of statutory interpretation and construing the language in section 1692g(a) in light of the context and purpose of the FDCPA, the court held that the phrase “the initial communication” refers to the first communication sent by any debt collector, including collectors that contact the debtor after another collector already did. The court held that the FDCPA unambiguously requires any debt collector – first or subsequent – to send a section 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. In this case, the district court erred in concluding that, because WZP was not the first debt collector to communicate with plaintiff about her debt, it had no obligation to comply with the statutory validation notice requirement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

Schedule A Consult Now!

OneWest — One Step Up from Donald Duck

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

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

Well at least OneWest legally exists and it didn’t originate any loans even though it sometimes tries to give that appearance. But it is clear that this company was literally formed over a weekend to takeover IndyMac business. In so doing it made a number of dubious deals in which it was not to be liable for the shoddy, fabricated documents, and unlawful practices of IndyMac which claimed ownership of loans that were already sold into the secondary market and then subjected to conflicting claims of ownership. It looks like the return on investment was infinite.

OneWest Bank Targeted By Insurer Over $335M In MBS Losses

Law360, New York (August 13, 2012, 9:41 PM ET) — Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. fired off a suit against OneWest Bank FSB in California on Thursday, claiming the company’s shoddy loan servicing was to blame for some of the $335 million it has shelled out in insurance claims related to mortgage-backed securities.

The lawsuit in Los Angeles court says that since OneWest took over IndyMac Bank FSB’s role as servicer of mortgage loans underlying residential MBS, the loans have experienced delinquencies and defaults at a severe and unexpected rate. That in turn has forced Assured to…

The question is whose loss was this, and why did the insurance company pay it off? The bigger question is that if the loss was paid off, why wasn’t allocated to the underlying assets whose decline in value was the basis of the loss claim?

OneWest Bank Can’t Shake HAMP Loan Class Action

Law360, New York (October 23, 2012, 3:11 PM ET) — OneWest Bank FSB on Monday failed to escape an Illinois class action accusing it of bungling a mortgage loan modification application by unreasonably delaying its response and imposing late fees for payments that were not actually late.

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected OneWest’s argument that lead plaintiff Stacey Fletcher lacked standing, finding that her complaint alleged sufficient injury from OneWest’s allegedly unreasonable delay in responding to her request for a modified loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program.

Fletcher further accuses OneWest of reporting her to…

It seems like OneWest was too busy  making claims for loss sharing and insurance and guarantees to actually pursue modifications.

OneWest, Soros Accused Of Mortgage Scam In FCA Suit

Law360, New York (October 16, 2012, 9:47 PM ET) — A Florida resident hit OneWest Bank and billionaire majority shareholder George Soros with a False Claims Act lawsuit Monday, saying that through their connections to President Barack Obama, they had finagled a loss-sharing deal with the government that allowed them to scam homeowners and taxpayers.

James Beekman, who originally took out his mortgage with IndyMac Federal Bank, says when Soros and OneWest took over the fallen bank, they entered into a loss-sharing agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Under the deal, OneWest would shoulder the…

Disclosure. Patrick Giunta and I represent Beekman. No further comment

Loan Info Confidential

By Michael Lipkin

Law360, San Diego (November 10, 2014, 6:13 PM ET) — OneWest Bank NA is trying to stop Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. from accessing confidential information about Lehman-owned loans it used to service, alleging in New York federal court that Lehman is trying to blame OneWest for its own bad investments.
In a complaint filed Friday, OneWest claims Lehman is trying to access regulated information about 27 mortgages OneWest used to service, including confidential data about borrowers that OneWest alleges Lehman doesn’t have a right to access. The loans were eventually liquidated after poor performance, and the service agreements governing them have already expired, according to the complaint.

“This action seeks to end defendants’ misguided campaign to try to force OneWest to provide them with confidential information to which the defendants are no longer entitled,” the bank said. “Doing so could subject OneWest to potential regulatory and civil liability for failing to protect private borrower information.”

Aurora Commercial Corp., formerly Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, is also named as a defendant.

Lehman allegedly bought the loans as part of a pool from IndyMac Bank FSB between 2006 and 2007, with IndyMac retaining the right to service the loans. After IndyMac was shut down by the Office of Thrift Supervision in 2008, OneWest bought the servicing rights from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The deal expressly said OneWest was not liable for previous servicing conduct, according to the complaint.

For the full article see http://www.law360.com

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT AND REMAND BACK AGAIN TO STATE COURT

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

Too often lawyers and pro se litigants fail to realize that while a motion for removal is ordinarily granted without hearing, they retain the right to move the Federal Court for remand back to the State Court and the Federal Judge often agrees when it receives the Motion for Remand.  The point is that the laws and procedures governing the case are all state laws, of which there can be no dispute, and the remedy is a state remedy leaving no room for Federal interpretation. In this case MERS was cut off at the pass by a narrower reading of the Class Action Fairness Act. MERS had sent a notice of removal to Federal Court but he parties suing MERS responded that this was a counterclaim by MERS and could not be subject to removal to Federal Court under conventional grounds. They remanded it back to state court where it belongs.

Class Action Act Didn’t Alter Removal Rule

by Ed Wesoloski

A familiar story in troubled economic times has produced a new ruling concerning federal civil procedure from the Sixth Circuit.

A Kentucky couple bought a house with a loan issued by America’s Wholesale Lender, secured by a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). Later, the couple defaulted on the mortgage. Countrywide Home Loans foreclosed in state court, claiming MERS assigned the mortgage.

The couple filed a counterclaim against Countrywide, arguing that MERS never had a valid mortgage. Countrywide said the counterclaim was deficient because MERS wasn’t joined as a necessary party.

The couple then filed a third-party class action complaint against MERS. MERS, said the couple, was nothing more than an electronic data base for keeping track of mortgages and did not hold a valid mortgage, having failed to follow Kentucky’s registration procedures.

Here’s where the fresh twist to things begins.

MERS, as a third-party defendant, removed the case to federal district court. Normally, third-party defendants can’t do that. First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 461 (6th Cir. 2002).

The Kentucky couple, citing Pulaski and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), moved to remand their case to state court.

This time it’s different, MERS argued.

[MERS] sought removal of the action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b). The [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005] provides that a district court has jurisdiction in a civil action where there is diversity of citizenship; the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; and the proposed class includes at least one hundred members. …

[MERS argued] that under section 1453(b), a qualifying class action “may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants.”

You’re reading the statute way too broadly, the Sixth Circuit ruled.

[MERS] attempts to distinguish Pulaski by arguing that section 1453(b), which includes the term “any defendant,” has expanded the right of removal in Class Action Fairness Act cases.

But that language is used in a specific context — it is part of a larger clause providing that an appropriate action “may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants.” Contrary to [MERS’] position, the provision simply modifies the rule that all defendants must consent to the removal.

What the Class Action Fairness Act doesn’t do is extend removal opportunities to third-party defendants, the Sixth Circuit concluded.

The case is In re Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

LPS POUNDED BY LAW SUITS AS WEAK LINK IN THE BANK SECURITIZATION SCAM

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE WAS THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION

“Plaintiffs and consumers have paid the ultimate price through bankruptcies, evictions and foreclosures that were predicated upon false, forged, fraudulent and/or inaccurate documents,” the lawsuit charges.

“Keep your eye on the MONEY. That will tell you everything. Not one cent was ever given by the parties who received documents purporting to give them rights over your loan. The documents — nearly all of them — are patent lies. Those lies are intended to deceive the public, the regulators, the investors, the courts and the homeowners into believing that the foreclosures are real. The foreclosures were not, for the most part, real in that their purpose was never to mitigate damages — it was to make money for intermediaries who never had a dime in the deal.” Neil Garfield, livinglies.me

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is why homeowners need the COMBO analysis whether it is from us (see above) or anyone else. The burden of proof SHOULD be on the forecloser but until Judges realize that error, they are looking for the homeowner to come into court loaded with data that can be introduced as evidence and which clearly define issues of fact that are triable by the court and that trigger the right to discovery.

The very presence of LPS and other  document fabrication factories like it provides instant corroboration of the homeowners’ allegations that the mortgages, and the foreclosures were rotten to the core. The notes are improper, the liens probably didn’t attach to the land, the closing documents were essentially vehicles to deliver the signature of borrowers to end the money chase that Wall Street started. As has been repeatedly asserted across the country this was not a case of people chasing money. It was a case of money chasing people. That signature of the borrower was worth more than the borrower ever knew and more than they realize even now.

Think about it. For hundreds of years lenders have been dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s creating near perfect documentary trails in hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of transactions. Suddenly they need to create layers upon layers of plausible deniability with document fabricators, substitute trustees (what was wrong with the old one?) and all sorts of excuses about why they don’t need to prove their case. Here is the truth: THEY HAVE NO CASE.

They were not the lender,the creditor or the assignee at any time. The documents refer to transactions (transfers) that never took place. The origination documents (note, mortgage, deed of trust etc.) refer to transactions that never took place because the actual lender/creditor was not disclosed — instead they put a straw-man on the note and another straw-man on the mortgage.

Keep your eye on the MONEY. That will tell you everything. Not one cent was ever given by the parties who received documents purporting to give them rights over your loan. The documents — nearly all of them — are patent lies. Those lies are intended to deceive the public, the regulators, the investors, the courts and the homeowners into believing that that the foreclosures are real. The foreclosures were not, for the most part, real in that their purpose was never to mitigate damages — it was to make money for intermediaries who never had a dime in the deal.

DON’T GET LULLED BY THE HOLIDAY MORATORIUM ON FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS. THEY WILL START AGAIN WITH A VENGEANCE IN JANUARY. THE BANKS MUST COMPLETE AS MANY FORECLOSURES AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT AND REGULATORS REALIZE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT PRACTICALLY NONE OF THE FORECLOSURES WERE REAL, LEGAL OR AUTHORIZED.

Nevada homeowners file class-action lawsuit over foreclosure robosignings

SEE FULL ARTICLE ON VEGASINC.COM

by Steve Green

Lender Processing Services Inc., the company targeted by Nevada’s attorney general in a foreclosure robosigning investigation, has been hit with a class-action lawsuit filed by Las Vegas and Henderson homeowners.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based LPS, one of the nation’s largest foreclosure processors, has insisted its robosigning problems in Nevada involved mere paperwork issues, have been addressed and did not involve wrongful foreclosures.

But Tuesday’s homeowner lawsuit said LPS’s use of “forged, fraudulent and/or erroneous” foreclosure documents tainted the foreclosure process to the point where LPS and banks it worked with “did not have authority to foreclose or to continue with the foreclosure process.”

The suit filed in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas alleges violations of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, seeks to block pending foreclosures involving allegedly forged LPS documents and seeks unspecified damages for completed foreclosures.

Besides the Nevada attorney general’s lawsuit filed against LPS last week alleging widespread fraud in its foreclosure paperwork operations, criminal charges have been filed in Las Vegas against two LPS officers and four notaries in what state prosecutors call a scheme in which thousands of foreclosure documents were tainted by forged signatures and bogus notarizations.

Also named as defendants in Tuesday’s class-action lawsuit were lenders and foreclosure trustees that work with LPS. They are Bank of America, its subsidiary ReconTrust Co.; IndyMac Mortgage Services, a division of OneWest Bank; and Regional Service Corp., which acts as a foreclosure trustee.

Tuesdays lawsuit was filed by five homeowners and is proposed as a class action representing “countless” more plaintiffs, likely thousands. Four of the named homeowners face foreclosure and the fifth has been foreclosed on, the suit says.

The proposed class of plaintiffs is defined as borrowers in Nevada who received foreclosure documents, called notices of default, “that were improperly executed by LPS, its predecessors or its subsidiaries.”

Tuesday’s lawsuit seeks a court declaration that LPS and its codefendants violated Nevada’s law governing foreclosure proceedings “in that they proceeded with the foreclosure process despite relying upon forged and falsified notices of default.”

“Plaintiffs and consumers have paid the ultimate price through bankruptcies, evictions and foreclosures that were predicated upon false, forged, fraudulent and/or inaccurate documents,” the lawsuit charges.

The suit also seeks a declaration that the notices of default issued by LPS “are null and void” and asks for an injunction blocking LPS and the codefendants from proceeding with the allegedly tainted foreclosures.

“Plaintiffs’ properties face foreclosure as a result of defendants violations of NRS 107.080 (the foreclosure law),” the suit says.

The suit also seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. It was filed by attorneys at the Las Vegas law firm Callister & Associates LLC.

An LPS spokesman said the company had no immediate comment on Tuesday’s lawsuit but reiterated its earlier statement: “LPS acknowledges the signing procedures on some of these documents were flawed; however, the company also believes these documents were properly authorized and their recording did not result in a wrongful foreclosure.”

 

SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION TO BE FILED AGAINST LPS, DOCX

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

ANOTHER CASE TO WATCH: When this class action is filed, it will contain allegations and details you probably didn’t know. Like the other class actions and AG actions across the country, make the effort to follow what is in the record. The position of the pretender lenders and documents fabricators changes depending upon who is suing them and what causes of action are in the lawsuit.

By watching the court file and the pleadings and responses and memorandums of law from BOTH sides, you will find material you can use in your own case. This is especially true if the class action is against a defendant that is the same entity that claims to have standing in your case. Any action or allegation or representation by counsel may be used as an admission against interest in your own case, which, if accepted by the Court, is presumptively true.

Lender Processing Services, Inc.

  • Issue: Securities fraud

Introduction

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is investigating potential illegal conduct as alleged in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Lender Processing Services, Inc. (“Lender Processing” or the “Company”) (NYSE: LPS) between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Background on Lender Processing Services, Inc. Securities Class Litigation

The action, pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, was brought against Lender Processing and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lender Processing, headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, describes itself as the mortgage industry’s number one provider of mortgage processing services, settlement services and default solutions, and the nation’s leading provider of integrated data, servicing and technology solutions for mortgage lenders.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Lender Processing’s business practices, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company engaged in improper and deceptive business practices; (ii) that the Company’s subsidiary, Docx, falsified documents through the use of “robo signers”; (iii) that the Company engaged in improper fee sharing arrangements with attorneys and/or law firms; (iv) as a result of the its deceptive business practices, the Company’s reported financial results and financial outlook lacked any reasonable basis in fact and were materially false and misleading.

On October 4, 2010, in response to negative media reports and government investigations of the Company relating to possible forged foreclosure documents it provided to mortgage lenders, Lender Processing issued a press release commenting on purported “mischaracterizations of its services.” As a result, the market learned that Lender Processing’s business practices were potentially deceptive and fraudulent, causing its stock price, which had already declined significantly from its Class Period high of $43.99 in October 2009, to fall an additional $2.72 per share, or 8.6 percent, on October 4, 2010 to close at $28.76 per share. On the following day, the price of Lender Processing stock fell another $1.45 per share, or 5 percent, to close at $27.31 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you purchased Lender Processing securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than January 24, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in this action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in this action.

If you are a Lender Processing shareholder and you would like Lieff Cabraser to review your claim, please click here to contact a securities attorney at Lieff Cabraser or contact securities attorney Sharon M. Lee by telephone toll-free at (800) 541-7358.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight consecutive years.

Michael H. Simmons

%d bloggers like this: