On March 30, an Alabama judge issued a short, conclusory order that stopped foreclosure on the home of a beleaguered family, and also prevents the same bank in the case from trying to foreclose against that couple, ever again. This may not seem like big news — but upon review of the underlying documents, the extraordinarily important nature of the decision and the case becomes obvious.

No Securitization, No Foreclosure

Attorney Nick Wooten does it again and again!

PHYLLIS HORACE

v.

LASALLE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al

EXCERPT:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

Following hearing and review of all submissions from the parties the Court has come to two conclusions necessary for the disposition of this case:

First, the Court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association) did not comply with the terms of it’s own Pooling and Servicing Agreement and further did not comply with the New York Law in attempting to obtain assignment of plaintiff Horac’s note and mortgage.

Second, the plaintiff Horace is a third party beneficiary of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement created by the defendant trust (Lasalle Bank National Association). Indeed without such Pooling and Servicing Agreements, plaintiff Horace and other mortgages similarly situated would never have been able to obtain financing.

[...]

Continue below…

[Full Docs]

Scribd

According to Housing Wire [link]

JPMorgan Chase must pay a $4 million surety bond to expedite the transfer of foreclosure cases still under the umbrella of foreclosure law firm Ben-Ezra & Katz.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida made that ruling after JPMorgan Chase Bank sued Ben-Ezra, alleging the firm is delaying the return of foreclosure documents that represent $400 million in financial transactions. JPMorgan requested the documents after terminating an agreement with Ben-Ezra to handle its foreclosures.

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

Here’s the banks’ counterproposal for a servicing fraud settlement. I can sum it up in two words: drop dead.  Or two letters:  F.U. This proposals is so pathetically thin that it’s not a good faith counterproposal. This document only deals with servicing standards–nothing in it whatsoever about penalties, modification quotas, etc. But even on servicing standards it is a bunch of empty promises to have internal controls and try harder.

The first point about this counterproposal is simply to note what’s absent from it:

(1) nothing about principal reductions

(2) nothing about second liens and conflicts of interest

(3) nothing about MERS (reserved for later)

(4) nothing about in-sourced vendor fees or force-placed insurance to affiliates. This makes the fees and force-place insurance sections pretty meaningless.

(5) nothing about pyramiding of fees.

via: Credit Slips

Draft Uniform Servicing Standards

Scribd

Federal Reserve Lent To Gaddafi-Owned Bank, European Firms After Fighting Disclosure For 3 Years

From HuffPost’s Shahien Nasiripour

At a time when credit markets shunned even the most worthy borrowers, foreign banks, including one partly-owned by Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, fled to the Federal Reserve and borrowed at rock-bottom interest rates, Fed documents released Thursday show.

During the height of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, as investors and firms hoarded cash, the Fed reduced its rates to kickstart lending in the broader economy. Arab Banking Corp., a $28 billion lender now 59 percent-owned by Libya’s central bank, borrowed at least $3.2 billion during this time. The Fed charged it an interest rate ranging from 2.25 percent to as low as 1.25 percent on those borrowings, regular Fed data show.

The Fed told us explicitly – many times – that it was taking “good collateral” to back up these loans and that it was quite confident it would not lose any money.

That, it turns out, was true.

What we were not told is that the “collateral” they took was so bad that it was in some cases valued at TEN CENTS on the dollar or less, and in each of these cases it leaves open the question as to where is that collateral now, having been returned to the bank, what is it actually worth, and how is it being carried on the books – because what we do know from the bank’s financial reporting is that it most-certainly was NOT written off.

There’s more than enough here in these tables to call for a massive forensic investigation into the accounting practices of each and every one of these institutions as the fact that FRBNY valued this “collateral” at such a tiny fraction of it’s claimed value by the submitting institution leads to an immediate question as to how one squares that valuation with the values reported by the banks in their quarterly and annual reports, and whether they were at the time, or are today, in point of fact, at anything approaching actual valuations, insolvent.

We the people deserve both answers AND HONEST ACCOUNTING.

-Karl Denninger

From ACK.net [link]

Working with island attorney Jamie Ranney, state Representative Tim Madden has sponsored a bill that would address a number of controversial issues surrounding contested foreclosures cases, including the valid recording of assignments of securitized loans, so-called “robo-signing” by lenders and their agents, and perceived abuses by Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS.