Ocwen Admission Confounds Judges and Experts

This is a blatant attempt at deception  — a deceit without which none of the Trusts would be recognized as legal entities much less the owner of loans. Ocwen is admitting that there is no single owner of the loan it is allegedly “servicing.” “There is no single owner of the account, but rather the account is one of many in a securitized investment trust.”

For the uninitiated, this statement might suffice or at least be threatening enough as a challenge to their experience and intelligence to direct them away from the central false assertion that the trusts own any loan. They don’t.

Let us help you prepare for deposition or trial: 202-838-6345
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!

Hat Tip Bill Paatalo

see Ocwen Responsive Letter – CFPB – 11-03-2017

In this real live case, Ocwen is fulfilling its job that includes obfuscation as one of its paramount duties. After first “answering” the CFPB requests with obfuscation it then states “The ownership status of the account is based upon our review of our records as of the date of this letter.” It doesn’t say that the information is correct or even believed to be correct. It doesn’t say they performed due diligence to determine whether a true chain of ownership exists, combing the various records of “predecessors.”

Nor is there a statement that Ocwen is authorized to service the account. It simply says that it IS servicing the account. And of course then they do not assert the basis of their authority since they never asserted their authority. It is implied. It is assumed. In court, it might well be presumed by the court, the foreclosure mill attorney and even by the borrower and the borrower’s attorney. This is one of the errors that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. An attack on what is missing instead of trying to dodge what is there would result in far more victories for homeowners.

The attorney’s client is Ocwen. Ocwen is impliedly asserting authority to service but can’t show it. In one recent case of mine, they came in with a Power of Attorney signed by someone who purportedly executed the instrument on behalf of Chase. The problem was that Chase was never mentioned before in any pleading, documents or testimony. The POA was false.

Back to ownership: “there is no single owner” implies that there are many owners. There are several problems with that assertion or implication that involve outright lying. Ocwen is saying that the loan is in a securitized investment trust which certainly would imply that the loan is not in transit nor is it owned by more than one trust.

Further if the reference (omitted) is to investors, that too is a lie in most cases. The certificate indenture usually contains the express statement that the holder of the certificate receives no right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage in “underlying” loans (which have never been acquired by the trust anyway).

So what are we left with? No single owner which means that the securitized investment trust doesn’t own it because that is one single entity. Multiple owners does not refer to investors because the express provisions on their certificates say they have no ownership of the debt, note or mortgage in the alleged loan.

The counterintuitive answer is that the bank’s are saying there is no owner. But there is an owner. It is a group of investors whose money was used to fund or acquire the loan. This was not done through any trust, as they intended and as was required by the “securitization” documents. If that was the case then the trust would have been named as lender or as holder in due course. That never happened.

But the holders of worthless securities can claim an equitable interest in the loan and perhaps even the collateral. In order to establish that interest the investors must go to a court of competent jurisdiction. But in order to do that the investors must know about the specific loan transaction(s), which they don’t. The fact that they don’t know about it and can’t exercise their rights does not mean that legally, anyone can intervene and assert ownership rights.

Ten years ago I said get rid of the current servicers and stick a government agency in as intermediary so that investors, as real parties in interest and borrowers as real parties in interest could do what the lending industry normally does best — work this out so that nobody loses everything and nobody gets a windfall. This could have all been over years ago and the impact on the economy would have been a powerful stimulus leaving no inherent weakness in our economy or our currency.

Unfortunately the courts strayed from making legal decisions and instead made a political decision to save the banking industry at the expense of homeowners.




Illusion of Confusion: Dealing with Unresponsive “Responses” in Discovery

The bank playbook is very simple: keep it as complicated as possible. That way the court and even the homeowner will come to rely on what the banks and so-called servicer say about names, places, documents and money. That’s how they sold the initial fraudulent MBS and around 10 million foreclosures.

If you had a high success rate and you succeeded in scaring most homeowners off from contesting fraudulent foreclosures, what would you do? You would keep going based upon a strategy of creating the illusion of complexity. The only really complex thing is the fact that the foreclosing parties make inconsistent assertions not only from case to case but from one pleading to another in one case.

What is simple? That the only two real parties in interest in this whole affair have been investors on one side and homeowners on the other side. Everyone else is an intermediary with little or no authority to do anything — a fact that has not stopped them from nearly destroying our financial system.

For reasons that have been discussed elsewhere on this blog, the acceptance of the illusion of confusion by the courts is NOT rooted in law, as it is required to be, but rather in politics. This isn’t the first time the courts made political decisions and it won’t be the last. But through persistence and good litigation techniques homeowners who went all the way to the end have often prevailed — probably because the judge was too uncomfortable once the real nature of the asserted transactions was revealed.

NEED HELP DRAFTING A COURT DOCUMENT? We can help you with Discovery and Compelling Responses to Discovery Requests with Our Paralegal Team that works directly with Neil Garfield! We provide services directly to attorneys and to pro se litigants.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.

OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!




I was writing an article on discovery when by coincidence Dan Edstrom who has been our senior most forensic analyst since 2008 forwarded some questions and comments about the discovery process. He understands full well that the discovery process does NOT consist of just asking a question or asking for a document and the other side then gives you all you need to win.

No, the response will be framed to confuse, which is generally enough to make the homeowner or the foreclosure defense walk away. The foreclosure goes though even though it is most likely completely fraudulent.

And the message that goes out to the world is the banks are winning a huge percentage of foreclosures when in fact they pretty much don’t win when the foreclosure is ably contested.  The issue is obvious — not enough people are ably contesting foreclosures.

In discovery it usually starts with interrogatories. And the first question is who is answering the interrogatories. So in one example, the answer was Sally Torres. The response was that Torres was “from” Ocwen Financial Corporation (OFC). She is described as a “representative” of OFC, which leaves open the question of the identity of her employer.

Back to basics — A corporation is a legal person. And THAT means it is not the same as another legal person, as for example Ocwen Loan Servicing (OLS).

So you need to read carefully and not skip the parts that nobody pays attention to — like the answer to the question and the verification where Torres signs the response. There she signs as a “representative” of OLS not OFC. That ,eaves open the same question but also adds another — is she a representative of both legal persons (OFC and OLS)? If so what is the nature of her “agency” for either legal person? If she is not an employee is there a contract?

The answers further state that she is a “Senior Loan Analyst” for OFC and a “Senior Loan Analyst” for OLS. Is it both? How does that work? And of course that gives rise to yet another question — What is a Senior Loan Analyst? Google it.

Job Summary. Responsible for analyzing financial and supporting documents on incoming applications consistent with internal and insurer policies. Evaluate property values based on appraised market prices and recommend or deny mortgages to clients after examining financial status.

Hmmmm. This sounds like a made-up title to impress a judge. The industry definition of a loan analyst describes a job that ends with the approval of a loan. What would a loan analyst know about foreclosure — years after the alleged origination of the alleged loan? More specifically, what did Torres actually know or do with regard to the subject loan? It doesn’t take a genius to speculate about a number of questions:

  • Did Torres actually sign the verification?
  • Why was a loan analyst necessary in the litigation of a foreclosure?
  • Is Ocwen a lender? Why need a loan analyst?
  • What as it that Torres analyzed?
  • Did she review the work of a “Junior” Analyst ?
  • Did someone else draft the answers?
  • Was there anyone who had personal knowledge of the loan history involved with answering the interrogatories?

The kicker in the case I reviewed, was that the notice letters were sent not by any Ocwen entity but by Wells Fargo. The problem here is that most lawyers do not wish to confess their ignorance and therefore don’t follow through with obvious questions. Everything they are seeing is incomprehensible and confusing.

Here is another example right out of a hearsay treatise: The “Plaintiff” in an unlawful detainer (eviction) action makes the assertion that the rental value of the subject property is $1,800 per month and that the only way they know that is from a website called “Rentometer.” How this number is calculated by the website is unknown. Nor do we know if any person was involved. But Judges regularly take this representation to be true, even though it comes from a declarant not present in court.

Here is the rub. If the attorney for the homeowner fails to raise an objection and motion to strike that assertion or representation the objection is waived. But on cross examination of the robo-witness it is fairly easy to show that there is no appraisal or opinion rendered by the witness, nor could there be. It is also fairly easy to establish that the witness has no idea who runs, operates, owns or is otherwise involved with Rentometer.

Like Zillow and other sites, Rentometer does not employ people. It employs computer algorithms that may or may not work in any given situation.

For all we know it is a site set up by the banks that looks professional but is used specifically to extract outsize rents from people defending their property. (thus cutting off income that could be used for an attorney).  It looks like it might be useful but no presumption should arise from the projection by Rentometer unless someone from Rentometer can lay the foundation for the estimate. But that would mean putting a person on the witness stand who is not a robo-witness so the foreclosing party is going to fight against that tooth and nail.

And of course any site that leis exclusively on algorithms could not possibly take into consideration whether the subject property is habitable, the school district, and other factors that apply to both marketability and price. In the case presented it appears that the rental value is zero or in fact negative. That is because the property’s condition is such that nobody would move into it without extensive major repairs and because taxes and maintenance of the exterior would still need to be paid.

And then there is this example: You ask for the documents that support the authority of the alleged new beneficiary to substitute the trustee on the deed of trust. You get back an assignment. But it turns out later, in court, that they are relying upon some additional unrecorded assignments. So you ask for the additional unrecorded assignments and the response is essentially “We already gave you the assignments.” In  this case with 1 recorded assignment and 2 unrecorded assignments their answer is exactly 1/3 true and 2/3 untrue. And THAT is why you need to be prepared to compel their response by a specific court order pointing to those documents and any others that pertain the request for production.

The most challenging thing after the foreclosure sale is to prove it should never have taken place. But it is possible and necessary to do that if you want the property or you want leverage for a settlement. You are challenging circular reasoning.

Their argument is that they followed the rules and appointed a substitute trustee who sold the property. Your answer is that the new ‘Beneficiary” was not a beneficiary, had no right to substitute the trustee and thus no right to file a notice of sale (nonjudicial states).

Here is where legal presumptions point the court in the wrong direction. Because the sale took place and it was “facially” valid, the presumption adopted by the court is usually that there was a sale even though you are contesting that narrative. You say that a sale didn’t take place, particularly where there was “credit bid” on behalf of an entity that had no interest in the debt and therefore could not possibly submit a credit bid.

Lastly the sleight of hand trick that is so successful for the banks is the assertion or inference that there is a trust. In this case US Bank is asserted, probably without tis knowledge, as the trustee of certificates which is no trusteeship at all. Even if you slip in “the holders of certificates” they still have not named a beneficiary.

So the common error being made out there is to ask for answers and documents and so forth and accepting the response from the servicer or alleged servicer. Back to basics: the  first question should be “please identify the person or entity that is the [Plaintiff (judicial state or any eviction action) / beneficiary on the deed of trust (nonjudicial states)].

Then the next question should be “Is the party executing the verification of these interrogatories an employee, officer of said Plaintiff/Beneficiary? They will respond with gibberish because the real party in interest is a remote “Master Servicer” of a trust that doesn’t exist.

And of course “Where are the records of the Plaintiff/Beneficiary that relate to the subject alleged loan?” Once again they will respond with gibberish because they want the court to accept the fabricated records of Ocwen as though they were the records of the Plaintiff/Beneficiary whose books and records do not exist. The closer you get the more likely they are to walk away or offer a settlement that includes a seal of confidentiality. And yes I have seen this scenario thousands of times.










Ocwen Boarding Process Was Shot Down Last Year

As foreclosure defense lawyers have been saying for years, the Ocwen Boarding process is a sham. “This boarding process is a legal fiction, and it means something different to every entity,” Butchko ruled from the bench during a March 17 hearing.

Ocwen does not verify any of the data. It downloads it and then “calls it a day.”

“I have done this investigation for a long time,” he said, noting, “The appellate courts are going under this presumption that there is some type of meaningful auditing and verification.” But Jacobs maintained, “You just heard it from a lawyer who knows how to properly phrase the questions that she’s basically testifying to all — all of this is still hearsay.

”Butchko granted an involuntary dismissal in HSBC Bank USA’s suit against Miami homeowner Joseph Buset, whose loan was initially serviced by Litton Loan Servicing LP, which Ocwen acquired in 2011.

We can help evaluate your options!
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

See Home Foreclosure Fails on OCwen Servicing Records

Bruce Jacobs, a Foreclosure defense lawyer won this case. It was in 2016 and was, as usual, under-reported. The case hinged on the prior records of Litton Loan Servicing that Ocwen had acquired. The robo-witness could only testify that Ocwen employees had matched fields and columns on the payment history and had done nothing else. Hence verification was nonexistent.

[Judge] Butchko had to decide how to treat loan documents that became part of Ocwen’s business records but remained subject to hearsay objections unless the company could show it independently verified the data after transferring the loans. She considered evidence on Ocwen’s boarding process — the procedure by which financial services companies transfer account data from one lenders’ management system to another after trading loan portfolios.

Witnesses for lenders in foreclosure cases must show they did independent fact-checking to qualify their files as business records and not hearsay.

