Thank you Richard Zaretsky, Esq., for putting this out for us to review!

This is rare but one can never be too certain…

Today I received a call from one of my blog readers asking me for help with a pleading he received months ago, that is now being scheduled for a hearing in August.  This is a prime example of why Strategic Defaults or just walking away from a property can be so dangerous.  The pleading is a Motion for Deficiency Judgment from a foreclosure judgment and sale that occurred but was (like most other foreclosure sales) acquired by the lender for a nominal bid.  I and many others have been writing about this forgotten liability of borrowers.

Now here is an example of just what we said would happen, happening:

How the deficiency judgment hearing proof is presented to the court is discussed in my previous article on Foreclosure Deficiency Judgments and my original Back to Basics article.  The essence is that a deficiency judgment to be issued must go through a hearing where the lender submits proof (evidence) of the value of the property. The borrower has the right to refute the values. Getting to the number works like this:

To figure get the balance of the monies the bank must go back to court to ask the court to award it a “Deficiency Judgment”.  The amount is what is in question and the amount is measured using various rules.  Let’s assume the bank bid $100.  The court is not going to say that the house was worth $100 and $324,900 is still owed.  For our assumption we will say that the property is worth $200,000 and the foreclosure judgment is for $325,000.  That means the court will ask for an appraisal of the property as of the day of the foreclosure sale and the judge will likely give it that value.  So it will be the appraisal value less the judgment amount which will equal the Deficiency Judgment.  If the appraisal is $250,000, the Deficiency Judgment would be $75,000.   Now if there was real bidding at the foreclosure sale the judge could consider that bidding and instead adopt the selling price under the competitive bidding process that occurred at the foreclosure sale.  Then the Deficiency Judgment would be the difference from the foreclosure judgment and the winning bid amount. If the competitive bid was $240,000, then the Deficiency Judgment would be $85,000.

Back to the real life person with his August hearing – we suggested that before he retain us to negotiate with the lender on the deficiency amount and terms as a possible settlement without going to court, he try it himself.  We also suggested he speak with a bankruptcy attorney as there may be some planning opportunities available for him before the judgment is entered – if the negotiations don’t work.

Remember, a money judgment – that is what a Deficiency Judgment is – gives the judgment holder broad powers to collect the money, including garnishment and attachment of assets (like bank accounts).  Fraudulent Transfer Acts in the various states will block or take back transfers made to “hide” money from creditors.  See the article at CNN Money.

Copyright 2010 Richard P. Zaretsky, Esq.

Be sure to contact your own attorney for your state laws, and always consult your own attorney on any legal decision you need to make.  This article is for information purposes and is not specific advice to any one reader.

Richard Zaretsky, Esq., RICHARD P. ZARETSKY P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 1655 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD, SUITE 900, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401, PHONE 561 689 6660  RPZ99@Florida-Counsel.com – FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED IN REAL ESTATE LAW – We assist Brokers and Sellers with Short Sales and Modifications and Consult with Brokers and Sellers Nationwide!  Shortsales@Florida-Counsel.com New Website www.Florida-Counsel.com.

Via: Chink in the Amor

We’ve talked in the past about Dueling Databases and the havoc it can play in daily economic considerations.  We’ve seen the havoc which occurs when unrecorded assignments are allowed to have parity with assignments recorded at the courthouse.  We’ve also seen how important it is for interested third parties to be able to ascertain specific ownership.  We’ve seen how MERS is keeping a very private database and only allowing peeks into it when they deem it appropriate.  We’ve seen how you can’t rely on them for accurate information.

