TO: John O’Brien
Register of Deeds Southern Essex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
FROM: Jamie Ranney, Esq.
Jamie Ranney, PC
4 Thirty Acres Lane
Nantucket, MA 02554
508.228.9224 (tel)
508.228-4752 (fax)
DATE: June 18, 2011
RE: Legal authority of Registers of Deeds in Massachusetts to reject document(s) and/or instrument(s) for recording in their registries
QUESTION PRESENTED
What legal authority does a Register of Deeds in Massachusetts have to reject for recording (unregistered land) or registration (Land Court registered land) document(s) and/or instrument(s) in his Registry and where is such legal authority derived from?
SUMMARY
It is without question that a Register of Deeds has an important and fiduciary relationship and responsibility – especially in the Commonwealth where his position is elected – to all of his constituents, as well as to the public at large, all of whom rely and who should be able to rely on the Register’s efforts, supervision, and oversight in assuring, maintaining and promoting the integrity, transparency, accuracy, and consistency of a County’s land records.
The Register’s work and supervision of his registry most often revolves around tasks and responsibilities that are generally ministerial in nature. The Register is typically concerned with the daily task of recording of legal document(s) and/or instrument(s) affecting real property where such document(s) and/or instrument(s) are properly presented to the registry for recording on the public land records.
However, the Register’s fiduciary duty goes well beyond these usual ministerial acts in circumstances where the Register has actual knowledge or a subjective good-faith belief/basis for believing that document(s) and/or instrument(s) being presented for recording or registration in the registry for which he has responsibility are fraudulent or otherwise not executed or acknowledged under applicable law. In such cases the Register may lawfully refuse to record such document(s) and/or instrument(s).
Mitch Granat, a lawyer who handles debt-collection cases for J.P. Morgan in Palm Beach County, Fla., on a contract basis, said he was told by other lawyers for the bank that the suits in Florida were dropped because of “irregularities” in paperwork used to verify the validity of the credit-card debt being pursued. Some judges have complained that J.P. Morgan and other credit-card issuers that go to court to collect what they are owed file lawsuits marred by sloppy or even fraudulent documentation of debts. J.P. Morgan hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing related to credit-card cases in any court filings.
It isn’t clear how common the problem is, though Philip Straniere, a state-court judge in Richmond County, N.Y., and other judges say deficiencies are worse than in foreclosure cases. “It’s a significant problem…that’s widespread and yet given virtually no attention,” Judge Straniere said. Last year, Judge Straniere dismissed 150 credit-card-collection suits filed by J.P. Morgan, concluding paperwork submitted by the bank “appeared to be signed in large numbers by only a few individuals.”
For its first witness, plaintiff called Martin Lavergne, who worked for CHASE BANK USA, N.A.(“Chase”) in various roles over a period of approximately 17 years. Presently, he holds the title of “custodian of records.” While Mr. Lavergne maintained that he had personal knowledge of the practices and procedures that Chase utilized in creating and maintaining consumer credit card account records, he never described these practices and procedures and never testified as to how he acquired personal knowledge of them.
[…]
Notably, some of the records that were shown to Mr. Lavergne were apparently created by Washington Mutual Bank. Mr. Lavergne explained this by stating that at some point in time, Chase had acquired Washington Mutual Bank. No testimony was elicited from Mr. Lavergne that he had worked for Washington Mutual Bank or that he had personal knowledge of the practices and procedures that Washington Mutual Bank employed in creating and maintaining consumer credit card account records.
[…]
Here, Mr. Lavergne’s foundational testimony was essentially a verbatim recitation of the statutory elements set forth in CPLR 4518[a]. He gave absolutely no testimony as to how the electronic records concerning defendant’s account statements came into existence nor did he indicate that he even knew how such information was collected. It would appear that credit card statements contain information that is conveyed from multiple entities, from the reporting merchant through various intermediaries, until the information is ultimately incorporated into plaintiff’s business records (see Discover Bank v Williamson, 2007 NY Slip Op 50231[U] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists]). Certainly, Mr. Lavergne did not demonstrate that the person or persons who inputted the electronic data had actual knowledge of the events inputted or that such person or persons obtained knowledge of those events from someone with actual knowledge of them and who had a business duty to relay information regarding the events (see Corsi v Town of [*4]Bedford, 58 AD3d 225, 229 [2d Dept 2008]; Capasso v Kleen All of America, Inc., 43 AD3d at 1347).
[…]
Further, Mr. Lavergne’s testimony was highly suspect. As stated above, some of the records that plaintiff sought to introduce into evidence through the testimony of Mr. Lavergne were apparently prepared by Washington Mutual Bank. The foundational testimony given by Mr. Lavergne concerning these records was identical to the foundational testimony he gave concerning the Chase records. It is well settled law that in order for a witness to lay the foundation for the admission of a document as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518[a], the witness must demonstrate personal knowledge of the business practices and procedures pursuant to which the document was made (see Reiss v Roadhouse Rest., 70 AD3d 1021, 1025 [2d Dept 2010]; Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 39 AD3d 494, 495 [2d Dept 2007]; Vento v City of New York, 25 AD3d 329, 330 [1st Dept 2006]; Dayanim v Unis, 171 AD2d 579 [1st Dept 1991]; Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 51879[U] [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Because Mr. Lavergne never worked for Washington Mutual Bank, it defies logic that he would have personal knowledge of Washington Mutual Bank’s business practices and procedures. For these reasons, the Court gives Mr. Lavergne’s “robo-testimony” and plaintiffs’ no weight or credit (People v Barrett, 14 AD3d 369 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Washington Mut. Bank v Phillip, 2010 NY Slip Op 52034[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County]).
[…]
In sum, the offered “robo-testimony” was insufficient to establish its case by a preponderance of the credible evidence. [*5]
Based on the above, it is hereby
ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of defendant SHADY A. GERGIS and against plaintiff CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and that plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice on the merits.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
For Immediate Release:
June 23, 2011
Mortgage Company fined $290,000 for Incomplete and False Foreclosure Documents
CHICAGO – PHH Mortgage Company has been fined $290,000 for signing foreclosure affidavits that the company knew would later be altered by its attorneys and for signing affidavits using someone else’s name, according to an order released today by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR). The violations were found during an ongoing special investigation of 20 Illinois licensed mortgage servicing companies, which was launched last year after learning of foreclosure improprieties across the country.
“At a time when homeowners are facing the possible loss of their most precious asset, homeowners have a right to expect their loan servicing company to file accurate and honest paperwork,” said Brent E. Adams, Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation. “Time and again, the Department has sought to emphasize to loan servicing companies that home foreclosure is no time to cut corners.”
The order, signed by Manuel Flores, Director of IDFPR’s Division of Banking says that in at least 19 files, PHH failed to sign affidavits after they had been altered by the company’s attorneys and that PHH’s knowledge of and complicity with this process is evidenced by the fact that the original affidavits were incomplete and contained notations such as “will add” when they were tendered to the law firm of Fisher and Shapiro. The law firm, in turn, under penalty of perjury and acting on behalf of PHH, then attested to the completeness of the altered affidavits although they had not been reviewed or re-executed by PHH.
The Department discovered other evidence of improprieties on the part of PHH employees in 16 of the 19 affidavits. These 16 affidavits were identified as having all been signed and attested to by the same PHH employee in his or her official capacity. Yet, the Department noted no less than five distinctly different signatures attributed to this same PHH employee, leading the Department to conclude that at least four different people used one employee’s name to sign the affidavits. PHH has ten days to request a hearing on the Department’s order.
In December 2010, Department issued a 9-point “affidavit preparation expectations” plan establishing best practices for the handling of foreclosure-related documents. Under the Department’s order, PHH has violated both the Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 and these best practices established, publicized, and agreed to by several loan servicers late last year.
The 9-point plan:
Affiants who sign affidavits in connection with foreclosure proceedings shall not use signature stamps to sign affidavits.
Affiants signing affidavits stating the amount owed by a borrower (hereinafter “prove-up affidavits”) shall confirm that the numbers accurately reflect the numbers in the licensee’s business records and are totaled correctly.
Affiants shall be individuals, not entities.
Affiants shall have the level of knowledge necessary to submit an affidavit in a judicial proceeding.
Lenders and servicers shall have processes in place to seek to ensure that affidavits used in connection with foreclosure proceedings are true, accurate, and complete, including that prove-up affidavits accurately reflect the amount due to the licensee.
To the extent that an affidavit is notarized, it shall be done in compliance with the law of the state in which the affidavit is being notarized, which generally requires that the affidavit be executed in the presence of the notary after the notary has administered the oath and that the notary appropriately dates the prove-up affidavit.
When using a form affidavit, Affiants shall not leave blanks or incomplete statements in the affidavit. Affiants shall date their signatures by hand on affidavits.
When the Affiant’s signature is not plainly legible, the name of the Affiant shall be printed on the affidavit in order to permit the identity of the Affiant to be known.
Lenders and servicers shall not file unsigned affidavits with the court.
Homeowners facing foreclosure and/or who have concerns or questions about the process may contact IDFPR’s mortgage hotline (800) 532-8785 (800) 532-8785
STATE OF MICHIGAN
30th CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM
CURTIS HERTEL, JR. individually and as
Register of Feeds for Ingham County,
V
BANK OF AMERICA N.A.;
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP;
ORLAN ASSOCIATES, PC;
TROTT & TROTT, PC;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
d/b/a FANNIE MAE;
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION
d/b/a FREDDIE MAC
mortgagee without mortgage note holds “naked legal title” in trust
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
N0.-11 1381 E
HENRIETTA EATON
vs .
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION & another1
Excerpts:
The Defendants have produced a photocopy of the Note. It is endorsed in blank and does not bear an allonge indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. For the purposes of this motion only, Defendants stipulate that Green Tree did not hold the Note when the foreclosure occurred.
[…]
There is no inconsistency between this analysis and the recent decision in U.S.Bank National Association v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011). Ibanez restated common law of the Commonwealth to the effect that the assignment of a mortgage must be effective before foreclosure in order to be valid. In Ibanez, it was undisputed that the foreclosing entities were the note holders. The plaintiffs argued that, as note holders, they had a sufficient financial interest to foreclose. Not so, said the Court; as note holders separated from the mortgage due to a lack of effective assignment, they had only a beneficial interest in the mortgage note. The Court held that the power of sale statute, by its terms, granted that authority to the mortgagee, not to the owner of the beneficial interest.2 The SJC did not address the authority of the assignee of the mortgage not in possession of the note to foreclose.
[…]
In finding that Eaton is likely to succeed on her claim, the court is cognizant of sound reason that would have historically supported the common law rule requiring the unification of the promissory note and the mortgage note in the foreclosing entity prior to foreclosure. Allowing foreclosure by a mortgagee not in possession of the mortgage note is potentially unfair to the mortgagor. A holder in due course of the promissory note could seek to recover against the mortgagor, thus exposing her to double liability. See 5- Star Mgmt., Inc. v. Rogers, 940 F. Supp. 512, 520 (D. E.D.N.Y. 1996); Cf. Cooperstein v. Bogas, 317 Mass. 341, 344 (1944) (noting that allowing a creditor ofthe mortgagee to reach and apply the interest of the debtor in the mortgage itself would “leav[ e] the note outstanding as a valid obligation of the mortgagor to the holder of the note who might possibly be a person other than the mortgagee.”).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, Eaton’s motion for preliminary injunction is ALLOWED. Fannie Mae is hereby enjoined until further order of this court from proceeding with its previously commenced summary process action Housing Court Docket 2010-2010-SP-0379 with respect to Eaton’s residence at 141 Deforest Street, Roslindale, Massachusetts, or from interfering with the Eaton’s possession and enjoyment thereof. 9
CONTACT: Curtis Hertel Jr. Ingham County Register of Deeds Ph 517 281 3574
Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel, Jr. Files Lawsuit Against Mortgage Lenders For Unpaid Taxes
Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel Jr. has filed a lawsuit today in the 30th Circuit Court, to recover millions in alleged unpaid transfer taxes from mortgage servicers and their attorneys.
“This is money that should have been applied to the county’s general funds, which could have been used for public safety, health programs, or countless other public services,” said Hertel. “Additionally, the state taxes collected would have gone straight to the school aid fund. It’s time for some of the banks responsible for the foreclosure mess to pay their fair share, instead of allowing our county’s taxpayers to bear all of the burden.”
Transfer taxes are the monies paid when a new deed is recorded in the county’s Register of Deeds office. The taxes apply to the sale price of the property being transferred, unless it falls under $100. Many large-scale banks have used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to claim an exemption to the taxes by identifying themselves as government entities, which Hertel contests.
”Depending on the amount of the judgment, this could provide a needed boost to our county’s constrained budget,” said Ingham County Treasurer Eric Schertzing. “The foreclosure crisis has drained county tax dollars in many ways – not merely in uncollected property taxes, but also because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were claiming these federal exemptions while re-selling foreclosed homes.”
The official transfer tax rate for counties in Michigan is $1.10 for every $1,000 of value being transferred. So the sale of a $100,000 home would typically carry a $110.00 tax. State taxes on the same transactions stretch even further – $7.50 for every $1,000 of value being transferred. It is estimated that the lawsuit could fetch a judgment in the millions of dollars.
“MFI-Miami, an internationally recognized mortgage fraud investigation firm based in Florida, has been instrumental in assisting in our investigation of this,” said Hertel. William Maxwell, Dan Marsh and Brian Parker from the Home Defense League, PLC, working in conjunction with MFI-Miami discovered a pattern of unpaid transfer taxes on foreclosure sales across Michigan. “The fact is banks and mortgage servicers, in concert with their foreclosure firms, failed to pay state and county transfer taxes,” said Steve Dibert of MFI-Miami, who has been part of the document examination.
Hertel is also working with other members of the Michigan Association of Registers of Deeds. “We are cooperating with other municipalities to join us in this fight, because this not just an Ingham County problem, it a problem that affects all 83 counties in the state.”
“Currently, the Michigan Association of Registers of Deeds, Inc. is compiling data from documents representing taxable transfers from these and other entities to determine the potential amount owed Michigan counties,” said president Bambi Somerlott. “Accordingly, each county will, in its discretion, use the information and proceed as they deem appropriate.”
Hertel has received the support of the Ingham County Board of Commissioners, and will announce the lawsuit at a press conference at 1:00 pm today. He has chosen the site of 1117 S Grand Avenue, a home that was recently subject to tax foreclosure, to make the announcement. “The banks should bear their share of responsibility for our current housing climate, and their role in what has happened is becoming more clear as time passes,” said Hertel. “We will do everything we can to pursue financial justice.”
Public Date: 06/20/2011
Contact: Bill Mullan, Media and Communications Officer
Phone Number: 248-858-1048
Pontiac, MI. — Oakland County Treasurer Andy Meisner and the Oakland County Corporation Counsel will hold a news conference Thursday to announce the filing of a lawsuit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that alleges the two lenders have failed to pay the county a real estate transfer tax for the privilege of recording various documents with the County Register of Deeds. The news conference will be held at 1:00 p.m. Thursday, June 23, 2011 at the Oakland County Treasurer’s Office, 1200 North Telegraph, Pontiac.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Monday, has the potential to recover more than $1 million for Oakland County based on the number of times Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to pay the real estate transfer tax.
The Oakland County Corporation Counsel discovered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s failure to pay after reading an article titled “Bypassing county fees may cost banks” in the December 2, 2010 edition of the Oakland County Legal News. The Corporation Counsel – along with outside counsel Kenneth Robinson and William Horton – began to take a look at real estate transfer taxes on various documents filed with the Oakland County Register of Deeds. In the course of examining those documents, the Corporation Counsel discovered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s failure to pay.
Further details will be outlined at the news conference.
For media inquiries only, please contact Bill Mullan, Media and Communications Officer, at (248) 858-1048.
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Today marks the six-month anniversary of my first letter to you requesting that the Committee investigate widespread and systemic abuses by mortgage servicing companies, including illegal foreclosures, inflated fees, and fraud against American homeowners. This is now my fourth letter to you on this subject.1
One cannot step into the same river twice, Heraclitus famously declared.
Abstract: This article takes as its point of departure the financing technique referred to as “securitization,” a close cousin of secured lending that has grown to enormous size since its origin more than two decades ago. The article pursues two themes. One is a critique of the legal foundations of securitization, which includes a perspective on aspects of fraudulent transfer law that are well established historically but have been neglected in recent decades. The other is exploration of the implications of this product growing so vast despite its dubious legal foundations. In that regard, the article explores two points of legal sociology that apply to new financial products generally. The first is that a product can become so widely used that it cannot be permitted to fail, notwithstanding its dubious legal foundations. The second is that the debt rating agencies have become de facto lawmakers, because it is their decision to give a favorable rating to a financial product the credit quality of which depends on a debatable legal judgment that allows the product to grow too big to fail. Two nascent products are identified as candidates for the operation of a similar dynamic. The article ends with a normative assessment of securitization from a pragmatic perspective, concluding that legislative action is appropriate to ratify the product’s object, with constraints.
On July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) established FHFA as regulator of the three housing-related government-sponsored enterprises: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks). FHFA’s mission is to promote their safety and soundness, support housing finance and affordable housing goals, and facilitate a stable and liquid mortgage market.
On September 6, 2008, just five weeks after its creation, FHFA became conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) began providing the Enterprises substantial financial support. As conservator, FHFA preserves and conserves the assets and property of the Enterprises, ensures they focus on their housing mission, and facilitates their financial stability and emergence from conservatorship. As of March 31, 2011,
Treasury had invested almost $154 billion in the Enterprises in an effort to stabilize their operations and the mortgage market generally. The Federal Reserve also took steps to support the Enterprises, such as committing to purchase up to $1.25 trillion of their securities.
On October 12, 2010, FHFA’s first Inspector General was sworn in, and FHFA-OIG commenced operations. In November 2010, FHFA-OIG initiated this audit to assess how FHFA processed consumer complaints. For purposes of this report, consumer complaints include, but are not limited to, those involving allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse. These complaints run the gamut from difficulties obtaining information from the Enterprises to allegations of potential criminal activity. The time period covered by this audit begins with the creation of the Agency on July 30, 2008, and continues for two years and three months, through October 31, 2010, when FHFAOIG’s operations began.
The federal agency overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage finance giants, failed to refer to criminal investigators and other authorities almost 100 complaints about possible foreclosure abuse and mortgage fraud at the companies over a recent two-year period, according to a report issued late Tuesday by the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
There aren’t many regulators saying things that big banks want to hear these days, but they’ll like this: Acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh on Tuesday warned international regulators that they may be trying to rein in the financial industry too much.
“We are in danger of trying to squeeze too much risk and complexity out of banking as we institute reforms to addresses problems and abuses stemming from the last crisis,” he said at the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation in London, according to his prepared remarks.
Wonder what AG Madigan means by “RESOURCES”. Betcha it’s lots & lots O’documents!
BLOOMBERG-
Two state attorneys general who are among those leading negotiations with the five largest U.S. mortgage servicers over their foreclosure practices said the banks would be sued if a settlement isn’t reached.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper threatened litigation if settlement talks with the companies, including Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), break down.
MERSCORP, Inc. announced today that Bryan Kanefield has joined the company’s executive leadership team in the newly created role of Senior Vice President and Chief Risk Officer. He will be responsible for implementing and administering a new corporate risk management framework, developing and reporting on key risk indicators, and overseeing the Risk Management Committee.
Kanefield joins MERSCORP from Fannie Mae, where he was most recently a member of the senior leadership team responsible for building and managing key operational units of the Making Home Affordable Program. Prior to serving in this role, he was a director in Fannie Mae’s Divisional Risk Office, where he developed and implemented corporate-wide risk control self assessment framework standards, implemented the company’s initial Sarbanes-Oxley compliance program, served on the leadership team responsible for developing the corporate compliance and governance program covering records management, delegations of authority, policy and procedures, and directed divisional business recovery planning efforts. Kanefield first joined Fannie Mae in 1992, and his earlier roles were in eBusiness Marketing and Development, the Office of the Vice Chair, and Corporate Strategy and Development.
A former Chicago resident whose home is in foreclosure has filed a lawsuit against Fisher and Shapiro LLC, the law firm that admitted to Cook County Circuit Court that some of the mortgage foreclosures it handled contained altered documents.
The suit, filed in federal court in Chicago Monday, seeks class-action status and comes three months after the court’s Chancery division temporarily halted more than 1,700 mortgage foreclosure cases as a result of the law firm’s admission. Upon further review by the court, the number of cases that was temporarily stayed grew to 2,127.
A 90-year old woman was scheduled to be thrown out of her home tomorrow at 1 p.m.
Fulton County Marshals arrived on Katherine Brealond’s doorstep of this morning. They were there to figure out what possessions they were going to have to throw out on the curb tomorrow.
“She was unaware that her home was being foreclosed on,” Fulton County Marshal Antonio Johnson told CBS Atlanta News.
In 2009, a judge in Manhattan had a lucrative appointment to hand out: oversight of a diamond district building that was drifting into foreclosure.
Nearly 600 people in Manhattan had been approved for such work. But the job went to a lawyer named Mark D. Lebow, who is the husband of Patricia E. Harris, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s most trusted aide.
Since then, Mr. Lebow has earned $352,000 in fees, more than $5,000 a week, according to court records.
[…]
When a building goes into foreclosure, a judge appoints a lawyer as a receiver who acts a property’s temporary landlord during the process. Receivers are entitled to fees that typically amount to 5 percent of a property’s revenues. Judges can award less than 5 percent, but usually do not.
To establish clear regulatory standards for mortgage servicers, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 12, 2011
Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. REED, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. INOUYE, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Meanwhile all the Kings Men and 2 King Wives continue to feast extremely well via bailouts… Some of you (not all) have a slight chance… or is it?…
Who do you think this is benefiting?
From the Wall Street Journal – Foreclosure relief finally kicks off
The Obama administration is finally launching a long-awaited $1 billion program designed to provide the unemployed with loans to help them avoid foreclosure.
But there’s a catch: Homeowners will have only a month to apply.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION BOARD, as
Liquidating Agent of U.S. Central Federal
Credit Union Western Corporate Federal
Credit Union, Members United Corporate
Federal Credit Union, and Southwest
Corporate Federal Credit Union,
v.
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC., J.P.
MORGAN ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION I, AMERICAN HOME
MORTGAGE ASSETS LLC, INDYMAC
MBS, INC., and BOND
SECURITIZATION, LLC,
Recent Comments