EXCERPTS:

Q So the original –
5 A — and I’ve been to her office.
6 Q — the original was located in your office?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Where’s your office located?
9 A Simi Valley, California.
10 Q And has the original of this allonge remained in your
11 office until you appeared here today?
12 A We had sent it on to — to our attorneys. They were in
13 possession of it.
14 Q And again, who do you believe is the holder of the note
15 and mortgage here?
16 A Well, Countrywide — Bank of America — whatever we’re
17 calling ourselves these days, we are Bank of America now — we
18 originated this loan. It was originated via a broker and it’s
19 really always been a Countrywide loan. The investor is Bank
20 of New York. We are the servicer of the loan.
21 Q Now, when you say it’s really a Countrywide loan, wasn’t
22 it sold? Wasn’t this loan securitized and ultimately sold –
23 sold to this trust?
24 A Right, it would have been securitized and sold. They are
25 the investors of the loan. But we are the ones that would

<SNIP>

9 A Who is in possession of the note? We have the note in our
10 origination file.
11 Q So — so Bank of New York as trustee does not hold the
12 note, is that correct, or is not in possession of the note?
13 A The original note to my knowledge is in the origination
14 file.
15 Q Where is the — do you have it here today?
16 A No, I don’t have it with me here today.
17 Q So you don’t have the note?
18 A It’s in our office.
19 Q So it’s in your office, it’s not with this trust that owns
20 the — that’s supposedly holds the — or is the owner of this
21 note, is that correct?
22 A That’s correct.
23 Q And your testimony is that this allonge was never
24 submitted to — it was never in the possession of Bank of New
25 York as trustee for the certificate holder, is that correct?

<SNIP>

9 Q And this allonge, it’s a stand-alone document, correct?
10 It’s not attached to anything, is that correct?
11 A I’m not sure I’m understanding your question.
12 Q Was there anything — when you brought the original that’s
13 in front of you, did you remove it? Was it stapled to
14 something else?
15 A No, it wouldn’t have necessarily been stapled to something
16 else. There would have probably been other documents showing
17 the — you know, we would have shown her the note. We would
18 have reviewed all of that before.

Continue Below…

Scribd

For you to understand a little more about “the 4 minute foreclosure” you first have to know some key players in the controversy surrounding the foreclosure process today. I included a few excerpts from an article written by Gerlad B. Alt for DS News March of 2007 that you will find at the end. I only wish MERS was included in this article because without this device none of this would have been made possible.

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public government sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in the Tyson’s Corner CDP in unincorporated Fairfax County, VirginiaFreddie Mac, one of America’s biggest buyers of home mortgages, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1970 to keep money flowing to mortgage lenders in support of home-ownership and rental housing.

Freddie Mac was the first investor to improve on the so-called standard timeframes by tightening the noose and imposing what seemed at the time like draconian and arbitrary standards for completion of legal actions for foreclosure and bankruptcy. To reinforce its point, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation adopted a designated counsel program under which the attorneys chosen to participate were expected to meet and be graded against these more stringent dates.

LOGS Network is a multi-state network of title companies and law firms and connecting them via a proprietary web-hosted software system. They developed a proprietary statistical program called ASAP (Attorney Scorecard and Performance) to help manage the more than 250 law firms its outsourcing division. By introducing , invented the field counsel industry that serves residential mortgage banking. LOGS Network was co-founded by Gerald M. Shapiro of Shapiro & Fishman PA a law firm who handles foreclosures for the financial industry. His network held a virtual monopoly on all foreclosure and bankruptcy work nationwide until the early 1990s. In addition, he preempted the entire industry by creating the “cradle to grave” concept through business developments in title, closing, document preparation, foreclosures, REO, outsourcing, collection, and debt acquisition businesses.

Fidelity National, a national default outsourcing and information provider, was one of the first in the industry to implement time-frames a high priority instead of a guideline standards. It instituted a policy recognizing and rewarding those attorneys who did work for its clients in a consistently shorter time than their competition. Fidelity mentality was the faster the better and by publicizing and comparing the time to completion of various legal tasks among the hundreds of law firms doing work for its client base. It created a demand for attorneys to keep up with their business practices in the same sequence that other industries have had to in the sense of “recreating the wheel” so to speak to keep up with growing competition.

By having a goal of recovering nonconforming assets for the servicers this put pressure on the time frames they had in order to recover title.

Of course, when the only acceptable
test for quality becomes a simple test
of speed, it is inevitable that some of
the participants will feel compelled
to cut corners to stay in the game.

Click Image For PDF

DSN_FORE2_March07

WikiLeaks plans to release a U.S. bank’s documents

By Prashant Gopal and Jody Shenn – Nov 30, 2010 12:00 AM ET

Testimony by a Bank of America Corp. employee in a New Jersey personal bankruptcy case may give more ammunition to homeowners and investors in their legal battles over defaulted mortgages.

Linda DeMartini, a team leader in the company’s mortgage- litigation management division, said during a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in Camden last year that it was routine for the lender to keep mortgage promissory notes even after loans were bundled by the thousands into bonds and sold to investors, according to a transcript. Contracts for such securitizations usually require the documents to be transferred to the trustee for mortgage bondholders.

In the case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith H. Wizmur on Nov. 16 rejected a claim on the home of John T. Kemp, ruling his mortgage company, now owned by Bank of America, had failed to deliver the note to the trustee. That could leave the trustee with no standing to take the property, and raises the question of whether other foreclosures could similarly be blocked.

Following the decision, the bank disavowed the statements by DeMartini, whom it had flown in from California to testify. It was the policy of Countrywide Financial Corp., acquired by Bank of America in July 2008, to deliver notes as called for in its securitization contracts, according to Larry Platt, an attorney at K&L Gates LLP in Washington designated by the bank to answer questions about the case.

“This particular employee was mistaken in what she said,” Platt said in a telephone interview.

Attorney Analysis

Wizmur’s ruling is being scrutinized by lawyers for borrowers seeking to stall repossessions as a way to press lenders to modify their debt. Attorneys for homeowners have already won cases by calling into doubt the legitimacy of affidavits used to take back properties.

“If this is correct, many, many, many foreclosures already occurred in which this plaintiff didn’t have the note,” said Bruce Levitt, the South Orange, New Jersey, attorney representing Kemp. “This could affect thousands or hundreds of thousands of loans.”

by Jamie Ranney, Esq.
Jamie Ranney, PC
4 Thirty Acres Lane
Nantucket, MA 02554
jamie@nantucketlaw.pro
508-228-9224

This memo will focus on MERS-designated mortgages in Massachusetts.

In this author’s opinion two (2) things are evident after a survey of Massachusetts law.

First, MERS cannot be a valid “mortgagee” under Massachusetts law and thus MERS designated mortgages are invalid in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is because MERS-designated mortgages by definition “split” the security instrument (the mortgage) from the debt (the promissory note) when they are signed. This “split” invalidates the mortgage under Massachusetts law. Where the security interest is invalid upon the signing of the mortgage, MERS cannot occupy the legal position of a “mortgagee” under Massachusetts law no matter what language MERS inserts into their mortgages that purports to give them the legal position of “mortgagee”. Since MERSdesignated mortgages are invalid at their inception, it follows logically therefore that MERS mortgages are not legally capable of being recorded in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by its Registers of Deeds.

Second, even if a MERS-designated mortgage were found to be a valid security instrument in Massachusetts, each and every assignment of the mortgage and note “behind” a MERS-designated mortgage must be recorded on the public land records of the Commonwealth in order to comply with the Massachusetts recording statute at M.G.L. c. 183, s. 4 which requires that “conveyances of an estate” be recorded to be valid. A mortgage is a “conveyance of an estate” under Massachusetts law. Since MERS-designated mortgages exist for the primary purpose of holding “legal” title on the public land records while the “beneficial” interest is transferred and sold multiple times (and a mortgage cannot exist without a note under Massachusetts law), MERS-mortgages unlawfully avoid recording fees due the Commonwealth for the transfer(s) of interests under MERS-designated mortgages.

“If you tell a lie that’s big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap.”1

Continue reading below…

Scribd

Wednesday, December 1, 2010
09:30 AM – 01:00 PM
538 Dirksen Senate Office Building

The witnesses for Panel I will be: Ms. Phyllis Caldwell, Chief, Homeownership Preservation Office, United States Department of the Treasury; The Honorable Sheila C. Bair, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; The Honorable Daniel K. Tarullo, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Mr. John Walsh, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and Mr. Edward DeMarco, Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency. The witnesses for Panel II will be: Mr. Terry Edwards, Executive Vice President, Credit Portfolio Management, Fannie Mae; Mr. Donald Bisenius, Executive Vice President, Freddie Mac; Mr. Tom Deutsch, Executive Director, American Securitization Forum; and Professor Kurt Eggert, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law.

Individuals with disabilities who require an auxiliary aid or service, including closed captioning service for webcast hearings, should contact the committee clerk at 202-224-7391 at least three business days in advance of the hearing date.

Add To My Calendar (vCal)

Witnesses

Panel 1

• Ms. Phyllis Caldwell
  Chief, Homeownership Preservation Office
  United States Department of the Treasury
• Honorable Sheila Bair
  Chairman
  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Honorable Daniel K. Tarullo
  Governor
  Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
• Mr. John Walsh
  Acting Comptroller of the Currency
  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
• Mr. Edward J. DeMarco
  Acting Director
  Federal Housing Finance Agency

Panel 2

• Mr. Terry Edwards
  Executive Vice President
  Credit Portfolio Management, Fannie Mae
• Mr. Donald Bisenius
  Executive Vice President
  Freddie Mac
• Mr. Tom Deutsch
  Executive Director
  American Securitization Forum
• Mr. Kurt Eggert
  Professor of Law
  Chapman University School of Law

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RENAE MOWAT, NIKKI MACK,
ARKLYNN RAHMING, and QUENNA HUMPHREY individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

DJSP ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Corporation, DJSP
ENTERPRISES, INC., a British Virgin Islands Company,
and LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.,
DAVID J. STERN, individually,
Defendants.
______________________________________/

EXCERPT:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Renae Mowat, Nikki Mack, Arklynn Rahming, and Quenna Humphrey individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for their Complaint against Defendants, DJSP Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, DJSP Enterprises, Inc., a British Virgin Islands Company, (collectively hereinafter referred to as “DJSP”), Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., (“Stern, P.A.”) and David J. Stern (“Stern”) state as follows:

NATURE OF CASE

1) Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendants in Plantation, Florida and who were terminated as a consequence of mass layoffs by the Defendants beginning on September 23, 2010 and who were not provided sixty (60) days advance written notice of the mass layoffs by Defendants as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.
(“WARN Act”).

2) Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees seek to recover back pay for each day of WARN Act violation and benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 2104.

3) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334 and 1367, as well as 29 U.S.C. §§ 2102, 2104(a)(5).

4) Venue over this matter is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 2104(a)(5) because the acts constituting the violation of the WARN Act occurred, and the claims arose in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) and (b). The acts complained of occurred in the State of Florida and, at all relevant times, material hereto, the Defendants conducted business with and through the other named Defendants who also conducted business with and through the other Defendants and their subsidiaries and the named individual Defendant, David J. Stern, resides in this judicial district, and all of or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.

Continue below…

DJSP1-main

Scribd

COUNT I:

BREACH OF CONTRACT / BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING

COUNT II:

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, IN THE ALTERNATIVE

COUNT III:

VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
RCW 19.86.010 ET SEQ

Scribd

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2010

CARMEN VALCARCEL and VICTOR VALCARCEL,
Appellants,
v.
CHASE BANK USA NA,
Appellee.

No. 4D10-379

[November 24, 2010]

TOWBIN SINGER, MICHELE, Associate Judge.

EXCERPTS:

The trial court granted the Valcarcels’ motion to dismiss as a sanction against Chase for sending a letter regarding the Valcarcels’ mortgage directly to the Valcarcels, rather than the Valcarcels’ lawyer. This mailing was a violation of rule 1.080(b), which requires service to be made upon a party’s attorney when he is represented by counsel.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b) provides in pertinent part: “(b) Involuntary Dismissal. Any party may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party to comply with these rules or any order of court.” Rule 1.420(d) provides: “(d) Costs. Costs in any action dismissed under this rule shall be assessed and judgment for costs entered in that action.”

The trial court erred in denying the Valcarcels’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs based upon its finding that the order was not a judgment. Although the dismissal order was not an adjudication on the merits, the Valcarcels can nonetheless be considered the prevailing party. They are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees because the action against them was dismissed. We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded to the Valcarcels for both the trial and appellate proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

Valcarcel v Chase

Scribd

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equitable Estoppel)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Inducing Breach of Contract)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Business & Professional Code 17200, et seq., Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent Business Practices)

WELLS FARGO CA

Scribd

Will leave the comments for you all if you wish on these recorded documents from public records.

NOTE: It appears these were done by pro se individuals.

YOU MUST CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY.

REPEAT:

DO NOT try this without consulting an attorney.

Excerpt:

WHEREAS TRUSTOR/GRANTOR STATES AND DECLARES that, in recognition of certain pertinent facts not limited to the fact that the Mortgage contained NO SIGNATURES showing an acceptance of the document by any other party, the above-described Mortgage is, at best, an unconscionable contract and, for that reason alone, said, Mortgage is not an enforceable instrument; and since no other party signed th document, no party would have standing to assert that said party has been damaged in any way, or that a “default” occurred, or that a “breach” occurred; AND…

AND ANOTHER

via: mlinc06

GMAC offers loan modification, accepts payments, and forecloses on homeowners, 5 months into the modification, despite GMAC representative admitting that homeowner was not at fault. Listen to the bank admit to missapplying payments, while foreclosing on Los Angeles, CA homeowners.

SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
I.A.S. PART XXXVI SUFFOLK COUNTY

Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY:
STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.
220 Northpointe Parkway, Suite G
Amherst, New York 14228

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

-against-

SUNNY ENG, SHIRLEY ENG, HTFC
CORPORATION, JANE ENG,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY:
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG D. ROBINS
Woodbury, New York 11797
Defendants. 180 Froehlich Farm Blvd.
……………………………………………………….. X

Excerpts:

The Court notes that the same law firm, Steven J. Baum, P.C., represented both HTFC and Wells Fargo as plaintiffs.

Moreover, Mr. Wider avers that “Jeffrey Stephan,” who purportedly executed the assignment as “Limited Signing Officer” of HTFC Corporation, has never been an employee of HTFC and that such person was never authorized to act as a “Limited Signing Officer” on behalf of HTFC for any purpose.

Wells Fargo does not have standing to maintain and prosecute this action to foreclose defendants’ mortgage. Plaintiffs have failed to come forward with any evidence to substantiate its claims herein or to raise a triable issue of fact. Indeed, the affirmation of plaintiffs attorney, sworn to September 8, 2010, reflects that plaintiff has been unable to locate any documents substantiating plaintiffs “belief’ that “its servicer had the authority to execute any and all documents attendant to the transfer of the loan.”

Continue below to see both the Decision, Assignment in question…

ENG COM

Scribd