There is a persistent rumour circulating amongst the people who are in the trenches of this fight for the sanctity of law over corporotism.  It just won’t go away and it keeps popping its head up to the point now where I feel compelled to mention it.  So far,  there is no solid proof of it but we are looking.  It’s important information.  The rumour is that when the title company filed your paperwork from the purchase of your home,  they filed a duplicate set of paperwork for the MERS system which re-created you inside the MERS network.  In other words,  there are now two of you.  At least. Continue Reading

RON DIXON, As Conservator for Beatrice Jiggetts, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND MORTGAGE CO., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 09-1789 (RWR).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

June 29, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Beatrice Jiggetts brings this action against the defendant, Midland Mortgage Company (“Midland”), alleging claims of trespass, conversion, and breach of contract arising out of Midland changing the locks and foreclosing on her home. Midland moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that its home entry was authorized because Jiggetts defaulted on her mortgage and abandoned her home, that the law of conversion applies to personal property and not real property, and that the complaint fails to allege the elements of a contract. Because conversion applies only to chattel, Midland’s motion to dismiss Jiggetts’s conversion claim will be granted. However, because the complaint amply states a cause of action for both trespass and breach of contract and Midland does not show it was authorized to enter Jiggetts’s home, Midland’s motion to dismiss Jiggetts’s trespass and breach of contract claims will be denied.

BACKGROUND

Jiggetts co-owned with Charles L. Chesley a single-family home located in Washington, D.C. (Compl. ¶ 4.) For the past several years, however, Jiggetts has lived in a nursing home because she suffers from dementia. While Jiggetts was in the nursing home, Chesley was to make the monthly mortgage payments on the property, but failed to do so. (Id. ¶ 5.) Thus, Midland chose to foreclose. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Jiggetts alleges that, on approximately July 16, 2009, her conservator, Ron Dixon, came to an agreement with Midland to postpone the foreclosure sale until August 19, 2009 in order to give Dixon an opportunity to secure a buyer for the house and avoid foreclosure. (Id. ¶ 10.) Midland then scheduled a foreclosure sale for August 19, 2009. (Id. ¶ 7.) During the last week of July, Dixon found a potential buyer and asked Chesley to prepare the property for the potential buyer’s visit. (Id. ¶ 11.) When Chesley arrived, he discovered that the locks on the property had been changed. (Id.) Chesley and Dixon contacted Midland, and Midland’s attorney told them that the deed of trust authorized Midland’s entry into the property. (Id.) Midland ultimately gave Dixon the combination to unlock the house. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Jiggetts brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging that Midland’s entry into the property and alteration of the locks constituted trespass and conversion (id. ¶¶ 14-19) and a breach of contract. (Id. ¶¶ 21-24.) Midland removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and now moves to dismiss, arguing that it cannot be held liable for trespass because it had a superior possessory interest in the property, that the law of conversion applies to personal property only, and that Jiggetts has failed to state a claim for breach of contract.^{[ 1 ]}

DISCUSSION

“`To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, acceptable as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”‘” Anderson v. Holder, 691 F. Supp. 2d 57, 61 (D.D.C. 2010) (brackets omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007))). A court considering a 12(b)(6) motion takes all factual assertions within the complaint as true and gives a plaintiff “`the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.’” Id. (quoting Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). Those inferences, however, must be supported by the facts alleged, and merely asserting legal conclusions as facts will not suffice. Id. “[A] court `may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [a court] must take judicial notice.’” U.S. ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 2d 129, 133 (D.D.C. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). A document outside the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) if it is “referred to in the complaint and [is] integral to” the plaintiff’s claim. Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958, 965 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

I. TRESPASS CLAIM

Under District of Columbia law, “`[a] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto property that results in interference with the property owner’s possessory interest therein.’” Sarete, Inc. v. 1344 U St. Ltd. P’ship, 871 A.2d 480, 490 (D.C. 2005) (quoting Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property § 64A.02[1] at 64A-16 (Michael A. Wolf ed., 2000)). Jiggetts contends that Midland trespassed on her property when it entered her property and changed the locks. Midland does not dispute that it entered the property and changed the locks. Its sole argument against Jiggetts’s trespass claim is that its entry was lawful because Jiggetts abandoned the property. (Def.’s Mem. at 3-4.)

Midland’s argument is misguided, however. In the District of Columbia, abandonment is defined as an anticipatory breach wherein a tenant “`leaves the premises vacant with the avowed intention not to be bound by [the] lease.’” Jones v. Cain, 804 A.2d 322, 331 (D.C. 2001) (quoting Simpson v. Lee, 499 A.2d 889, 894 (D.C. 1985)). The complaint does not allege or concede facts reflecting that Jiggetts intended to abandon her property. Instead, the complaint reflects that Jiggetts had every intention of maintaining the monthly mortgage payments. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 5 (“While [Jiggetts was] in the nursing home, Chesley was supposed to be making the monthly mortgage payments on the subject property.”).) Moreover, while Midland claimed that the deed of trust authorized Midland to enter the property upon default (see id. ¶ 11), Midland has not presented any copy of the deed of trust mentioned in the complaint or any other agreement granting it the right to enter the property upon Jiggetts’s failure to make the mortgage payments. Because Jiggetts has pled that Midland entered her property without consent and changed the locks, preventing entry by the owners, and Midland has failed to show it was otherwise authorized to take that action, Midland’s motion to dismiss Jiggetts’s trespass claim will be denied.

II. CONVERSION CLAIM

Under District of Columbia law, conversion is defined as the “`intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.’” Edmonds v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 2d 196, 202 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Fed. Fire Protection Corp. v. J.A. Jones/Tompkins Builders, Inc., 267 F. Supp. 2d 87, 92 n.3 (D.D.C. 2003)). A chattel is defined as “`[m]ovable or transferable property; personal property; . . . [or] a physical object . . . not the subject matter of real property.’” Doe ex rel. Doe v. Fed. Express Corp., 571 F. Supp. 2d 330, 333 (D. Conn. 2008) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)) (first alteration in original). Jiggetts argues that the defendant “converted [her] leasehold interest, in the subject property, to [its] own interest” by entering the property and changing the locks. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 3.) However, the leasehold interest in her home is the subject matter of real property and is not chattel, see District Of Columbia v. Place, 892 A.2d 1108, 1112 (D.C. 2006), and the law of conversion does not apply to real property. Midland’s motion to dismiss Jiggetts’s conversion claim will be granted.

III. BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM

A contract is formed when there is an offer, an acceptance, and valuable consideration, see Paul v. Howard Univ., 754 A.2d 297, 311 (D.C. 2000), and a contract can be made orally or in writing. See Ames v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Civil Action No. 06-2039 (RMC), 2007 WL 1404443, at *2 (D.D.C. May 11, 2007). The complaint alleges that Midland “agreed to postpone the foreclosure until August 19, 2009, in order to allow [Dixon] to attempt to sell the property to avoid the foreclosure” and that the defendant breached an agreement when it entered the property and changed the locks. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 22.) Midland contends that the breach of contract claim must be dismissed because “plaintiff attaches no proof of such an agreement to the Complaint.” (Def.’s Mem. at 6.)

On a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff is not required to prove each element of her claim. Instead, she is merely required to plead facts that, if proven, would establish the elements of her claim. Moreover, while Jiggetts fails to plead facts reflecting that Midland breached an agreement to postpone the foreclosure sale because she does not allege that a foreclosure sale took place before August 19, 2009, Jiggetts’s complaint can be read to state a claim that Midland breached the parties’ mortgage agreement. The complaint refers generally to a contract and states that Midland breached an agreement by breaking into and changing the locks on the doors. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Further, Jiggetts’s opposition states that “[w]hen the Defendant changed the locks . . . without an order of the court to do so, it was a breach of their mortgage contract[.]” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 4.) Because a court is to grant the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences derived from the facts alleged, and the complaint — read in the light most favorable to Jiggetts — contains sufficient factual matter to state a claim for breach of the parties’ mortgage agreement, Midland’s motion to dismiss Jiggetts’s breach of contract claim will be denied.^{[ 2 ]}

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Because conversion applies only to chattel, Midland’s motion to dismiss Jiggetts’s conversion claim will be granted. However, the complaint alleges a trespass and, read in the light most favorable to Jiggetts, a breach of contract claim. Thus, Midland’s motion to dismiss Jiggetts’s trespass and breach of contract claims will be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Midland’s motion [5] to dismiss be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Jiggetts’s conversion claim is dismissed, but Midland’s motion is denied in all other respects.

This copy provided by Leagle, Inc.

By DinSFLA 6/30/2010

When Fannie Mae announced that she was going to start to penalize people who walk away from underwater mortgages it created a fire storm of angry individuals.

She said it would step up efforts to pursue deficiency judgment—seeking to recoup the difference between the loan balance and the net proceeds of the foreclosure sale—against so-called “strategic” defaulters in states where such suits are allowed. Fannie also will lengthen to seven years, from five, the amount of time borrowers who go through a foreclosure must wait before getting a new loan.

So here is my solution, grab a pen and write this down:

• Homes have lost not a little but an enormous amount of it’s value up to 70% in some areas.
• In my opinion it is going to take more than 7 years to see any hope in Real Estate stabilization.
• Who wants to buy today when we read about possibly 8 million shadow foreclosures that will ultimately bring down the market further to dust?
• We the tax payers are the owners so who the hell asked us if this is appropriate? Were any of us invited to this meeting and discuss this? Did we have a say in this like we never do? DISCLOSURES?
• What about the possible millions that were denied a modification from no fault of their own? Oh but the Obama Administration admitted this too…too…too…late Who will be responsible for those who were improperly foreclosed on?
• With the taxes and insurance sky rocketing, it only makes sense to rent for a while.
• Deficiency Judgment? Do you realize what this little pot you stir will cause?? Hmmm think about it.
• Credit who wants credit? We don’t even know where our own money is being used.
• Who do we have to contact to foreclose on Your “arse” Fannie??? After all you are owned by us… Do not bite the hand that feeds you!

You see the threat really has no impact.

Trust is earned my friends and we have absolutely none at the moment.

The evil thing here is that instead of going after the true Run A Ways “the banks” who stole the cash you go after the ones who feed you and behind our back you feed them???

Image source: The Simpsons “Angry Mob”

Lets not act surprise…by now we all know ANYTHING the US GOVERNMENT touches turns to ___________!

Because these lying banksters get away with ________________! We should foreclose on their _____________and kick them to the curb! Get your stress out and fill in the blank!

WE are not fools and we do not believe one thing they say!

Shahien Nasiripour

Potentially “thousands” of troubled homeowners were denied opportunities to lower their monthly mortgage payments under the Obama administration’s signature foreclosure-prevention plan due to servicer errors and inadequate oversight by the Treasury Department, a government audit has found.

Mortgage servicers failed to comply with basic guidelines, used different criteria to evaluate borrowers, recorded error rates up to six times their established thresholds, and couldn’t provide evidence that potentially eligible homeowners had been solicited for the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, also known as HAMP.

The errors are partly due to Treasury’s failure to issue specific guidelines for servicers to follow, and the administration’s lack of quality-control standards. Because servicers aren’t required to adhere to the same set of standards, there’s a risk that firms aren’t identifying practices “that may lead to inequitable treatment of borrowers or harm taxpayers through greater potential for fraud or waste,” according to a Thursday report by the Government Accountability Office.

But even if servicers were fraudulently modifying loans or improperly denying modifications to distressed homeowners, Treasury “has yet to establish specific consequences or penalties for noncompliance,” the GAO notes. The department has yet to fine any servicers for noncompliance, according to the report.

Already, “Treasury specifically allows some differences in how servicers evaluate borrowers… that could result in inconsistent outcomes for borrowers,” the report found.

The end result could be the “inequitable treatment” of struggling homeowners who were looking to an administration for help during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. HAMP is the centerpiece of the administration’s $75 billion effort to stem the rising tide of foreclosures.

“I find it saddening and frustrating that none of these problems, which we among other people identified to Treasury over a year ago, have been meaningfully addressed,” said Diane E. Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “And as a result, we lost a major opportunity to stem the foreclosure crisis.”

Continue reading….here

By Bendix Anderson Jun 29th 2010 @ 1:13PM

The federal government says foreclosure prevention has helped millions of people. But sometimes it seems hard to find a pundit or news story that mentions foreclosure prevention program without using the word “failed,” often in the headline.

Whom should you believe?

Government officials say 2.8 million homeowners at risk of foreclosure have had their home mortgages modified, lowering monthly payment by an average of about $500 since April 2009. But critics point out that not all of those modifications have lasted.

For example, of the 1.2 million trial modification started so far through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), about a third, or 429,696, have been canceled, according to the latest reports. Many skeptics worry that foreclosure prevention has merely delayed foreclosure for millions of homeowners who are still likely to eventually lose their homes.
First, let’s look at the big number: the 2.8 million modifications claimed by the government. That includes the 1.2 million HAMP trial modifications, 400,000 modifications through the Federal Housing Administration, and another 1.2 million loan modifications negotiated by HOPE NOW, a national coalition including government-approved loan counselors, mortgage companies and investors.

Based partly on these modifications, officials are taking credit for stabilizing a collapsing housing market. “We already know that due to the Obama administration’s efforts, the housing market is significantly better than anyone predicted a year ago,” said Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan.

But that still leaves the question of the what happened to the close to half-a-million people who had their trial modifications canceled. They were kicked out of the program for a range of reasons: Some had mortgage payments already less than 31 percent of their income, missed trial payments or had incomplete or unverifiable documentation, according to Treasury officials.

According to a January statement by JPMorgan Chase, for every 100 trial modifications begun through the fall of 2009, a quarter had not paid as agreed. Another 29 borrowers did not submit all the required documents. “Many borrowers return forms missing key information (signatures, Social Security numbers, etc.) or do not return one of four required documents,” according to a statement from Chase. Another 13 out of a 100 borrowers are not eligible for HAMP but will qualify for another type of loan modification and 33 out of 100 borrowers are able to be underwritten for permanent HAMP modifications.

What happened to these people? How were they “helped?”

It now appears that about half of the borrowers that didn’t qualify for HAMP had their loans permanently modified anyway by their loan servicers under alternative programs, according to a survey of the eight biggest loan companies in the HAMP program. Another quarter of the canceled modifications were still awaiting action by the lenders, according to the survey. The remaining quarter of the canceled modifications ended in a variety of ways, ranging from a payment plan, a loan payoff, a bankruptcy filing to knock out heavy credit card debts, or a short sale. Only 7 percent had gone to foreclosure by the end of May.

And here’s another unexpected thing — 10 percent of the loans that had their modifications canceled are now current. The borrowers got out of foreclosure and kept their homes without any help from the program. It’s not clear from the report where these borrowers got the money to get up to date on their loans. Some may have had the money all along. Others borrowers who had lost income may have found new employment.

The survey results are a surprise for all the pundits, myself included, who thought loans that had their trial modifications canceled would be headed straight to foreclosure.

Of course, the future is still unclear for many borrowers who entered foreclosure-prevention programs. More than 400,000 borrowers still have unresolved HAMP trial modifications. Researchers and officials have also begun to track the hundreds of thousands of borrowers with permanent modifications, to see how many slip back into foreclosure, according The Associated Press.

Whatever you think of the federal plan to stop foreclosures, the last page of the latest government-issued Housing Scorecard report has some important numbers. In addition to the tally of temporary and permanent modifications, there’s the number of borrowers who are “underwater,” meaning they owe a larger balance on their home mortgage than the home is now worth: 11.3 million, according to First American CoreLogic. These people might not all give up their homes to foreclosure, but they are vulnerable to new economic shocks. The report also counts 2.4 million seriously delinquent loans, according to LPS-McDash and HUD. Finally, officials count 3.6 million vacant homes held off the market, according to the Census Bureau. Those homes will eventually have to be sold.

So, no matter what you think federal foreclosure prevention effort — and I think the feds are doing better than anyone gives them credit for — the housing market still faces huge challenges that won’t go away soon.
Source: Housing Watch

I think this is the case for many of us who needed the HELOC when times got tough or for an emergency.

A dispute over a foreclosure is headed for trial.

By: Judy Wiff, Pierce County Herald Published June 29 2010

A dispute over a foreclosure is headed for trial.

A jury trial is set for March 16-17, 2011, in a case brought by Wells Fargo Bank against Deborah and John Sherman II, 434 Court St. North, Prescott. The bank claims the Shermans failed to make payments and now owe $384,236.

According to the Shermans, they had a 10-year draw period on a line of credit, but when they went to withdraw funds, they found the bank had reduced the credit limit based on a “substantial decline” in the value of their property.

“The Shermans have never been behind on a payment and use the line of credit in the running of their business,” wrote their attorney as he challenged the foreclosure action.

Continue reading…here

DJSP Video Chart

The DJSP video chart is more than a chart to watch; iIt is a basic lesson in combining 15 minute charts with daily charts in technical analysis.

SOURCE: QualityStocks.net

Jun. 29, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Homeowner gets foreclosure reprieve

Company barred from evicting tenant while case is pending

By JOHN G. EDWARDS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

You DO NOT want to be on this firms radar…they investigate Corporate Fraud and this is the 2nd firm to launch an investigation against DJSP Enterprises.

New York – May 28, 2010 – Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has been investigating DJSP Enterprises (“DSJP” or the “Company”) (Symbol: DJSP) for potential violations of the federal securities laws.  Investors who purchased Company securities since April 1, 2010 may be affected.

On May 28, 2010, DJSP plunged by $2.59, or 29.2%, to $6.28 after the real-estate foreclosure services company posted weaker-than-expected first-quarter results and warned investors of a full-year earnings shortfall.

DJSP said it had a first-quarter adjusted profit of 35 cents a share, which was a nickel below the Thomson Reuters average estimate.

DJSP said that in April one of its largest bank clients initiated a foreclosure system conversion that cut the number of foreclosures. Because of the foreclosure system conversion and the U.S. government’s steps to prevent foreclosures, DJSP said it expects full-year earnings of $1.29 to $1.36 a share, which is below consensus. Volume topped 3.13 million shares, compared to the 50-day average daily volume of 190,000.

If you purchased DJSP publicly traded securities and would like to discuss our investigation, please e-mail us at mail@kaplanfox.com or contact:

Frederic S. Fox
Joel B. Strauss
Donald R. Hall
Hae Sung Nam
Jeffrey P. Campisi
Pamela A. Mayer

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(800) 290-1952
(212) 687-1980
Fax: (212) 687-7714
E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com

Laurence D. King
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California  94104
(415) 772-4700
Fax:  (415) 772-4707
E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com

DinSFLA Here: —–>Heads Up! See Red Text!

According to www.seekingalpha.com’s contributor Glen Bradford on 5/28/2010 he states

Starting to sound like a broken record with these bank “mistakes”!

6/28/2010 12:55 PM By Kelly Holleran

What I want to now know is how this happened extremely fast when there is thousands trying to work out the same? In my recent post I wrote about this controversy in which I question the validity of Deutsche Bank’s standing…

Foreclosure case against two Fla. candidates dropped

Deutsche Bank files, dismisses suit with Marco Rubio and David Rivera over mortgage

Katherine Concepcion • Staff Writer • June 28, 2010 Tallahassee.com

A 1,228-square foot home off Apalachee Parkway was the subject of recent controversy within the Florida political scene.

On June 14, the Deutsche Bank National Trust Company initiated a foreclosure filed in the Leon County Circuit Court against Marco Rubio and David Rivera, owners of the property in question. The lawsuit has since been dropped; a notice of voluntary dismissal and release of lis pendens was filed on June 23.

The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, who represented Deutsche Bank, declined to comment.
Rubio, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, is running for the Republican seat currently occupied by George LeMieux in the U.S. Senate. Rep. Rivera, who serves District 112 of the Florida House, is campaigning as a Republican Congressional candidate in Florida’s 25th District. The two men purchased the house for $135,000 in 2005. The property is currently under contract pending sale.

Rivera delivered a cashier’s check for $9,525 to the plaintiffs on Thursday, June 17, prompting Rubio spokesperson Alex Burgos, who did not return calls for comment, to issue a statement that the men “took action right away to get this [matter] resolved.”

Court records reveal a debt of around $136,000 on the property, including late charges and accumulated interest. Mortgage payments had not been made since February because of an alleged dispute over how the adjustable rate mortgage would be calculated once the interest-only period expired.

This is not the first financial battle Rubio has been embroiled in.

During his tenure as House speaker, Rubio was questioned about his failure to disclose receiving a $135,000 home-equity loan, and charging $16,000 in personal expenses, including grocery bills and car repairs, to a Florida GOP credit card.

Continue reading …

Scribd

RELATED STORY:

US Senate candidate MARCO RUBIO Facing Foreclosure…NOT SO FAST, Lets TAKE A LOOK!

I am definitely confident on this one going far!

Mortgage registration firm sued for fraud, billions in penalties in Nevada, California

By Frank X. Mullen Jr. • June 25, 2010 RGJ.com

A Reno law firm has filed two lawsuits alleging fraud against a nationwide mortgage registration firm, and if those legal actions prevail, the firm and dozens of mortgage lenders could be liable to Nevada’s counties for billions of dollars in compensation and penalties.

Law partners Robert R. Hager and Treva J. Hearne, with Reno attorney Mark Mausert, have filed a case in Nevada and one in California against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, which operates an electronic registry of mortgage loans in the United States. MERS serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, investors and loan servicers in county land records, but doesn’t own any mortgages.

By using the firm’s names on deeds and other paperwork, the lenders are able to avoid county recording fees, according to the firm. MERS has no financial interest in the loans, but is listed as actual owner or surrogate for the owner on millions of deeds of trust, even as individual mortgages are repeatedly traded and packaged inside of mortgage pools.

The lawsuits argue that listing the firm as the owner of mortgages in which it has no interest in order to avoid filing fees and taxes that are legally required constitutes fraud.

“We look forward to holding these financial institutions and foreclosure mills responsible for their actions that have deprived the states and counties of much-needed revenue,” said Hager.

Karmela Lejarde, communications manager, for the Reston, Va.-based firm, noted that the attorneys general of two states declined to take on the cases as false claims suits pressed by the government, instead leaving the plaintiffs to pursue the civil suits in the court systems.

“The lawsuits are completely without merit,” Lejarde said. “…The suits were filed by the same lawyers who have brought countless lawsuits against MERS, and every single one of them has failed. The most recent (fraud case) actions are just the latest in a line of baseless claims.”

Christopher Peterson, a law professor and associate dean of the University of Utah Law School, has written articles and lectured about MERS’s activities. He said the firm being listed as proxy owner of more than half the nation’s mortgages is contrary to 200 years of American legal precedent.

Continue here…

Scribd

Part II

http://www.scribd.com/full/33679187?access_key=key-795n4c7e7xreprv28yr

Scribd

Part III

http://www.scribd.com/full/33679319?access_key=key-16v5sbgda4zf6ka6eox5

Scribd

RELATED STORY:

MERS Good Information Foreclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERS, VP MERS, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY