2010 July 03 | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Archive | July 3rd, 2010

A Call to Action| CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION AGAINST MERS PREPARING

A Call to Action| CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION AGAINST MERS PREPARING

A class action lawsuit is currently being prepared and we are in need of parties in California who are interested in pursuing these devils who have done so much to destroy everything this country stands for and is.

We are looking for the following:

  • The property is located in California
  • Have a Pay Option ARM which names MERS as nominee (highly likely in the event of an Option Arm);
  • Lender was Countrywide/BofA or broker associated with CW;
  • Issued Jumbo/100% financing
  • They are facing an increase via reset or recasting which will consume over 70% of the income which the same as when lender sold them the loan some time in 2010, 2011 or 2012;
  • They are committed to fighting the Bad guys;
  • They have their Note, HELOC Agreement, MERS disclosure

If you fit this description,  please contact this website at info@chinkinthearmor.net

Source: chinkinthearmor

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Posted in bank of america, class action, countrywide, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.12 Comments

Conflict of Interest, Fraud on the Court, Motion to DQ Counsel

Conflict of Interest, Fraud on the Court, Motion to DQ Counsel

This is quite a fight! Listen this is exactly what is happening across the country. When and Who is going to pick up this mess when it all finally comes to reality?

In my Florida Bar Complaint I raised this same issue against my MILL and they saw nothing wrong??…Again, we are on our own to bring them down!

Via: StopaLawFirm

STUNNING ADMISSIONS:

(1)  Citimortgage admits its own employees signed an assignment of mortgage, conveying a mortgage to itself.

(2)  Foreclosure Mill Shapiro & Fishman, LLP admits its standard practice is to prepare these assignments for their own clients (not the original mortgagee) to execute and record in the public record.

(3)  Shapiro never runs conflict checks prior to filing new lawsuits, leaving it up to their other clients (who may or may not be named as Defendants) to assert a conflict after the case has been filed.

These admissions were made in the course of a 3.5 hour, evidentiary hearing on a Motion to Disqualify Counsel brought by Mark Stopa on June 18, 2010 before Judge Foster in Tampa.

I’ve attached the Transcript, DQ Motion, and the Exhibits introduced into evidence, but they’re not going to make sense without some background. (Bear with me, this is fascinating stuff.  To illustrate, even as he denied the motion (incorrectly, in my opinion), Judge Foster openly acknowledged the need for a written opinion from the Florida Supreme Court, comparing the issue to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and Miranda  v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)).

Facts (as set forth in DQ Motion,Transcript, and Exhibits):  Shapiro & Fishman represents Citimortgage, Inc. in a foreclosure lawsuit against JPMorgan, MERS, and the homeowners.  The Complaint does not specify how Citimortgage acquired standing to foreclose.  The public records reflect an Assignment of Mortgage, prepared by Shapiro, purporting to assign the mortgage from MERS, as Nominee for First Security Mortgage Services, to Citimortgage.  The assignment was executed the same day Citimortgage filed suit.  Citimortgage’s own employee testified that Nate Blackstun and Jamie Hardcastle, the individuals who signed this assignment (purporting to transfer the mortgage from MERS to Citimortgage) are actually employees of Citimortgage.  Quoting the testimony of a Citimortgage employee:

Q:  Who is Jamie Hardcastle?
A:  She works at Citimortgage in the — well, I’m not quite sure which department she works in.
Q:  Do you know her?
A:  Yes.
Q:  Do you work with her?
A:  No, she works in my building.
Q:  She’s an employee of Citimortgage, Inc.?
A:  Yes.
Q:  How about Nate Blackstun?  Do you know him?
A:  Yes.
Q:  Who is he?
A:  He’s vice president of Citimortgage.
Q:  Does he work in your building as well?
A:  Yes.  …
Q:  Do you know whether Mr. Blackstun obtained the consent of MERS prior to signing an assignment of mortgage in this case?
A:  He’s an authorized signer for MERS.
Q:  Even though he’s also the Vice President of Citimortgage?
A:  Yes.
Q:  You see any sort of problem with that?
A:  No.
Q:  How do you allege that Citimortgage became the owner and holder of this note in this case?
A:  It was assigned to Citimortgage –
Q:  From whom?
A:  from MERS.
Q:  From whom?
A:  MERS.
Q:  On behalf of whom?
A:  I’m not sure.

In fact, Shapiro and Fishman’s office manager admitted that Shapiro’s standard practice is to prepare an Assignment of Mortgage, provide it to its own client to sign (on behalf of the original mortgage holder, typically MERS), have its client execute the assignment, and cause the assignment to be recorded.

Q:  Do you dispute that Jamie Hardcastle is an employee of Citimortgage, Inc.?
A:  Do I dispute that?  No.
Q:  Do you dispute that Nate Blackstun is an employee of Citimortgage, Inc.?
A:  No.
Q:  Yet they are the individuals who signed an assignment of mortgage on October 13, 2009, purporting to convey a mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for First Security Mortgage Services to Citimortgage?
A:  With authority from MERS to execute the document, yes they did. …
Q:  So all you basically do when you get a new client for a foreclosure case, you cause an assignment of mortgage to be prepared, send it to your client for signature, and knowing that your clients have it own employees signing it and then sending it back to you, true?
A:  Yes.  However, that assignment is not part of the foreclosure action itself.  It’s a chain of title document which is not part of the foreclosure.
Q:  You’ve never seen these assignments of mortgage be attached to a complaint?
A:  Sure.

Shapiro represents JPMorgan and MERS in other, pending cases, including at least one case where MERS is adverse to Citimortgage.  Yet Shapiro continues to represent Citimortgage in this case, adverse to JPMorgan and MERS.  (If you don’t think there is anything wrong with that, call The Florida Bar and tell them you represent ABC Corp. against XYZ Corp. and ask The Bar if it’s ok for you to represent XYZ Corp. against ABC Corp. – see what they say.  See if the Bar gives its blessing, even if both entities waive the conflict.)  Shapiro did not perform a “conflict check” prior to representing Citimortgage in this case and, in fact, does not perform conflict checks when taking on new files.  Instead, Shapiro’s standard practice is to file the suit for whichever bank it is representing in that case and presume there is no conflict unless a different bank asserts such a conflict.

The issues:  (a) Whether Shapiro & Fishman have a conflict of interest under 4-1.7, R.Reg.Fla.Bar, precluding it from acting as counsel for Citimortgage, when it is simultaneously representing JPMorgan and MERS (in other, pending cases and, arguably, the instant case); and (b) whether Citimortgage has used Shapiro’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, without agreeing to disclose and rectify the crime or fraud, in violation of 4-1.16, R.Reg.Fla.Bar.

The law:  Rule 4-1.7(a) precludes a law firm from representing a client if the representation is (1) directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation will be “materially limited” by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or a personal interest of the lawyer.  The only way around this prohibition is compliance with 4-1.7(b), which requires, among other things, that each client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing or clearly stated on the record at a hearing.  See Lincoln Associates & Constr., Inc. v. Wentworth Constr. Co., Inc., 26 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).  Additionally, Rule 4-1.16 precludes a lawyer from representing a client who has used the lawyer’s services to commit a crime or fraud unless the client agrees to disclose and rectify the crime or fraud.

Analysis:  In the face of the Motion to Disqualify Counsel, Shapiro presented a waiver of conflict, signed by an employee of Citimortgage, dated just one day before the hearing (the first time Shapiro discussed the issue of conflict with Citimortgage).  However, Shapiro presented no such waiver from MERS or JPMorgan, and no witness from MERS or JPMorgan testified or otherwise consented to waive the conflict.  In my opinion, the absence of consent from MERS and JPMorgan required Shapiro’s disqualification.  See Rule 4-1.7 and Wentworth.

Throughout the hearing, Judge Foster repeatedly ruled that he “did not see the conflict” and that Citimortgage was “not adverse” to MERS and JPMorgan.  Respectfully, when these entities are on opposite sides of a lawsuit, the adversity is presumed.  They are adverse by definition, one being the Plaintiff and the other the Defendant.   Although Shapiro contends, when these entities are named as Defendants, that it’s merely to ”clear title,” that does not change the adversarial nature of the relationship.  For instance, suppose MERS or JPMorgan or First Security later realized it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage (or, at minimum, that it had a bona fide claim in that regard) – the judgment in this case would bar such a claim under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.  Similarly, suppose a ”junior” lien holder had a bona fide argument that its lien was superior.  Isn’t Shapiro throwing one client under the bus (the defendant) for the sake of another (the plaintiff) without checking if its own client, the defendant, takes the position that it owns and holds the note and mortgage?  Shapiro says the defendant was defaulted, so it isn’t contesting the plaintiff’s position and there is hence no conflict, but isn’t it the lawyer’s job to inquire about the conflict, before filing suit, and not merely to leave it up to the client to figure it out? Isn’t it Shapiro’s responsibility, under The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, before filing suit against its own client, to make sure that the client it is suing consents to the relief being requested?  How do we know the client isn’t relying on the law firm (as clients reasonably do)?  I can see the logic now – “Shapiro is filing suit against us for a different bank.  Shapiro represents us.  Shapiro must be right - we must not have an ownership interest in this Note and Mortgage.”  We’ve already established that Shapiro isn’t checking – Shapiro admitted as much at this hearing - so if the bank isn’t checking, either, then who is?

Suppose this were any other setting, not a foreclosure case, and you represent ABC Corp. against XYZ Corp.  Would you ever file suit for XYZ Corp. against ABC Corp., in a different suit, without asking ABC Corp. if it consented?  Without asking ABC Corp. if it agreed with XYZ Corp’s position in that case?  I highly doubt it.  So why it is okay for Shapiro to do that in these cases, over and over again?  Merely because they are foreclosure cases?

And what about all of the cases where Shapiro’s “other” client may claim ownership of the Note and Mortgage (e.g. because it is the record owner or prior record owner) but is not named as a defendant in the suit?  Why does Shapiro name these entities as Defendants in some cases but not in others?  If they need to “clear title” in some cases, why not in others?  Is Shapiro intentionally not naming its own client as a defendant to make it easier for its other client, the plaintiff, to win the foreclosure case, while leaving the door open for its other client (not named as a defendant) to file suit on the same Note and Mortgage? After all, if the bank isn’t named as a defendant, the foreclosure judgment is not binding on it, and nothing stops that bank from filing a different lawsuit for foreclosure.

Meanwhile, in the face of an assignment of mortgage that appears fraudulent (unless you think self-dealing or dual agency is okay), Shapiro asserts Citimortgage’s standing is based on transfer of the note, not the assignment of mortgage.  Of course, Shapiro did not take this position until after the Motion to Disqualify Counsel was filed, which raises the question – why is Shapiro so willing to concede one ground for standing in this case when it asserts that basis for standing in other, similar cases?  We all know there are many cases in which Shapiro has used an assignment of mortgage as a basis for standing; in fact,often the assignment is attached to the Complaint.  Why, then, would it be giving up this argument in this case?  In my opinion, the answer is clear – Shapiro wants to take the spotlight off of itself and its own conduct, even if it means giving up an argument for a client.  “Let’s argue the assignment is irrelevant for purposes of standing, that way our conduct vis a vis the assignment becomes irrelevant, too.”  Maybe standing is, in any given case, based on transfer of the Note.  Respectfully, though, wouldn’t a conflict-free attorney want to argue every possible basis for standing, including the assignment, and not forego an argument for standing because it highlighted that attorney’s own conduct?  In other words, isn’t Shapiro’s representation of Citimortgage “materially limited” by its own self-interest?  See Rule 4-1.7(a)(2).  Notably, upon inquiry from Mr. Stopa, the Citimortgage employee made it clear Shapiro never advised her that it was giving up one basis for standing in the case.  Respectfully, how can a waiver be “informed’ when Citimortgage does not understand the ramifications of its waiver in the pending case?

Unfortunately, Judge Foster did not seem to get (for lack of a better term) this latter argument, as he sustained an objection that Shapiro’s reliance on an assignment in other cases was irrelevant.  (That’s one purpose of a blog like this – to make judges think about these issues and understand them.  To wit, by no means am I trying to criticize Judge Foster here – I respect and appreciate that he gave me the opportunity to flesh out this evidence.  I just think the issues merit consideration from all of us.)  But Shapiro’s reliance on the assignments in other cases – and refusal to do so in this case – is precisely the point.  If Shapiro is relying on assignments in other cases, but not in this case, merely to take the spotlight off of itself so as to defeat a motion to disqualify, it’s representation is materially limited by its own self-interest, in violation of 4-1.7.  Remember, the rule requires “informed” consent, and if Citimortgage is consenting to the representation without understanding that Shapiro is waiving an argument that a conflict-free attorney would assert, the consent is not “informed.”   Also, how many hundreds or thousands of times has Shapiro relied on these assignments in other foreclosure cases (in which I, or another defense attorney, am not involved)?

Meanwhile, Judge Foster seemed to accept that a fraud was not being committed upon the Court (given how Shapiro distanced itself from the assignment of mortgage), but Rule 4-1.16 doesn’t require that the fraud be committed in that case.  The Rule requires that a lawyer withdraw from representation if “the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, unless the client agrees to disclose and rectify the crime or fraud.”  Here, isn’t an assignment of mortgage, filed in the public records, purporting to convey an assignment from MERS to Citimortgage, but which is actually signed by employees of Citimortgage, a fraud?  As I’ve presented this argument, judges seem to be taking the position that it’s OK for an employee of Citimortgage to execute an assignment from MERS to itself as long as MERS consents, but how is that not self-dealing?  And why is it ok?  I know I’m not the only person who thinks it’s wrong.  See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Vazquez, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 51814 (N.Y. 2009); Bank of New York v. Mulligan, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op 31501 (N.Y. 2008) (“The Court is concerned that Mr. Harless might be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats.  Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Mr. Harless describing his employment history for the past three years.”); Bank of New York v. Orosco, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 33818 (N.Y. 2007); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Castellanos, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50033 (N.Y. 2008) (“Did Mr. Rivas somehow change employers on July 21, 2006 or is he concurrently a Vice President of both assignor Argent Mortgage Company, LLC and assignee Deutsche Bank?  If he is a Vice President of both the assignor and the assignee, this would create a conflict of interest and render the July 21, 2006 assignment void. … The court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of Deutsche Bank, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, and/or MTGLQ Investors, L.P., or at least malfeasance.”).

In comments made as the hearing began (which are unfortunately not in the transcript), Judge Foster made it clear that he didn’t want to require disqualification and upset the entire banking industry.  In a way, that’s exactly what this motion is doing – arguing that the manner in which these assignments have been completed (and, in essence, the entire MERS system) is a fraud.  Respectfully, though, why should the fact that the fraud is pervasive – and would upset the way banks litigate foreclosure cases – make this problem less worthy of attention?  Shouldn’t the fact that these assignments are being prepared fraudulently in virtually every case make judges more likely to fix the problem, not less?

Shapiro argued extensively that my clients lack standing to argue this issue.  However, the Comment to 4-1.7 provides: “Where the conflict is such as clearly to call into question the fair or efficient administration of justice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question.”  This is where we need to educate judges about the widespread ramifications of “pushing through” foreclosure cases.  For instance, in these cases where the wrong Plaintiff is suing, what will happen when the actual owner of the Note and Mortgage emerges, after the foreclosure is granted?  What will happen to the homeowner, who has already been foreclosed upon by the wrong bank (but faces another lawsuit by the correct one)?  What will happen to the then-owner of the property, who purchased the property either at the courthouse auction or from such a purchaser?  What about the title company that issued title insurance based on that sale?  Particularly in lawsuits where the Note is lost, or where the original mortgage holder went into bankruptcy (and subsequent transfers or assignments were unauthorized as a matter of law) we must safeguard against these problems.  That’s why addressing these conflict issues is so important – it forces banks and their lawyers to take a hard look at the interests of all parties involved before a foreclosure case gets “pushed through.”

Many Florida cases on the issue of disqualification talk about the appearance of impropriety and the public’s perception of our conduct as lawyers.  See Wentworth, Campbell v. American Pioneer Savings Bank, 565 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Andrews v. Allstate Ins. Co., 366 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).   For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone can dispute the unseemliness of these events.  Perhaps that’s why at least one judge has questioned the conflict of interest in these situations.  See HSBC Bank USA, N.C. v. Vazquez, 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op 51814 (N.Y. 2009) (“Even if Plaintiff HSBC is able to cure the assignment defect, plaintiff’s counsel then has to adderess the conflict of interest that exists with his representation of both the assignor of the instant mortgage, MERS as Nominee for HSCB Mortgage, and the assignee of the instant mortgage, HSBC.”).  I urge more attorneys and judges in our great state to give careful consideration to these issues.

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Posted in citimortgage, conflict of interest, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, shapiro & fishman pa0 Comments

DIRTY, ROTTEN, SCOUNDRELS

DIRTY, ROTTEN, SCOUNDRELS

Kick a family when they are down why dontcha! Lets see them try to ring my bell or climb my fence…they might encounter a huge pair of enormous 4 legged puppies for trespassing!

Finding Gold in Them Thar Foreclosures

With eye for bargains and stomach for risk, investors sift through wreckage of housing bust

By ADAM GELLER AP National Writer
July 3, 2010 (AP)



GILBERT, Ariz. — If we’re going to search for gold in the wreckage of the mortgage crisis, then 6:57 a.m. in front of 1009 W. Juanita Ave. is as good a time and place as any to start.

The Cooper Ranch subdivision, tucked behind an industrial park 25 minutes from downtown Phoenix, is just beginning to stir. But when Casey Doran pulls his pickup to the curb, the tan stucco house has already seen a steady trickle of visitors. From under the visor of his ball cap, Doran sizes up the first foreclosure of the day.

“Still occupied,” he says, nodding to a green plastic tag hanging from the meter by the garage, proof that someone’s paying the electric bill. He leans on the bell; when no one answers, he tries the door. The house resists his advances, leaving Doran squinting into the darkness behind the blinds. He tugs on the back gate, peering over the wall into a yard corralling chest-high tumbleweeds.

“He isn’t much of a grass person,” Doran says, snapping pictures with his iPhone.

In a little more than three hours, the intelligence Doran gathers in these 10 minutes of reconnaissance will be put to the test. That’s when 1009 W. Juanita and nearly 600 homes like it are scheduled for auction to the highest bidder.

Maybe, with bidding set to open at $105,000, the house is a bargain.

Or maybe it’s a mistake, waiting to drag an investor under.

Either way, there’s little time to ponder this 1,631-square-foot gamble. But there will certainly be other chances.

After all, 50,000 homes clog the county’s foreclosure pipeline and more are added every day. But before you jump to buy, know that you’ll have plenty of company.

At the top of the housing boom, certain cities drew investors like magnets. In Phoenix, speculators bought up houses, largely with borrowed cash, trying to take advantage of fast-rising prices. Those who didn’t sell in time were stung when the market collapsed.

But early last year, a new crop of investors — many buying with their own cash — ventured in, sensing opportunity. In the months since, the share of homes bought by investors at daily auctions has multiplied more than fivefold.

“These are unique times. Very, very unique times,” says Tom Ruff of The Information Market, which analyzes Valley real estate data. “I think the best way to describe it is the Wild West.”

The scene unsettles some, wary that investors could dump homes if the market weakens or take advantage of individual buyers or renters. Others are troubled at banks’ willingness to settle for less at auction rather than give more substantial concessions to homeowners locked into crushing loans. But something’s got to be done with all these overmortgaged, underappreciated houses.

“The investors are a tool to help get those properties moved into new hands,” says Diane Drain, a Phoenix bankruptcy attorney and real estate trustee. “At this point, the dam is so broken. How do you stop the flow? I don’t know how you do it other than one little stick at a time.”

___

During the boom, Steve Vadas sold title insurance on thousands of homes. Now, with business dried up, he’s landed back at the job that gave him his start — in the shadow of the Maricopa County Courthouse, auctioning foreclosures.

It’s hard to recognize the place.

In the old days, Vadas stood on the courthouse steps reading lists of foreclosed homes aloud and almost always only to himself, eyed like a crazy man by the occasional passer-by.

“Nobody would bid on them,” he says. “I literally was reading them to the air.”

No more. On a May afternoon nine years later, a crowd of 60 churns the plaza outside the courthouse doors in downtown Phoenix. Dressed in board shorts and wraparound shades, they scan pages-long printouts of houses and talk furtively into headsets to unseen investors. Five auctioneers compete simultaneously for their attention.

Once Vadas, who conducts sales for Trustee’s Assistance Corp., handled 60 to 70 foreclosures a month. Some days now, he and fellow auctioneers run through that many in an hour or two.

Even in good times, some homeowners failed to pay their mortgages, requiring a process for lenders to recoup losses. In Arizona, they’re called trustee’s sales, and in a steady economy most were little more than formalities. Foreclosed homes were usually offered for the amount owed and, with few bidders, nearly always claimed by the bank holding the loan.

But that was before home prices here plunged by half. Before debt-saddled homeowners started abandoning houses in the dark. Before lenders who never intended to get into the real estate business ended up holding the keys.

In the last year, they’ve done what any merchant with few customers and shelves full of stuff of sometimes dubious quality would do to avoid taking delivery of even more: Slash prices. Cash only. No guarantees. No refunds.

“It’s capitalism at its finest — or at its worst,” Vadas says.

This is not a game for the faint of heart or wallet. Stories circulate of buyers who thought they were getting a deal only to realize they’d bought a second loan, when the first loan holder gets the house. Or of investors who bought a house with a tenant who wouldn’t leave — or had already left, taking cabinets, toilets, even the pipes.

“You can tell all the newbies,” says Randy Lewis, who runs bidding service 3rd Party Buyer LLC, scanning the crowd clumped around the auctioneers. “They’re all up at the front, but not bidding.”

But plenty of others have jumped in, posting the required $10,000 cashier’s check and trying to leverage bits of insider knowledge, marketplace dynamics and a tolerance for risk. The result is a furious chase repeated daily — Lewis calls it “chaos by statute” — that begins as soon as the opening bids are posted for the following morning’s sales.

“You’ve heard of storm chasers?” he says. “We’re deal chasers.”

___

On to the third house of Doran’s morning: 1508 E. Weathervane Lane. Opening bid: $130,100.

A competitor exits the gate of the white stucco house just as Doran, who scouts homes for bidding service Posted Properties.com, pulls up. “It’s vacant,” he says. “You can go inside.”

Just past the pool — veined with cracks that formed as it stood empty under the desert sun (note to investor: could cost $5,000 to repair) — the sliding door yields easily. The place is empty of life except for a moldy loaf of raisin bread in the refrigerator.

On the back door, someone has left a memento of affection painted on the glass: “You rock. I love you.”

Doran takes a few notes about this house, bought in December 2006 for $300,000. On the way out, he runs into a woman from next door. She tells him the former residents have been “stealing” fixtures out of the house for the past month.

“Hopefully soon we’ll have a new neighbor,” she says.

___

By the summer of 2008, Trish Don Francesco was ready to try the Phoenix housing market again.

Her company, Metropolitan Marketing & Management, had spent the boom assembling portfolios of houses for wealthy investors. In 2004, she urged her clients to sell, believing the market had peaked. Instead, most held tight as prices continued to crest, then plunged.

Now, though, seeing houses listed for less than $100,000, she was intrigued. On a Saturday morning that August, Don Francesco and a few of her employees drove to the Camelback Inn to check out an auction of houses.

“It was like being in a candy store,” says daughter Makayla Don Francesco, also a broker. Houses were going for as little as $55,000. In a few hours, Metropolitan snapped up 17.

“I said to myself either the world is coming to an end or we’re going to be really, really rich. I don’t know which,” Trish Don Francesco recalls.

The company found even more enticing deals buying homes directly out of foreclosure. In the months since, Don Francesco has bought nearly 350 homes, spending a few thousand dollars to fix each one and then rent them, often to families who surrendered a previous home to foreclosure. Over the next year, it plans to increase its stake to 1,500 houses, buying at trustee’s sales on behalf of investors looking for a steady income stream from rents.

But investors are far from the only players in this game, which trades in the currency of information as much as cash.

It begins each weekday afternoon, when trustees post the opening bids for as many as 1,000 houses. By the next morning, bidders have whittled down their list of targets. Around dawn, Doran and other property runners zigzag across the Valley to check out houses, starting with those slated for 10 a.m sale. They report back to companies like Posted Properties, which charges investors a fee to bid and buy at auction.

Other drivers work for wholesalers, who buy up armfuls of homes and flip them to investors, often within hours, for a quick profit. Still other homes are bought by fix-and-flippers, who renovate and resell for a short-term gain, or investors who buy to rent and hold for a few years.

When a family buys a house, it’s all about emotion. But foreclosure investing requires setting feelings aside, players say, and making a cold calculation on square footage, location and fixup costs. On the courthouse steps, bidders trade bets with seeming disinterest. When the price goes too high, they walk away.

But to say that all emotion is shelved overlooks the X factor drawing bidders. It’s the edginess of the gamble and the pursuit of a deal.

Doug Hopkins, Posted Properties’ CEO, recalls the morning he tagged along with a friend for his first trustee’s sale 11 years ago.

“I went down there and saw what houses were selling for and I had never known that that existed,” Hopkins said. “I remember coming out of there and calling my dad and I said, ‘My life just changed.’”

___

At first, Doran isn’t sure what to make of today’s fifth house: 6233 S. Parkside Drive. Opening bid: $67,000.

Fresh oil stains the floor of the carport. A package from Amazon.com sits unclaimed on the step. No one answers.

It’s an open secret in Phoenix foreclosure investing that, facing a door that won’t budge, some runners simply drill the lock.

“Applicant will be required to do what it takes to get the maximum amount of information for our investors,” one bidding service stipulated in a recent ad for drivers on Craigslist. “This is not for a meek person. Must be an outgoing, forward and fearless individual.”

To Doran, whose real estate license lets him key in to some houses, the tactics of a few tar his trade unfairly. But at Parkside, the back door slides open without resistance. Whoever lived here is gone, leaving only a copy of “Dear Tooth Fairy” on a windowsill. Doran scans the kitchen.

“I’m always afraid I’m going to find a dead body in one of these,” he says, chuckling as he reaches for the refrigerator handle.

Not yet. But he has found cats and lizards floating in abandoned pools, and once, a dead puppy. A few weeks ago, at an empty house in Chandler, he found an Alaskan husky, very much alive, left behind with a bag of dog food.

At this stop, though, the biggest complications are a roof that needs replacing and the house’s size — it has just two bedrooms and a single bath, limiting its appeal.

“Somebody will buy it … for a rental,” he says.

___

During the boom, borrowing was relatively quick and easy. But buying at a trustee’s sale demands payment in full by 5 p.m. the next day, without an appraisal. Forget about asking a bank for a loan.

That’s where Scott Gould comes in.

At 8:40 a.m. on a Wednesday, Gould tilts back in a black office chair, waiting for two phones and a Blackberry to ring so he can put his money to work. Dressed in shorts, sneakers and white golf shirt, he looks more like the gymnast he once was than a banker. On the wall hangs a gift from his wife — a “loan shark” assembled from Monopoly money.

Gould is a “hard money” lender, by some account’s the valley’s busiest. Last year he loaned investors the cash to buy 1,300 homes at trustee’s sales, at an annualized interest rate of 18 percent, although most repay within a few months. Call Gould for a loan and the answer comes back in 20 minutes, once his staff reviews sales of comparable homes.

“The most important thing at the end is, do we think the guy can make money,” he says.

Gould started managing money at 11, already earning the equivalent of a teacher’s paycheck mowing yards and house sitting. He jumped into lending after the Black Friday stock collapse in 1987, when the Phoenix real estate market was tanking. Today, at 52, he and his partners have $85 million in loans out and a goal of $700,000 in new deals each day.

The phone rings. A fix-and-flip investor asks Gould for his opinion about a house in Mesa.

“The inside, from what we could see, looked good. It smelled good,” the man says.

Gould is skeptical, noting the investor is relying on just one other recent sale to gauge value. He counsels bidding $1 over the asking price and no more.

The phone rings again.

“Good morning, Brad. I got a check sitting here hot for you,” Gould says.

This morning, though, is slow, with just three new loans for homes auctioned the previous day. But at the office of Metropolitan Marketing and Management, a few miles away, a new round of sales keeps Makayla Don Francesco’s ear to the phone.

In pursuit of homes that will rent easily with minimal maintenance, she bids only on those built in 1995 or later, between 1500 and 3300 square feet. A few other criteria narrow the day’s list of 618 scheduled sales to just 17 targets. Don Francesco pares the list to 9, eliminating any backing up to major roads or high-tension lines.

When the auctions begin, Metropolitan staffers on site are outbid on two houses and in the chaos, miss two more. But at the 10 a.m. sale, a house in Phoenix opens at $70,000 and Don Francesco grabs it for $72,300, before discovering it has two bedrooms and a den, limiting its appeal to family renters. Then, at the 11 a.m. sale, a house in Buckeye opens at $63,218 and she snags it for $66,000, despite uncertainty about whether it has three or four bedrooms.

“There’s a lot of risk and you are playing with somebody else’s money,” Don Francesco says. “Some days it is terrifying.”

But then she reminds herself that, at these prices, the deals may last for only so long.

___

It’s almost noon and this will be the 10th and final house of Doran’s morning: 2701 Val Vista Drive. Opening bid: $387,600.

“Holy moly,” he says, pulling in. The house is very big. So are the mounds of discarded mattresses and other garbage piled in the overgrown yard. Two cars sit in the driveway.

“It looks like they started on it and quit,” he says, pointing to a recently replastered wall painted in three different shades. He knocks on the back door, then the front. Not a sound. But the place is unlocked. Doran rolls his eyes and walks in.

“Somebody’s still living here,” he says, walking past dishes in the sink and rooms almost devoid of furniture. “This is odd as hell.”

At the living room, he stops and tilts his head. Music floats up from downstairs — and a pair of men’s voices. Doran takes one last picture, then moves quickly and quietly toward the door.

“Not worth getting shot over, I can tell you that,” he says.

___

By Thursday, workmen have ripped out and replaced the ceiling in the house on Weathervane that Doran checked out two mornings ago. And in a kitchen in Scottsdale, Neil Lende, a real estate agent who invests in houses given up for lost, is trying to decide where to begin.

The house, bought at a trustee’s sale Tuesday and paid for Wednesday with a hard money loan, has gold-tone ceiling fans and a “popcorn” ceiling that will have to go. The pool is so green with algae it might as well be bottomless.

It’s hardly a wreck. But in a valley full of empty houses, what makes this one — or any of the hundreds of others for sale on the courthouse steps — a singular opportunity?

It’s clear only when Lende opens the door to another investment in a subdivision called Paradise Manor, 10 minutes away

“When we first came to this one, this stuff was growing all the way out to here,” says Charlie Sugarman, project manager for Lende’s fix and flip business, pointing to shrubs that blocked the path to the door. Neighbors reported that the previous owner, a chiropractor, moved out in the middle of the night. Inside, Lende found the kitchen plastered with coffee grounds.

Now, the interior is repainted in silver sage, fitted with brushed metal door knobs. The kitchen cabinets, refinished in cream and mocha, snuggle against stainless steel appliances. A sign over the counter welcomes the next chef. “Live. Laugh. Love,” it says.

Lende paid $194,651 for the house in early March, then spent $35,000 to renovate. “We knew we could make it really cute,” he says.

The first weekend on the market, he had two offers. Tomorrow it goes to closing, sold to a retiree couple from New Jersey. For two months work — and risk — he’ll pocket a $40,000 profit.

But while the new owners know they’re buying a foreclosure, they almost certainly don’t realize the pipeline it has traveled.

“I don’t think they can envision it how it used to be, which is good,” Lende says. “Because this is the reality now.”

Adam Geller is a national writer for The Associated Press based in New York. He can be reached at features(at)ap.org.

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Posted in auction, Bank Owned, foreclosure, foreclosures1 Comment

Affidavit of Lost Mortgage Assignment

Affidavit of Lost Mortgage Assignment

For all of you to study carefully and make your own conclusions. The saga continues…

Scribd

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Posted in deutsche bank, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Real Estate, shapiro & fishman pa0 Comments


Advert
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Jamie Ranney, www.Nantucketlaw.pro
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com

Archives