All records in  digital or hard copy are hearsay by definition. The only issue is whether a proper foundation has been offered by the robo-witness to claim that the “documents” qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule and that therefore they should be admitted into evidence. This case on Ocwen clearly shows that the testimony by dozens of Ocwen robo-witnesses has been false.

Based upon information I have received from credible sources I think the problem is worse than that. My sources tell me that the records are not uploaded or transferred. The only thing that happens is that the user name and password is changed. That is why the records of the prior servicer are NEVER introduced. It may be that Ocwen changes the fields and columns to make it appear that the records have been processed, but based upon my information the Ocwen records are often taken from the same database. That being the case, the robo-witness should have been an employee of the former Litton servicing.



Ocwen to Shell Out $56 Million in Class-Action Settlement

Ocwen to Shell Out $56 Million in Class-Action Settlement

July 20th, 2017  |  by Alex Spanko

Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSE: OCN) on Thursday announced that has reached a $56 million settlement over a federal class-action lawsuit, the latest in a line of issues for the troubled servicer.

The lawsuit stemmed from alleged problems with restatements in Ocwen’s 2013 and 2014 financial statements, as well as a 2014 consent decree from the New York State Department of Financial Services that prohibited the company from gaining additional mortgage servicing rights in the state.

The West Palm Beach, Fla.-based Ocwen originates and services reverse mortgages under its Liberty Home Equity Solutions subsidiary.

“While the company believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses, Ocwen agreed to this settlement in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of the trial and the additional expense and demands on the time of its senior management,” the company wrote in an 8-K filing.

The settlement includes $49 million in cash for the plaintiffs, along with an additional 2.5 million shares of Ocwen stock that the company pegged at about $7 million; under the terms of the agreement, the servicer can also elect to simply pay the additional amount in cash.

After insurance covers a portion of the outlay, Ocwen will end up taking a financial hit of $34 million to $36 million, which the company intends to record in the second quarter of 2017. Ocwen warned that that the decision isn’t final and remains subject to a judge’s approval.

“In the event the settlement in principle is not ultimately finalized and approved, the litigation would continue and we would vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen,” the company wrote.

Back in March, Ocwen made a major move to extract itself from the terms of the 2014 New York order, reaching a deal with the Empire State to remove a mandatory third-party monitor and create a potential pathway to begin acquiring servicing rights once more. The state had forced Ocwen to pay $150 million in fines stemming from record-keeping failures and improperly handled foreclosures as part of the consent order.

But Thursday’s settlement announcement still marks the most recent step in Ocwen’s ongoing regulatory woes, which remain ongoing on several fronts: The servicer must currently contend with a lawsuit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and cease-and-desist orders from up to 30 states that bar Ocwen from gaining new mortgage servicing rights. Those orders generally did not affect Liberty’s operations, as RMD reported at the time.

Ocwen had attempted to shed the CFPB lawsuit by requesting an immediate ruling on the bureau’s constitutional authority, but in June a judge rejected that argument. Based on these challenges, Moody’s downgraded company’s outlook and projected more woes to come.

“The negative outlook reflects the expectation that Ocwen will continue to experience elevated legal and regulatory costs that negatively impact its profitability,” Moody’s wrote in its release announcing the downgrades.


NO TRUST ASSETS: In the eye of the storm

This is one more nail in the coffin of false securitization: the only assets attributed to apparent “Buyers” were those related to and including servicer advances. By severing the investors from their positions as creditors, the banks were able to create the illusion that they — or their “originators”, brokers, nominees, fronts and sham operators — were the owners of the debt. NONE of the “transfers” of the “loan documents” involved a purchase and sale of a loan. NONE of the original “loan documents” referred to an actual transaction between the homeowner and the originator. That is because at the base of the paper chain was an entity that served only as a conduit for the paperwork and which had nothing to do with the advance of money to or on behalf of any homeowner. The paper trail and the money trail diverged the moment the loan papers were executed.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

Hat tip to CC who wrote to me with the following:

In the eye of the storm

I also wanted to share with you the LinkedIn career history of a young “document specialist” who claims familiarity with executing and creating loan documents. (Document specialist Matt Byas maintains a profile on LinkedIn.) He worked his way up through such foreclosure/loan mod fraud luminaries as Saxon Mortgage (Dennis G. Stowe, COO, later acquired by Ocwen), Bank of America (where his job was “filing back several file folders containing loan information and processing them at various points along the line as well”), Homeward Residential, Inc. (later acquired by Ocwen, received $1.31B in TARP money, disbursed $280M) where his job included “creating allonges”), Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. (plaintiff in the successfully appealed judgement above, beneficiary of Geithner’s first, entirely bogus PPIP auction and another less well-known, similar sweetheart deal with Tim and Amtrust’s loans in 2010, which led to the $2M verdict for the Illinois widow in Hammer vs RCS, receiver of $43M in TARP money, $6.6M spent aiding borrowers, dissolved in 2016 by 2013 acquirer MTGE after non-stop quarterly losses from the point of acquisition onwards, and again featuring Dennis G. Stowe, CEO). His services were also utilized at a law firm that collapsed into a spectacular heap of revealed fraud, Butler & Hosch, P.A., and a loan servicer prone to deals so distant from comprehensibility that they had to issue this clarification to a press release in 2009:
No actual mortgage loans were part of the transaction. The acquired assets consisted principally of advances made on behalf of borrowers who are in arrears and of the Master Servicing Rights pursuant to which the loans are serviced. (e.s.) Mortgage servicing consists of collecting payments from homeowners, remitting them to appropriate parties and managing the default cycle. The transaction with Citi Residential Lending is similar to AHMSI’s earlier acquisitions from Option One and other sellers of servicing. In addition, while $1.5 billion has been described in a number of media reports as a “payment” in the transaction for the Master Servicing Rights, the vast portion of this amount is related to outstanding servicing advances.”
That loan servicer, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. eventually changed its name to Homeward Residential, and the document specialist no longer names it as a separate entity on his LinkedIn profile.

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.



Bloomberg Law: Ocwen Loses Bid for Early Test of CFPB’s Constitutionality

Ocwen Loses Bid for Early Test of CFPB’s Constitutionality


By Chris Bruce

A federal judge June 2 blocked Ocwen Financial Corp.’s bid to test the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the early stage of a closely watched enforcement case ( Cons. Fin. Protection Bureau v. Ocwen Fin. Corp. , S.D. Fla., 17-cv-80495, 6/2/17 ).

The ruling by Judge Kenneth Marra of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida allows the CFPB to proceed unimpeded with its April lawsuit alleging that Ocwen violated consumer protection laws in servicing loans of distressed borrowers.

Ocwen sought an early case conference on the constitutional question, saying it should be settled before allowing the CFPB to go further. Marra disagreed, saying that would depart from settled procedural rules and might delay the case. He said Ocwen may still make its constitutional attack on a motion to dismiss.

Marra also declined Ocwen’s request to seek U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ views on the CFPB’s constitutionality. In a separate order June 2, Marra said it’s “premature” to invite the Attorney General’s views at this point.

Marra said he can weigh that request again in the context of an Ocwen motion to dismiss. “Until a motion is filed setting forth the exact basis for the challenge, the Attorney General will not have sufficient information to determine whether he should intervene,” Marra said.

Ocwen: Case Unjustified

“We have reviewed the order, which addresses how the Court would like to have the constitutional attack presented to it,” Ocwen spokesperson John Lovallo said in an email to Bloomberg BNA. “We look forward to including that argument with all of the other reasons CFPB’s suit is unjustified and should be dismissed.”

Marra’s June 2 orders, especially his decision not to fast-track the constitutional issue, could help the CFPB in other litigation. In April, when Ocwen sought the case conference shortly after the CFPB filed its lawsuit, attorneys said Ocwen’s effort, if successful, might encourage other defendants in CFPB cases to make similar requests. Marra’s rulings give the CFPB more ammunition to fight any copycat moves.

The CFPB’s constitutional status is now being actively weighed by two federal appeals courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s full bench May 24 heard argument in a case involving PHH Corp. of Mount Laurel, N.J. Several observers who attended the argument say they expect that court to rule for the CFPB, perhaps setting up the case for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit May 17 gave Burbank, Calif.-based D&D Marketing the go-ahead to challenge the CFPB’s constitutional status in an appeal from an enforcement lawsuit by the agency.

Ocwen is fighting a separate but related lawsuit filed the same day as the CFPB’s action. The suit by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R), which also is being heard by Marra, similarly faults Ocwen’s servicing practices.

Ocwen is represented by Thomas M. Hefferon and Sabrina M. Rose-Smith of Goodwin Procter in Washington, and Bridget Ann Berry of Greenberg Traurig in West Palm Beach, Fla.

The CFPB is represented by Jean Marie Healey, Atur Ravi Desai, and Jan Edwards Singelmann.



%d bloggers like this: