Same Scenarios…Over and Over and Over again!

JSOnline-

Keon Williams is on the verge of being thrown out of his house – a startling turn of events, considering that for nearly three years since refinancing in 2008, he faithfully paid his monthly mortgage and his property taxes.

“I did everything I was supposed to do, but I’m being evicted,” says Williams, 38, sitting in his neat but sparsely furnished dining room on N. 44th St. “I never would have imagined something like this could happen.”

Protection for Tenants
When Landlords Enter Foreclosure

Senate gave SB 491 thumbs up, It now moves to the House for consideration.

[ipaper docId=54026712 access_key=key-206z733yku34qrt2olg5 height=600 width=600 /]

Sun Sentinel–

The Fort Lauderdale Fraternal Order of Police will close its accounts with Bank of America, union president Jack Lokeinsky said, citing the bank’s union-unfriendly political contributions and membership in the Florida Chamber of Commerce, a business group that pushed for the deduction ban.

Lokeinsky said the union will close four accounts that totaled roughly $750,000 in annual activity. He also urged union members to close personal accounts with the bank.

via KPHO.com

“I’ve got to ask, did lobbyists have anything to do with your decision?” Erwin asked McLain.

“Well, there were people that came and talked to me about it,” she responded.

“Representative, of course the bankers aren’t going to like this bill, it doesn’t help them. But have you talked to the constituents, the folks in foreclosure who could have been assisted by this?” Erwin questioned.

Were these the people who went to speak with her?

SB 1259 – foreclosures; proof of ownership – DO PASS

Zack Porter, Banking and Insurance Committee Intern, explained the bill and answered questions
posed by the Committee.

Senator Reagan, bill sponsor, further explained the bill and answered questions posed by the
Committee.

Wendy Briggs, Lobbyist, Arizona Bankers Association, testified in opposition to the bill and
answered questions posed by the Committee.

William Hultman, Senior Vice President, MERSCORP, Inc., testified in opposition to the bill and
answered questions posed by the Committee.

Lee Miller, Lobbyist, Arizona Trustee Association, testified in opposition to the bill and answered
questions posed by the Committee.

Darrell Blomberg, representing self, testified in support of the bill and answered questions posed
by the Committee.

Beverly Hall, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill and answered questions posed by
the Committee.

Senator Reagan moved SB 1259 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.
The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 4-0-2 (Attachment 2).

Senator Driggs explained his vote.

[ipaper docId=54025690 access_key=key-15nfpnjyeder7sjcfy80 height=600 width=600 /]

Contact: John Sellek or Joy Yearout 517-373-8060

LANSING
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced today that he is working with Oakland County Register of Deeds Bill Bullard, and other local and federal authorities, to look into questionable mortgage documentation filed with Michigan’s Register of Deeds offices during the current foreclosure crisis.

Bullard and other county officials have uncovered Assignment of Mortgage documents filed in their offices with signatures of some mortgage executives that appear to have been forged by many different people, raising questions about the authenticity of the documents.  For example, a recent “60 Minutes” news broadcast showed that the name “Linda Green” was signed to thousands of documents nationwide but with many different variations in handwriting.  Bullard, in a letter to Schuette today, said that his office has found many examples of these documents in its files, as have other county Register of Deeds offices, and plans to forward the questionable documents to the Attorney General’s office for review.

Schuette’s office is beginning the process of working with local, state and federal authorities to look into the problem.  Since late last year, the Michigan Attorney General’s office has also been a part of a 50-state Attorneys General workgroup addressing the robo-signing issue and other consumer protection issues.

“The idea that anyone would forge documents during a process in which a family is losing their home is absolutely unconscionable,” said Schuette.  “We are working closely with federal and local authorities to get to the bottom of this.”

“I want Oakland County residents going through the foreclosure process to be aware of this potential problem with their mortgage documentation and strongly encourage them to review their files,” said Bullard.  “My office will continue its investigation and work with Attorney General Schuette’s office as we find more questionable documents.”

-30-

Source: www.michigan.gov

MICHIGAN MESSENGER-

Curtis Hertel Jr., Register of Deeds for Ingham County, says that a discovery he made involving alleged fraudulent mortgage documents is now being investigated by both the Ingham County Sheriff’s Department and the FBI.

“Yes, this is, in my opinion, fraud,” Hertel said. “This is a situation where people were forging someone else’s name to a legal document to take another person’s property. That is fraud.”

As if it hasn’t been a conflict when MERS is the nominee for the plaintiff but is also named or is the mortgagee for the defendant…what a total state of confusion.

Oh wait there’s more, and who signs and notarizes these documents entered as evidence in most cases?

TBO.com

TAMPA – When a lender fails to find a homeowner to notify them of a foreclosure lawsuit, a judge often appoints a guardian ad item. That attorney is supposed to represent the property owner’s interests.

But guess who typically picks the guardian? The lender’s attorney.

Excerpts:

Q. So through that corporate authority as
Exhibit 4 to this deposition, MERS assented to the terms
Of this assignment of mortgage?

A. Through me.

Q. So it was you that assented to the terms of
This assignment of mortgage.

A. The one in this case, yes.

Q. And no one else.

A. Correct

Q. And you signed as vice president of MERS
acting solely as a nominee for America’s Wholesale
Lender; is that correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. How did you know that MERS was nominee for
America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. By reviewing documentation.

Q. What documentation?

A. I don’t specifically recall what I reviewed
In this case to see that, to determine that, but I would
have reviewed either the mortgage or I would have
reviewed other documentation that would have established
that to me.

Q. So in this case you don’t remember a single
Document that you looked at that would establish the
Nominee status of MERS for America’s Wholesale Lenders;
Is that correct?

A. I don’t

Q. Did someone at America’s Wholesale Lender
Tell you that MERS was acting as the nominee?

A. No.

Q. Did someone at MERS tell you they were
Acting as Nominee for America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. NO.

Q. Was America’s Wholesale Lender in existence
On May 19, 2010?

A. don’t now.

Q. Did you check that before signing this
assignment of mortgage?

A. No.

<SNIP>

Q. Now, you’ve said you review the MERS
Website and you’ve seen documents like this, like
Composite Exhibit 6. Any reason why you wouldn’t review
the documents contained in Exhibit 6 before executing the
assignment of mortgage?

A. It’s not necessary.

Q. Why not?

A. Because it’s not. Because I decided it’s
not.

Q. You as vice president of MERS?

A. In every possible capacity as it relates to
This case.

Q. Did you sign this assignment of mortgage
after being retained as counsel for the plaintiff?

A. After my law firm was retained?

Q. (Nods head.)

A. Is that the question?

Q. Sure.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you executed an assignment to be
Used as evidence in your case, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. It’s a sure.

Q. Is that a yes o a no?

A. You said sure earlier. Was that a yes or a
No?

Q. Okay. So…

A. It’s a yes.

Q. It’s a yes.

And were you aware when you signed the
assignment of mortgage that MERS was a defendant in this
Case?

[ipaper docId=53916343 access_key=key-1rk8dl6pcjqgja1oy0ki height=600 width=600 /]

via Mandelman Matters-

Preface…

Sit down and relax… you’re going to need a comfortable chair.  But, I promise you… it’ll be worth it.

In the fall of 2008, news stories about “scammers” taking advantage of homeowners at risk of foreclosure started appearing frequently in the media.  I remember watching a prime-time national news magazine type program, I think it was 20/20, that was airing a story that featured a sleazy looking middle-age man in Denver, hurriedly walking from a small, strip mall store front to his car, his hand covering his face, as a reporter tried to ask him questions that he obviously did not plan to answer.

The story involved a company that had charged a handful of homeowners several thousand dollars up front to help them negotiate with their banks to get their mortgages modified.  The core issue being raised by the show’s host was that the homeowners had been victims of a scam because, as a couple of the homeowners interviewed were saying, their loans had not yet been modified.

I remember wondering, to begin with, how in the world such a story had become the subject of a national news magazine television program.  I mean, “Three homeowners get ripped off by small business in Denver,” is not usually the sort of event that makes national headlines.  The implication being made was that this case was emblematic of a more widespread problem, but nothing further was offered in the way of proof… no statistics, no additional facts… just statements about how homeowners should NEVER pay anyone up front to help them negotiate with their bank over a loan modification because they were “scammers.”

Hint: This is NOT about borrowers, make sure you read the email in the link below!

“How do you think we can help out those poor defendants today? We may not be able to cure their legal issues, but we’d sure like to help give them some strong legal arguments in their case!”

Thank you Karl “Ticker Guy” Denninger

by kdenninger on Apr 24, 2011

Brian Burnett has signed mortgage documents using the job titles listed below during the approximate same period of time. All of these were notarized in Travis County, Texas, where IndyMac Mortgage Services is located. IndyMac Mortgage Services is now a division of One West Bank.

A certified signer for Mortgage electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was authorized to sign on behalf of the affiliated mortgage entity that employed him. Burnett, for example, would have been authorized to sign as an officer of MERS, as nominee for IndyMac Bank.

MERS signers were never authorized to sign on behalf of all other lenders.

[ipaper docId=53758521 access_key=key-vakbq9sniymd894p23c height=600 width=600 /]

New York Post-

The $2 billion battle has begun.

When the Suffolk County Legislature meets again next week, the county’s share of an estimated $2 billion in fees big banks saved with their electronic record-keeping system — bypassing paper mortgage records in county clerks’ offices — will top the agenda for legislator Ed Romaine.

In his previous job as county clerk, Romaine fought in court against the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, for several years in the early 2000s and lost. But he’s taking another run at it now as the firm’s shaky legal foundation is cracking and so many ordinary homeowners are suffering from questionable foreclosure actions involving MERS.

The Kathy Wray Coleman Online News Blog-

To perpetuate the alleged fraud lawyers for Chase Mortgage Company, namely Bricker and Eckler and Lerner, Sampson and Rothfuss, are falsifying notices of foreclosure sale to Bucha, O’Donnell and Reid and leaving off the name of Chase Mortgage Company because they know it no longer exist, and this is after the mortgage company lawyers file a second suit before Cuyahoga Judge Carolyn Friedland who goes along with it but dismissed the second suit in a particular case after grassroots activists complained, and after Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Gerald Fuerst allegedly harassed the homeowner with numerous summons of the illegal second suit, and deputy sheriffs sent to harass her at her home to deliver them.

via: wutdaflek

“You have to be asleep to believe it.”

A short excerpt from the video “Life Is Worth Losing” (2005).

Palm Beach Post- Kimberly Miller

West Palm Beach resident Liz Mills learned she was a robo-signer when a friend suggested she search her own name online.

On foreclosure blogs and in at least one newspaper article, the 51-year-old process server was singled out for the numerous and varying styles of her signatures on summons paperwork used to prove her efforts in locating home­owners in foreclosure.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Gretchen Morgenson-NYTimes

TWO individual investors just scored a remarkable win against Citigroup.

A few weeks ago, the pair was awarded a total of $54.1 million in a securities arbitration case against the Smith Barney unit of the company — the largest amount ever awarded to individuals in such a case, according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

WSJ- Nick Timiraos

Falling home prices should give aspiring homeowners the upper hand this spring, but in a growing number of locations, it doesn’t feel like a buyer’s market.

Blame the nearly five-year slide of home prices. Those declines, which accelerated over the past two quarters, have left many sellers unable or unwilling to lower their prices. Meanwhile, buyers remain gun shy about agreeing to any purchase without getting a deep discount.

MICHAEL G. BRAUTIGAM,

v.

ROBERT E. RUBIN, C. MICHAEL
ARMSTRONG, JOHN M. DEUTCH,
ANNE M. MULCAHY, VIKRAM PANDIT,
ALAIN J.P BELDA, TIMOTHY C. COLLINS,
JERRY A GRUNDHOFR, ROBERT L. JOSS,
ANDREW N. LIVERIS, MICHAEL E. O’NEILL,
RICHARD D. PARSONS, LAWRENCE R.
RICCIARDI, JUDITH RODIN, ROBERT
L. RYAN, ANTHONY M. SANTOMERO,
DIANA L. TAYLOR, WILLIAM S. THOMPSON,
JR., AND ERNESTO ZEDILLO
~
Excerpts:

I. This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf and for the benefit of Citigroup against certain of its current and former directors. Citigroup is a global . financial services company, and provides consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a range of financial products and services. The recipient of some $45 billion of federal government bail-out monies, Citigroup has suffered, and will continue to suffer, serious financial and reputational impacts from the inadequate servicing of its troubled residential mortgage loans.

2. On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) publicized findings from its fourth quarter 2010 investigation into Citigroup’s mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices. As a result of that investigation, the OCC concluded that Citigroup (through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Citibank, N.A.): engaged in improper servicing and foreclosure practices; lacked sufficient resources to ensure proper administration of its foreclosure processes; lacked adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management; failed to supervise outside counsel and other third parties handling foreclosure-related services; and engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices. The above findings were made public in the OCC’s formal enforcement agreement with Citibank as set forth in the Consent Order captioned In the Matter of Citibank, NA. Las Vegas, Nevada AA -EC-II-I3 (the “Consent Order”).

<SNIP>

13. Apar from a dismal track record in complying with its obligations under TARP and HAMP, Citigroup also suffered from the effects of a lack of adequate controls over its foreclosure processes. By third and fourth quarters of 20 10, reports had surfàced alleging that companies (including Citigroup) servicing $6.4 trillion in American mortgages may have bypassed legally required steps to foreclose on a home. For example, a New Jersey state cour administrative order specifically implicated Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (“Citi Residential,” a business of Citigroup) in the so-called “robosigning” scandal. Robo-signers, as the court put it, “are mortgage lender/servicer employees who sign hundreds-in some cases thousands-of affidavits submitted in support of foreclosure claims without any personal  knowledge of the information contained in the affidavits. ‘Robo-signing’ may also refer to improper notarizing practices or document backdating.” The administrative order cited devastating evidence of the inadequacies of Citigroup’s internal controls over its loan documentation and foreclosure processes:

An individual employed by Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., with signing authority for Citi Residential Lending, Inc., testified in a deposition that when he signed documents for Citi, he did not review them for substantive correctness. He could not even explain what precisely an assignment of a mortgage accomplishes. He had no prior background in the mortgage industry.

Further, a second person with signing authority for Citi Residential Lending, Inc. testified that she never reviewed any books, records, or documents before signing affidavits and that she instead trusted the company’s internal policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information she signed. She signed several documents each day (in many instances without knowledge of what she was signing) and indicated that they were often notarized outside of her presence.

14. The deficiencies in Citigroup’s controls over its loan documentation and foreclosure processes have led to tens of thousands of adverse outcomes for the Company throughout the United States. On November 23, 20 i 0, a Managing Director of Citi- Mortgage, in a written statement to the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, admitted that: (a) the Company was reviewing approximately 10,000 affidavits executed in pending foreclosures initiated before February 2010; (b) affidavits executed before fàll 2009 would need to be refilled;
(c) that the Company was reviewing another approximately 4,000 pending foreclosure affidavits that may not have been properly executed; and (d) it was transferring approximately 8,500 foreclosure files from its former Florida law firm that engaged in robo-signing.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=53708997 access_key=key-29j62rkkguzyij0xjuys height=600 width=600 /]

http://www.scribd.com/full/53708513?access_key=key-1pzxbltfa7cdhtky3rr8

HousingWire

The alleged splitting of attorney fees between foreclosure law firms and third-party mortgage servicing providers is the subject of another lawsuit, bringing the number of cases filed on this issue to five within the past seven months, said Nick Wooten, an Alabama-based plaintiff’s attorney involved in all of the cases.

By mid-May, Wooten said he expects to file 10 to 12 additional cases, making similar allegations about what he claims are illegal, split-attorney fee arrangements between mortgage servicing outsourcers and law firms. The cases are concentrated in the Northern District of Mississippi, the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern District of Florida-Pensacola division.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Excerpt:

This case before the court sua sponte. It has come to the court’s attention that the order from which this appeal is taken is not final and appealable, On March 10, 2011, the Erie County Court of Common Pleas dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to allege it was both the owner and holder of the subject note.

Continue reading…

[ipaper docId=53662974 access_key=key-1w3nxnejox2d3s4ap8n8 height=600 width=600 /]