Another Super Tremendous Job! Listen to her carefully for those of you who may not be aware of the secrets behind the modification game. She tells exactly how it’s playing out.

“Moratorium Now”

Mortgage Fraud

Ally Financial/GMAC
Bank of America
Citibank
JP Morgan Chase
OneWest Bank
Wells Fargo Bank

Action Date: December 20, 2010
Location: Mercer County, NJ

New Jersey State Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner entered an order To Show Cause “In The Matter of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleadings and Document Irregularities” in Civil Action No. F-059553-10, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Mercer County on December 20, 2010. Six mortgage servicing companies and their bank-owners were ordered to show cause why the Court should not suspend their rights to foreclose.

First on the list was Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC. Ally/GMAC is the employer of Jeffrey Stephan who was exposed as one of many “robo-signers” – a phrase indicating that an employee signed thousands of documents used in foreclosure cases with no idea of the truth of the matters asserted in the documents, and more often than not, without even having read what was signed.

Stephan signed thousands of Affidavits, but he signed tens of thousands of Mortgage Assignments – the documents used by mortgage-backed trusts to show that the trusts acquired the mortgages at issue and have the right to foreclose.

Stephan signed these Mortgage Assignments for many different mortgage-backed trusts. Over 50 RALI (Residential Accredit Loans, Inc.) Trusts relied almost exclusively on Mortgage Assignments signed by Stephan. Over 44 RAMP (Residential Asset Mortgage Products) Trusts also used Assignments churned out by Stephan. At least 20 RASC (Residential Asset Securities Corp.) Trusts used Stephan assignments almost exclusively in foreclosures. At least 40 other mortgage-backed trusts, including certain Aames Mortgage Investment Trusts, certain Bear Stearns Trusts and certain Harborview Trusts all relied on Ally/GMAC’s Stephan for proof of their right to foreclose.

These trusts needed the Stephan-made assignments because the trusts’ depositors, sponsors, trustees and document custodians failed to obtain the critical documents, including notes and assignments, at the inception of the trust – despite promises to investors and regulators that these documents had been obtained and were being safeguarded.

In Florida, Stephan’s name appears on thousands of Mortgage Assignments, most often on documents prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern, who is under investigation by the Florida Attorney General. In almost every case, Stephans signed as a Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.

According to the Stephan documents, the trusts almost always acquired these mortgages AFTER they were already in default, and often AFTER foreclosure proceedings had been initiated.

Many different banks, in their capacity as Trustees for mortgage-backed trusts, used Stephan Assignments, but Stephan documents were most often used by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Bank of NY Mellon and U.S. Bank.

Assuming that each trust has mortgage loans with a face value of one billion dollars – and that over 200 trusts are involved, the amount in controversy is staggering.

Also disturbing is the number of Assignments on Stephan/Stern documents where the assignee trust is unidentified. The Stephan/Stern team repeatedly prepared and filed Assignments where only the Trustees – and not the trusts themselves – were identified as the new owners of the mortgages. “U.S. Bank as Trustee” and “Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee” are the new owners of thousands of mortgages.

Stephan often wrongly stated his own job title, the date the assignment to the trusts took place, and the identity of the trusts. Stephan’s conduct – and the documents he produced – will not stand up to the most superficial examination. Chief Justice Rabner seems determined to dig much deeper.

The other five companies named by Chief Justice Rabner have the very same problems, having produced hundreds of thousands of flawed loan documents for mortgage-backed trusts, signed by individuals with very limited knowledge or authority. Their role was to sign their names without questioning or understanding what they signed.

According to Chief Justice Rabner, the next step may be the Appointment of a Special Master “to inquire into and report to the court on the extent of irregularities concerning affidavits, certifications, assignments and other documents from time to time filed with the court in residential mortgage foreclosure actions…” Past and present business practices would be examined and the Master could also consider whether sanctions should be imposed…and a suggested formula to determine an appropriate sanction.”

By his Order, Chief Justice Rabner gave hope to hundreds of thousands of victims of fraud by securities companies, banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE INC., Plaintiff,

against

Paul Meyers, MICHELA MEYERS, DAIMLER CHRYSLER
FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS LLC, FORD MOTOR
CREDIT COMPANY, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA
LVNV FUNDING LLC, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF TAXATION AND FINANCE TOWN SUPERVISOR OF
THE TOWN OF BABYLON, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.

Steven J. Baum P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
900 Merchants Concourse
Westbury, New York 11590

Diana Lozada Ruiz
Attorney for Defendants
PO Box 604
Mineola, New York 11501
Patrick A. Sweeney, J.

EXCERPTS:

Meyers testified that the defendants were not in default but were struggling to pay the mortgage. She claimed that several representatives of the plaintiff told her that she could not apply for a modification until she
was three months late with payments. According to Meyers, she was told to default on the mortgage in order to apply for a modification. Meyers testified that she followed this advice, made a down payment and faxed over a hardship letter along with financial documentation. Meyers claimed that the plaintiff kept losing the documents and that she had to re-fax the information numerous times.

<SNIP>

In addition, the plaintiff has provided conflicting information regarding its denial of the
modification. Less than one month after the initial denial, the defendants received another
letter indicating that the plaintiff could not adjust the terms of the mortgage because the
investor on the mortgage declined the requested modification. Within a week, the defendants
were sent additional letters advising them of mortgage options and again directing them to
apply to the Home Affordable Modification Program. This is inconsistent as the plaintiff
takes the position that it cannot modify the loan without the approval of Freddie Mac but
offered no evidence as to whether the initial modification was approved by Freddie Mac
before it was sent to the defendants. Freddie Mac is not a party to this action and is not the
party seeking to foreclose the mortgage. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any good
faith basis for refusing to honor the terms of the trial modification or offering another similar
proposal. The defendants complied with the all the requirements of the trial modification
and have appeared at all the conferences in this action. The defendant Paul Meyers is
gainfully employed and the defendants are trying to avoid losing their home. Under these
circumstances, the Court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith. In view of the Court’s
broad equitable powers, the Court finds that the appropriate remedy is to compel specific
performance of the original modification agreement proposed by the plaintiff and accepted
by the defendants (see e.g. EMC Mortgage Co v Gross, 289 AD2d 438 [2d Dept 2001]).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to execute a final modification based upon the
terms of the original modification proposal, and it is further

ORDERED that the complaint to foreclose the mortgage is dismissed.

Read order below…

[ipaper docId=45744707 access_key=key-18vnftqsmu8sx1384r56 height=600 width=600 /]

Bank of America, UBS Assets Seized in Italy Swap Probe

December 21, 2010, 7:55 AM EST

By Elisa Martinuzzi

(Adds details from second paragraph.)

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) — Italy’s finance police seized 22 million euros ($29 million) from six lenders including Bank of America Corp. amid allegations of fraud in a probe focusing on the sale of derivatives to five municipalities in central Italy.

Police said they took 15 million euros from Bank of America, and 1.7 million euros each from Deutsche Bank AG and UBS AG, according to an e-mailed statement. The remainder was seized from Natixis SA, Dexia Crediop SpA and Banca Monte Paschi di Siena SpA.

The amount represents the alleged illicit profit the banks made from selling derivatives to the city of Florence, the region of Tuscany and three other municipalities in the region, the police said. The local governments have lost about 123 million euros on the swaps that adjusted payments on 1.4 billion euros of debt, the police said.

EXCERPT:

The nature of the problem calls for a balancing of the court’s supervisory and adjudicatory roles and responsibilities. The court has therefore established the procedure in this Order to address the pressing needs of the Office of Foreclosure while providing due process to affected parties. The court will direct that the six Foreclosure Plaintiff’s named on this order show cause at a hearing scheduled for January 19, 2011, why the court should not suspend the processing of all foreclosures matters involving the six Foreclosure Plaintiffs and appoint Special Masters to review their past and proposed foreclosure practices.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=45721307 access_key=key-1baelv8uhv3ev5v47sl9 height=600 width=600 /]

SANDRA HINES the voice of foreclosed America! Sandra is a Detroit resident who lost her home that was in her family for 37 years to foreclosure.

Watch this in it’s entirety! It gets explosive and will leave you either in tears or leave you wanting more!

“I came to tell the

Story of The People”

Via: Anonymous

This is fascinating. It showed up on the American Banker site this morning, which is not readable without subscription.

Contrary to the statement that these ‘counselors’ do not “track” follow-up, I recently received a request to fill-in a follow up e-survey which was oddly pre-filled out stating erroneously that I had not disclosed the identity of my bank during my “counseling” session.

I forwarded it to SIGTARP, COP, and the President with the relevant questions.

So… Could it be that counsel-obtained info via Hope hotlines could corrupt HAMP performance data, and/or disadvantage borrowers in litigation/settlement?

http://www.collectionscreditrisk.com/news/lender-tie-to-borrower-aid-3004375-1.html

Excerpt from article:

Some industry experts have questioned why a nonprofit affiliated with servicers is receiving government funding to resolve disputes between borrowers and the same servicers who are denying modifications. Several distressed homeowners who contacted American Banker said servicers refuse to give explanations for denied mods. Many were put into trial mods at a reduced payment but were later denied and are now in worse shape because servicers demand that any arrearages be paid in full for the loan to become current.

Via Virginia Parsons w/ Comment:

Let me also add – this couple, who are visually impaired, could not read the loan documents.  There are no laws to protect them that might make it mandatory for the loan documents to be read aloud.  And as we are all well aware, loan documents are not provided in advance of signing for any attorney or accountant to review.

Blind man, woman file a countersuit, saying predatory practices hurt them

December 19, 2010 – By HARRY EAGAR, Staff Writer

KIHEI – Across the country, a few of the millions of people who have had their homes foreclosed are counterattacking in the courts. One of the Maui suits involves Wilmer Galiza and his wife, Flordeliza Tapat. Many Mauians know them.

Both are members of Blind Vendors of Hawaii. Galiza operates the snack shop at Maui Memorial Medical Center (and formerly ran the one at the courthouse), and Tapat runs the one at Kalana O Maui, the main county building in Wailuku.

In 2005, they had owned a home in Dream City for eight years. Galiza’s brother next door wanted to sell his bigger home, and he and mortgage broker Eric Miyajima urged the couple to keep their small house and buy the bigger one. By living in the big house and renting out the small house and three apartments in the big one, they were told they could build up assets for their retirement.

That dream didn’t work out. They’ve been foreclosed on both houses. Their credit is damaged, and although they continue to live in the second house, which is specially equipped for their needs, they face the threat of eviction at any time.

Their case offers an example of just about everything that could go wrong during the mortgage run-up and run down, according to their attorney, Jim Fosbinder: unrecorded transfers of deeds, predatory bait-and-switch offers, failure to disclose required information to borrowers, promises of assistance that never came; stonewalling their attempts to modify not one but two mortgages; robosigners; and missing documents.

PROVEST, LLC

The case file cited below relates to a civil — not a criminal — investigation. The existence of an investigation does not constitute proof of any violation of law.

GISSEN & ZAWYER PROCESS SERVICES, INC.

Office of Attorney General Terry Goddard

Terry Goddard Charges Bank of America with Mortgage Fraud

(Phoenix, Ariz – Dec. 17, 2010) Attorney General Terry Goddard announced that his Office today filed a lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation and its affiliated companies (“Bank of America”) alleging violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and violations of the consent judgment entered in March 2009 between Arizona and the Countrywide companies owned by Bank of America.

The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, was triggered by hundreds of consumer complaints and follows a year-long investigation into Bank of America’s residential mortgage servicing practices, particularly its loan modification and foreclosure practices.

Read full complaint below…

[ipaper docId=45604584 access_key=key-ydn6gpou4kvx35ty1m1 height=600 width=600 /]

Las Vegas: Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced today that her office is filing a lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Recon Trust Company (“Bank of America”) for engaging in deceptive trade practices against Nevada homeowners.

The lawsuit, filed in the Eighth Judicial District of the State of Nevada, was triggered by consumer complaints and follows an extensive investigation into Bank of America’s alleged deceptive practices involving its residential mortgage servicing, particularly its loan modification and foreclosure practices.

The Complaint alleges that Bank of America is:
1)
Misleading consumers by promising to act upon requests for mortgage modifications within a specific period of time;
2)
Misleading consumers with false assurances that their homes would not be foreclosed while their requests for modifications were pending, but sending foreclosure notices, scheduling auction dates, and even selling consumers’ homes while they waited for decisions;
3)
Misrepresenting to consumers that they must be in default on their mortgages to be eligible for modifications when, in fact, current borrowers are eligible for assistance;
4)
Making false promises to consumers that their modifications would be made permanent if they successfully completed trial modification periods, but then failing to convert these modifications;
5)
Misleading consumers with inaccurate and deceptive reasons for denying their requests for modifications;
6)
Falsely notifying consumers or credit reporting agencies that consumers are in default when they are not;
7)
Misleading consumers with offers of modifications on one set of terms, but then providing them with agreements on different sets of terms, or misrepresenting that consumers have been approved for modifications.

Continue Below…

[ipaper docId=45603019 access_key=key-x558xy7fhrcx4fh6aql height=600 width=600 /]

.

McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC) today instructed its servicers to delay initiating foreclosure for at least nine months for financially troubled service members who are released from active duty through the end of 2011 and have Freddie Mac-owned mortgages. Freddie Mac is one of the nation’s largest investors in conforming, conventional mortgages.

News Facts

• Freddie Mac’s decision to extend the nine-month foreclosure stay will give lenders more time to work with service members that are having difficulty paying their mortgage.
• Freddie Mac is making this protection a requirement for servicing our mortgages although its original authorization in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) expires on December 31, 2010.
• The nine-month stay was originally authorized for service members under amendments to the Service members Civil Relief Act (SCRA) included in HERA.

News Quotes

“Our military make sacrifices every day to protect our homes and families,” said Anthony Renzi, Executive Vice President of Single Family Portfolio Management at Freddie Mac. “This small act will protect financially troubled service members when they return from active duty by giving them more time to work with their lender to stay in their home.”

Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation’s residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.

###

ANITA A. VIDA, Plaintiff,
v.
ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., a Delaware corporation formerly known as IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B., and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a Government Chartered Association formerly known as Fannie Mae, Defendants.

Civ. No. 10-987-AC.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division.

December 13, 2010.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN V. ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge.

Introduction

Plaintiff Anita A. Vida (“Vida”) alleges claims for breach of contract and fraud, and seeks declaratory judgment cancelling the trust deed and reinstating her mortgage. Defendants OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”) and Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) (collectively “Defendants”) move for dismissal of all claims. Defendants argue that Vida has failed to state a claim for relief on the following grounds: (1) Vida may not state a breach of contract claim arising under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (“HAMP”) because it does not authorize a private right of action; (2) Vida has not pleaded her fraud claim with sufficient particularity; and (3) Vida’s allegation that she did not receive adequate notice of the foreclosure action is preempted by state law. Defendants assert generally that Vida has otherwise failed to state claims of breach of contract and fraud.

Continue Below…

[ipaper docId=45599505 access_key=key-1wlzqj1iaow9p5y7yp11 height=600 width=600 /]

EXCERPT:

Q. So this doesn’t necessarily mean
3 that someone physically picked up the file
4 from LPS; correct?
5 A. My understanding is that this is
6 a note that automates when the attorney
7 has confirmed receipt through new image.
8 Whether that’s manual or not, I couldn’t
9 say based on the notes. And then new
10 image stamps into the LPS Desktop
11 confirming that NIE ID number 0966 and on
12 was pulled in, those documents were
13 received by the attorney.
14 Q. Does LPS have any employees at
15 the Steven J. Baum law firm?
16 A. Not that I’m aware of.

<SNIP>

Q. This is from the Steven J. Baum
law firm; correct?
3 A. It appears to be.
4 Q. Would you have any reason to
5 doubt that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And could you tell me what this
8 entry represents.
9 A. To the best of my understanding,
10 they have user has completed a POA
11 requisite data form, exactly what it says.
12 I guess I couldn’t give you a full answer.
13 I don’t manage this process, but it
14 appears they are requesting something.
15 Q. So just start me off, POA
16 underscore requisite, what does that stand
17 for?
18 A. I could guess.
19 Q. Is that a category or a type of
20 document?
21 A. Again, I could guess.
22 Q. I don’t want you to guess, but
23 can you make an educated guess?
24 A. Power of attorney.
25 Q. Who at LPS would have a better
understanding of this process? You said
3 it’s not really you.
4 A. I don’t know.
5 Q. Let’s go to entry two hundred
6 fifty-one dated 11/4/08. User has updated
7 the system for the following. Power of
8 attorney requested, completed on 11/4/08.
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you tell me what that entry
12 is.
13 A. I could give you an educated
14 guess.
15 Q. Go ahead.
16 A. My educated guess would be the
17 attorney has requested a power of
18 attorney.
19 Q. From whom?
20 A. From that note, I couldn’t say
21 for certain. But below the secondary
22 note, it seems to indicate JP Morgan to
23 Scott Walter.
24 Q. Who is asking for that? It’s
25 kind of written in the passive.
Who’s actually asking for the
3 power of attorney?
4 A. Appears to me from the notes
5 that Steven J. Baum’s office is making
6 this request.

<SNIP>

A. It appears to be Steven J. Baum
3 noting the file, memorializing that they
4 have prepared an assignment, they have
5 uploaded it into the LPS Desktop to be
6 reviewed and executed, and that it isn’t
7 back yet.
8 Q. What does it mean assignment was
9 received not signed, who’s receiving that?
10 A. I wouldn’t know.
11 Q. Well, do you read this as the
12 assignment is not signed?
13 A. I read it as an assignment is
14 not signed or, let me better state what I
15 meant to say, is that a signed assignment
16 hasn’t been received by Steven J. Baum.
17 Which assignment though I couldn’t tell
18 from this note.
19 Q. Would this assignment be signed
20 by LPS; is that what this is saying?
21 A. It appears that the attorney is
22 stating that. However, I can’t tell you
23 whether LPS would have signed this
24 document or not without seeing the
25 document that the note’s referencing.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=45568369 access_key=key-v8mlj41f5vyvfb7zbn6 height=600 width=600 /]

EXCERPT:

Q. Okay. Do you know how many — on behalf of
2 how many entities you are authorized to sign documents?
3 A. I don’t have the exact number in my head.
4 Q. Can you give me your best estimate?
5 A. More than 20.
6 Q. Okay. And how often on a daily basis do you
7 execute documents?
8 A. Once a day.
9 Q. And how many do you typically sign a day?
10 A. Less than three.
11 Q. Okay. And can you describe to me the process
12 by which you receive these documents for signature?
13 A. Sure. I am delivered, via an LPS employee
14 courier, a document, and I’m advised that it is to be
15 executed. The group that receives the document request
16 from the agent reviews the document per our protocols
17 and procedures. That document is then determined that
18 LPS can execute the document.
19 Based on the various signing authorities, it
20 will be determined that I will be the one authorized to
21 sign it. It will be delivered to me. I will review
22 the document. I will ensure that I do have signing
23 authority for the document. I will verify that the
24 document is what it says it is. Then while they’re
25 watching me, I will execute the document. It is put
back — it is put into a manila envelope, and it is
2 taken away from me.
3 Q. And when you were signing the document in
4 front of this messenger, is that person the notary?
5 A. I’m unaware if they are the notary or not,
6 but they are within the same department.
7 Q. Okay. Do you ever sign a notary log?
8 A. I don’t recall ever signing one.
9 Q. Do you ever keep track of the documents that
10 you sign?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And I meant personally.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=45566864 access_key=key-1t3yu7ta47qo2pv8odux height=600 width=600 /]

EXCERPT:

Q. But, for example, looking at this assignment,
document, isn’t the signer, Bethany Hood, attesting to
the fact that MERS wants to assign the Deed of Trust to Indymac Federal Bank?

MR. SPOONMORE: That’s a
mischaracterization, I object. Bethany Hood isn’t
representing; MERS is representing. That’s a gross
misinterpretation of the document.
MS. HUELSMAN: No. Ms. Hood is signing on
behalf of MERS; therefore, she is making an affirmation
on behalf of MERS.
MR. SPOONMORE: MERS is making the
affirmation.
MS. HUELSMAN: She’s making it on their
behalf.
MR. SPOONMORE: Yeah, as MERS is the one
making the affirmation.

Q. So could you please answer the question,
Mr. Allen?
A. MERS is making the reaffirmation.
Q. Mr. Allen, you’re not allowed to parrot
your attorney’s response. Please-

MR. SPOONEMOORE: He’s-
MS. HUELSMAN: –answer–
MR. SPOONMORE: –answered your–
MS. HUELSMAN: –the question.
Are you coaching him, Mr. Spoonmore?
MR. SPOONMORE: No. I’m saying the
premise of your question-
MS. HUELSMAN: well-
MR. SPOONEMOORE: –is–
MS. HUELSMAN: –a speaking–
MR. SPOONEMOORE:–misleading–
MS. HUELSMAN:  –objection is providing
your client with an answer –your client with an
answer to a question, and that’s improper.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Well, and a misleading
legal premise to your question is clearly
objectionable, because this client is not an attorney.
When you represent Mr. Hood is representing, that is
a gross legal mischarachterization of this document. I’m
allowed to correct that.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, I disagree. When
people sign documents in their capacity as alleged
officers of the company, they are, in fact, making a
representation.
If MERS can figure out how, as a corporation,
which doesn’t exist except on paper, it can can sign
documents itself, then, in fact, it can say it’s
doing so without the assistance of a person.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Legally it is MERS making the representation. People are authorized to sign on behalf of MERS. That doesn’t make them making the representation; it makes MERS making the representation.

Q. Okay. So when did MERS tell Ms. Hood that
this is what it wanted to do?
A. I would think within the –when granting the
signing authority.
Q. No. When did MERS specifically say to
Bethany Hood, We want to assign our interest in the
Deed of Trust referenced herein to IndyMac Federal
Bank? When did that occur?

MR. SPOONEMOORE: Counsel knows very well
that MERS can operate through counsel, which is their
agent. Again, you’re asking misleading questions of
this witness, and you know it. You know that MERS’s
counsel made this request, and that an agent of MERS.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, then, you can explain
to Regional Trustee why they they violated their duty to-
to the Deed of trust doc by acting on behalf and as an
agent for somebody when they’re suppose to be acting
as a neutral in conjunction with a foreclosure sale.
Is that your representation, Counsel?
MR. SPOONEMOORE: That’s not us. You can
go after who ever you want, but as far as what we’re
doing, you’re way off base here.

Q. When did MERS give instruction to Bethany
Hood to assign this Deed of Trust? Whether it came
through Regional Trustee or Santa Clause, I don’t care.
When did MERS give this instruction to Ms. Hood?

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=45566348 access_key=key-8tg8q7bgg0l1way58dj height=600 width=600 /]

By Matthew Goldstein and Rachelle Younglai

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:32pm EST

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Regulators have opened a new line of inquiry in their mortgage foreclosure probe and are asking big Wall Street banks about the beginning stages of mortgage securitization, two sources familiar with the probe said.

The Securities and Exchange Commission launched the new phase of its investigation by sending out a fresh round of subpoenas last week to big banks like Bank of America Corp, Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Wells Fargo & Co, the sources said.

The subpoenas focus on the earliest stage of the mortgage securitization process, said the sources, who requested anonymity because the probe is not public.

The sources said the SEC is asking for information about the role of so-called “master servicers” — specialized firms that oversee the selection and maintenance of the large pool of home loans that go into every mortgage-backed bond.

In many cases, Wall Street banks that underwrite mortgage-backed securities either own their own master servicing firms or are closely aligned with one.

December 17, 2010, 11:29 AM ET

By Nick Timiraos

Bank of America helpfully sent out a letter last week informing a Brooklyn homeowner that the bank didn’t have all the documents needed to finalize a loan modification application.

“Our records indicate that we are still missing some of the required documents, or some of the documents were sent to us with missing or incorrect information,” said the form letter dated Dec. 6.

But there was one problem: the letter was addressed to the couple that sold the Brooklyn apartment in 1998. It arrived in the mailbox of a Wall Street Journal reporter who bought that apartment and has never had a mortgage on it.

It’s no secret that banks’ paperwork problems have plagued the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, and the letter offers a glimmer into potential miscues. Borrowers frequently tell of sending and resending paperwork three or four times, while banks often say that modifications aren’t being completed because borrowers aren’t filing all the necessary documentation.

Bank of America says this letter was sent in error after a loan modification negotiator entered in the wrong nine-digit loan number and that the incident appears to have been “very isolated.” “It was simply someone going into a template [who] punched in the wrong number,” said a bank spokeswoman. “Obviously, we’re very sorry for the confusion.”

EXCERPTS:

On November 28, 2007, several months after this Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing and directed Chase Home Finance to submit the Policy Affidavit, a letter was filed on the Court docket in this case addressed to the Clerk of the Court from a legal assistant acting on behalf of “Pillar Processing, LLC,” an entity unknown to the Court that appeared to have no connection with this case or these Debtors. The letter stated:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Respecting captioned bankruptcy matter, please be advised that the 362 motion scheduled for December 7, 2007, at 10:30am [sic] has been
withdrawn.

Very Truly Yours,
PILLAR PROCESSING, LLC.
By: Robin L. Brown
Legal Assistant

ECF Docket No. 23. Though no relationship was identified or explained in the body or
letterhead, Pillar Processing and Chase Home Finance’s bankruptcy counsel, Steven J.
Baum, P.C., share the same address and telephone number, and ECF reflects that the
letter was filed using a password issued to “Dennis Jose [a Steven J. Baum, P.C. attorney]
on behalf of CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC.” Chase Home Finance’s bankruptcy
counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., has made no effort to address or explain this act, or the
propriety of this action on the record.

<SNIPS>

Finally, the Attorney Affirmation made no effort to explain the relationship between the Steven J.
Baum, P.C. law firm and Pillar Processing, LLC, the non-legal entity that attempted to
withdraw the Lift-Stay Motion.

<SNIP>

The Court will issue a separate order denying the Lift-Stay motion and directing
that neither Chase Home Finance, the current holder or owner of the note and mortgage,
nor any of their successors-in-interest shall in any way seek or charge any attorneys’ fees
or other charges against Debtors, their property, or the mortgage, whether now or at the
end of the mortgage, if such fees or charges are in any manner connected with the Lift-
Stay Motion, the Order to Show Cause, or the Evidentiary Hearing.

This decision is published as a warning, not just to Chase Home Finance and
other mortgage servicers, but to all individuals and entities involved in the process, along
the line – analysts, supervisors and other personnel employed by mortgage servicers;
third-party vendors; regional law firms; and local counsel – that the conduct identified
here, in this Court’s view, constitutes an abuse of process. Although the Court’s focus in
this case was on the mortgage servicer’s conduct and did not order all of the participants
to appear and respond to this Order to Show Cause, they will be included in future orders
if such abusive conduct continues, and the Court will assume familiarity with this
decision.

The Lift-Stay motion, which originated with a notation on an analyst’s computer
screen, has generated a 60-page decision and stress on the Debtors for the nine-month
period that the Lift-Stay Motion was pending. The Court is not compensated according
to time spent on a particular case, but this Order to Show Cause has drawn time and
resources away from other, meritorious cases. Judicial resources do not permit such a
thorough examination of every case. This decision sanctions Chase Home Finance only
for the actual costs incurred by the Debtors. In the Court’s view, the sanction is an
extremely mild one, because the Supreme Court instructs that a bankruptcy court should
exercise its Section 105 powers with restraint and discretion. The Court does not regard
the exercise of restraint in this case to be a limitation on the sanctions that might be
imposed in the future against Chase Home Finance or another mortgage servicer if this
abuse occurs again. If Chase Home Finance, other mortgage servicers and any
employees, third-party vendors, or any attorneys involved in the process at any level
exhibit the same type of abusive conduct in the future, this Court believes that Section
105(a) authorizes sanctions of increasing severity.

Dated: Poughkeepsie, New York
April 10, 2008

/s/ Cecelia Morris .
. CECELIA G. MORRIS
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Read below…

[ipaper docId=45504533 access_key=key-c1s6aje4rh8a3iok006 height=600 width=600 /]]

The latest bombshell follows with a brilliant 325 Pg. Deposition of LPS/ Fidelity’s Bill Newland.

Feel free to upload docs using email a tip link located above the site.

EXCERPTS:

2   Q    Sure.  Are there any attorneys who are not
3   members of the Fidelity — or the LPS attorney network
4   who can access your Process Management system?
5        A    Not that I’m aware of.
6        Q    And is it a fact that the only attorneys who
7   are using Process Management are attorneys who have
8   signed a referral agreement with LPS?
9        A    That would be correct.
10        Q    So, while your clients are free to choose
11   whomever as a foreclosing attorney, if they are an MSP
12   user and they are an LPS — they have an LPS agreement
13   with you for Default Solutions, the only attorneys
14   available on LPS system are attorneys who have signed
15   a contract with LPS?
16        A    That have signed a contract with LPS, yes.

<SNIP>

3        Q    So I just want to be sure.  What you’re
4   testifying to is that there is no compensation ever
5   paid by the servicer to LPS Default Solutions for all
6   this work that it does on behalf of the servicer with
7   respect to the foreclosure?
8        A    No.
9        Q    There is compensation or there is not
10   compensation?
11        A    No, there’s no compensation.
12        Q    Is it your testimony then that the only fees
13   which LPS Default Solutions collects with respect to
14   the foreclosure of any given loan is the
15   administrative support fee charged to the network
16   attorneys?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    And the division of LPS Default Solutions
19   which we are here about today and which you are
20   testifying as a 30(b)(6) representative, the only
21   source of income it derives for its work with respect
22   to foreclosure is the administrative support fee?
23        A    That’s my understanding.

Continue below to the transcript…

[ipaper docId=45556213 access_key=key-rvgb96qx4uuxvufi2md height=600 width=600 /]

Our View: Avoiding another mortgage mess

The Salem News Thu Dec 16, 2010, 06:00 AM EST

They did such a good job depressing the housing market and sending the economy into a tailspin, why not trust the banking cabal with keeping track of all property titles?

John O’Brien, the Essex County register of deeds, isn’t buying it, and neither should you.

O’Brien, of Lynn, is in the forefront of a national effort to challenge the policies and practices of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS). The agency was established in 1995 by a group of banking conglomerates including Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loans and Wells Fargo, to keep track of loans issued against property titles — a task previously performed by the public registries of deeds.

In a Nov. 18 letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley, O’Brien alleged that MERS “has failed to pay the proper recording fees required under Massachusetts statute when a lender assigns a mortgage to another entity.” And this week Coakley announced that she will join her colleagues in several other states in an investigation to see whether MERS is skirting laws regarding such transactions.

CitiMortgage, Inc., Plaintiff,

against

Angela Nunez, et. al., Defendant.

EXCERPTS:

The Court does not work for CITI and cannot wait for CITI, a multi-billion dollar financial behemoth to get its “act” together.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the instant motion of plaintiff CITIMORTGAGE, INC. for summary
judgment and an order of reference for the premises at 38 Norwood Avenue, Brooklyn, New
[*4]York (Block 3905, Lot 28, County of Kings) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 2558/09, is dismissed without prejudice;
and it is further

ORDERED, that the notice of pendency in the instant action, filed with the Kings County
Clerk on February 2, 2009, by plaintiff, CITIMORTGAGE, INC., to foreclose a mortgage for
real property located at 38 Norwood Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3905, Lot 28,
County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further

ORDERED, that if plaintiff, CITIMORTGAGE, INC., moves to restore the instant foreclosure
action and motion for an order of reference for real property located at 38 Norwood Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York (Block 3905, Lot 28, County of Kings), counsel for plaintiff must comply
with the new Court filing requirement, announced by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman on October
20, 2010, and ordered by Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau on October 20, 2010, by
submitting an affirmation, using the new standard Court form, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and
under the penalties of perjury, that counsel for plaintiff, CITIMORTGAGE, INC.: has “based
upon my communications [with named representative or representatives of plaintiff], as well as
upon my own inspection and reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, . . .that, to the best of
my knowledge, information, and belief, the Summons, Complaint and other papers filed or
submitted to the Court in this matter contain no false statements of fact or law”; and, is “aware of
my obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22
NYCRR Part 130.”

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Continue Below…

[ipaper docId=45423103 access_key=key-1s614oe1l94joovgo43m height=600 width=600 /]