This is another reason why ANY Foreclosure Fraud Settlement should and must include a Deficiency Judgment Clause, If it ever gets there. Because after the clouds are removed, you will still have the ghost of foreclosure fraud come back to haunt ya. Pay Attention… Think they won’t double, triple, quadruple dip on you?

1) Since these properties were fraudulently inflated and most were fraudulently foreclosed, they should be BARRED from ever coming after you.
2) Do you think I would throw away any docs from a foreclosure in the next 20 years or so? This is how long they have to come after you. Just like all the lenders that went under in 2003-2009 but still find a way to foreclose on you today, there will be ways.

If the AG’s don’t look after your best interest and stop them now, this horror will never go away! You couldn’t get a short sale done and you couldn’t get a modification done. This they already knew.

WSJ-

LEHIGH ACRES, Fla.—Joseph Reilly lost his vacation home here last year when he was out of work and stopped paying his mortgage. The bank took the house and sold it. Mr. Reilly thought that was the end of it.

In June, he learned otherwise. A phone call informed him of a court judgment against him for $192,576.71.

It turned out that at a foreclosure sale, his former house fetched less than a quarter of what Mr. Reilly owed on it. His bank sued him for the rest.

The result was a foreclosure hangover that homeowners rarely anticipate but increasingly face: a “deficiency judgment.”

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

Decided on September 27, 2011

Civil Court of the City of New York,
Richmond County

.

 Midland Funding LLC, dba IN NEW YORK, AS MIDLAND FUNDING OF DELAWARE LLC Claimant,

against

Jessica Tagliafferro, Defendant.

15781/11

Philip S. Straniere, J.

“Who are you? Who, who, who, who?”^[FN1]

“But it ain’t me , babe. No, no, no, it ain’t me babe. It ain’t me you’re lookin’ for babe.”^[FN2]

“I am he as you are me and we are all together.”^[FN3]

Plaintiff, Midland Funding LLC DBA in New York as Midland Funding of Delaware LLC, commenced this action against the defendant, Jessica Tagliaferro, alleging that the defendant defaulted on the terms of a consumer credit agreement. As set forth below, it is obvious that the plaintiff has taken these classic rock lyrics to heart and created a situation which may be a deceptive business practice.

The court has been informed by the clerk of the court that the plaintiff has filed the summons and complaint in this matter containing the following information:

Midland Funding LLC DBA in New York as Midland Funding of Delaware LLC

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

100 Church Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 10007

(866)626-5053

No attorney’s name is specifically designated on the summons and complaint. CPLR §321(a) prohibits self-representation by a corporation and requires a corporation to appear by an [*2]attorney. This requirement extends to limited liability companies as they are legal entities distinct from their members [Michael Reilly Design Inc. v. Houraney 40 AD3d 592 (2007)]. No where in the pleadings is the name of an attorney disclosed.

In addition, CPLR §2101(d) provides:

Indorsement by attorney. Each paper served or filed shall be indorsed with the name, address and telephone number of the attorney for the party serving or filing the paper, or if the party does not appear by attorney, with the name, address and telephone number of the party.

The pleadings lack the name of an attorney and are defective.

The Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts have expanded this statute to require that all papers and pleadings be signed. 22 NYCRR §130-1.1-1 provides:

Signing of Papers.

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper, served on another party or filed or submitted to the court shall be signed by an attorney,…with the name of the attorney…clearly printed or typed directly below the signature. Absent good cause shown, the court shall strike any unsigned paper if the omission of the signature is not corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney….

The signing of the pleading becomes a certification by counsel as to the accuracy of the information contained in the document [22 NYCRR §130-1.1-a(b)]. Plaintiff’s summons and complaint lacks a signature and therefore is not a certification as required by the rule. The fact that the complaint has been verified, does not correct this defect.

The complaint is verified by a “Scott Morris, Esq.” He states in the verification that he is the attorney for the plaintiff but does not set forth beneath his signature any address or other information set forth in the above rule by which the court, or a defendant, might communicate with him. The attorney registration records lists only one attorney with that name in New York, but he is practicing law at a different address in New York City and is doing so as a member of law firm. Other consumer credit debt collector’s list their “in-house” legal counsel or department as the attorney of record, but always have the name of an attorney designated on the pleadings. This procedure is not being utilized by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is not even seeking to avail itself of the device literary utilized by Agatha Christie in “And Then There Were None” of using the pseudonym “U.N. Owen” for an “unknown” person, in that story, the host of the weekend party.

The summons and complaint lists the plaintiff’s residence as 8875 Aero Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, California and the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a “foreign entity.” These facts would permit the complaint to be verified by an attorney as was done here [CPLR§3020(d)(3)]. Interestingly a search of the Department of State, Division of Corporations records lists seven entities registered in New York containing the name “Midland Funding” including both Midland Funding LLC and Midland Funding of Delaware LLC, the two entities [*3]mentioned in this summons and complaint. The Division of Corporations records shows both of these entities as an “Active,” “Foreign Limited Liability Company” formed in “Delaware.” Both names were filed with the Department of State on the same date, January 22, 2008. The website maintained by the California Secretary of State discloses only “Midland Funding LLC” as an active entity. Its address is the one recited in the pleadings for the plaintiff.

Examination with of the pleadings reveals another more substantial problem beyond the failure to disclose the name of counsel. The plaintiff is designated as “Midland Funding LLC DBA in New York as Midland Funding of Delaware LLC.” DBA is generally thought to be an abbreviation for “doing business as,” a term which means that an individual or entity-such as a corporation or limited liability company-is conducting or transacting business in New York under an “assumed name.” This should not be confused with the jurisdictional concept of “doing business” in a particular state so as to be present for the commencement of litigation.

New York law [General Business Law Article 9-b] requires that a person or entity doing business under an assumed name comply with the requirements of GBL §130. The statute requires a limited liability company to file with the secretary of state a certificate setting forth the name under which business is to be carried on, conducted or transacted as well as its legal name [GBL§ 130(1) (b)]. The statute also provides; “the real name’ of a limited liability company shall mean its name as set forth in the articles of organization and any generally accepted, understood or recognizable abbreviation of such names” [GBL §130(1-a)(b)]. This being the case, because both Midland Funding LLC and Midland Funding of Delaware LLC are registered as foreign limited liability companies with the Department of State, both are “real names” under the statute. Therefore, one entity cannot be a “DBA” for the other entity. The idea is that there is only one legal person [GBL§130(1-a)(a)] whether the name being used is either the name of the legally registered entity or individual, or the one under which business is being conducted. There is no evidence that the proper certificate of doing business under an assumed name has been filed by the plaintiff.

For instance, should Clark Kent abandon his altruism and decide to supplement his meager reporter’s income by marketing his alter ego, he would go from “Clark Kent aka Superman” to “Clark Kent dba Superman.” Other proper “doing business as” designations would be “Scrooge McDuck Enterprises, Inc. dba The Duckburg National Bank.” Or even “Rick Blaine dba Rick’s Café Americain.” This issue could get complicated as in the case of the performer “Prince” when he decided to be called “The Artist Formerly Known As Prince.” Was this a change of name or was he now really “Prince dba The Artist Formerly Known As Prince?” (This apparently is an issue for a higher court to resolve). Also an interesting situation was created by Halley Mills playing the twins Susan Evers and Sharon McKendrick in “The Parent Trap” and Patty Duke portraying both Patty Lane and her identical cousin Cathy Lane in “The Patty Duke Show.” Can a person “do business as” more than one other person?

In this litigation, a designation such as either Midland Funding LLC dba “Midland Funding of New York” or Midland Funding of Delaware LLC dba “Midland Funding of New [*4]York” would be a proper. The current attempt to have one registered LLC be designated as another LLC is not permitted. Each entity named in the caption is capable of doing business as or under an assumed name, but cannot do business under each others name.

Perhaps the situation has been complicated because plaintiff alleges that “Plaintiff is a debt collector licensed by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs, License #1312658.” A search of the Department of Consumer Affairs records shows that license number belongs to Midland Funding of Delaware LLC and not Midland Funding LLC. Which means only Midland Funding of Delaware may attempt to collect this debt in New York City.

In fact, this practice may be a “deceptive” act or practice under General Business Law §349 in that it is impossible for the defendant to know which entity is the correct plaintiff. The complaint alleges that this consumer credit debt was taken by assignment from the original creditor. It is impossible for either the defendant or the court to determine which of the two Midland LLC’s named in the complaint is the proper one. The complaint does not plead which entity actually purchased the defendant’s alleged debt nor which entity is trying to collect it. Plaintiff may be subject to damages and punitive damages under that statute if a deceptive practice is established. The court at this juncture will not conclude any bad faith on the part of the plaintiff and will give the plaintiff the opportunity to correct the pleadings.

In an attempt to resolve these issues and determine the name of counsel, the court recorded the entire summons and complaint and then played it backwards. All to no avail.

The commencement of litigation to collect consumer debt is neither “brain surgery” nor “rocket science.” But it does require some attention to the rules of civil procedure, which based on this court’s experience, apparently is not part of the equation for a significant number of members of the debt collection fraternity. When you buy furniture from IKEA to be assembled, it is generally a good idea to read and follow directions lest the furniture unexpectedly collapse under its own weight. You should not mistake an Allen wrench for a walking stick provided by Obamacare for Thumbelina, it, like the CPLR, is there to help you successfully complete the project.

Based on the foregoing, the clerk is directed to stay placing this matter on a trial or motion calendar or entering a default judgment until plaintiff files an amended summons and complaint designating counsel with the proper contact information and correcting the plaintiff’s “doing business as” status.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: September 27, 2011

Staten Island, NYHON. PHILIP S. STRANIERE

Judge, Civil Court

Footnote 1: “Who Are You?” by Peter Townshend

Footnote 2: “It Ain’t Me, Babe” by Bob Dylan

Footnote 3: “I Am the Walrus” by John Lennon & Paul McCartney

FYI They Recently Settled:

“Robo-Affidavit” Class Action Settles for $5.2 Million | MIDLAND FUNDING v. BRENT

Scribd

image credit: deadline

California, be sure you give her your support. This is big news.

LA TIMES-

California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris will no longer take part in a national foreclosure probe of some of the nation’s biggest banks, which are accused of pervasive misconduct in dealing with troubled homeowners.

Harris removed herself from talks by a coalition of state attorneys general and federal agencies investigating abusive foreclosure practices because the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers were not offering California homeowners relief commensurate to what people in the state had suffered, a person familiar with the matter said.

The big banks were also demanding to be granted overly broad immunity from legal claims that could potentially derail further investigations into Wall Street’s role in the mortgage meltdown, the person said.

The removal of California from the discussions is a major blow to fraying efforts…

[LA TIMES]

Scribd

Thomson Reuters News & Insight-

When New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman sued Bank of New York Mellon in August, the AG asserted that the Countrywide mortgage-backed securitization trustee had breached its duty to MBS investors. “As trustee, BNYM owed and owes a fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty,” said the AG’s suit, which was filed as a counterclaim in BNY Mellon’s case seeking approval of the proposed $8.5 billion Bank of America settlement with MBS investors. “[BNYM] breached that duty to [investors'] detriment and disadvantage, by failing to notify them of issues regarding the quality of loans underlying their securities.”

But according to BNY Mellon, it had no such duty.

The bank’s lawyers at Mayer Brown and Dechert filed a 14-page brief this week outlining its interpretation of the responsibilities of an MBS securitization trustee. The filing came at the direction of Manhattan federal Judge William Pauley, who’s deciding whether the BofA MBS settlement should be heard in state court, where BNY Mellon filed it, or in federal court, where key objectors to the proposed settlement want it to proceed. Pauley was concerned with the “securities exception” to the Class Action Fairness Act, which could end up guiding his decision on the forum question. For BNY Mellon, however, any discussion of its trustee responsibilities is fraught with danger. It’s already facing the New York AG’s claims, and several other state attorneys general have threatened similar actions. MBS investors, meanwhile, are pushing BNY Mellon (and other securitization trustees) to bring put-back claims, with the implied threat that investors will take action against trustees unless they do.

[Thomson Reuters News & Insight]

Scribd

Same characters, continuing with rewarded favors.

HuffPo-

In the wake of the financial crisis, a number of the nation’s largest banks were excused from the government’s rescue program before they had returned to a position of complete financial security — in part because they wanted to avoid restrictions on how much their executives would get paid, according to a new report from the program’s government overseer.

Citigroup, Wells Fargo, PNC and Bank of America successfully lobbied to leave the federal bailout program early in 2009, even though the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had recommended they take additional steps to shore up their assets, according to a new report from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Relief Asset Program, a government watchdog office.

[HUFFINGTON POST]

Another day, Billions involved.

Bloomberg-

Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s Countrywide unit was sued by Sealink Funding Ltd. in New York over $1.6 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities the fund purchased between 2005 and 2007.

Sealink filed the suit against Countrywide in New York State Supreme Court yesterday, seeking unspecified compensatory, rescissory and punitive damages. Sealink is a fund created to manage Landesbank Sachsen AG’s riskiest assets after the German lender almost collapsed.

“Countrywide was an entity driven by only one purpose — to originate and securitize as many mortgage loans as possible into” mortgage-backed securities “to generate profits for the Countrywide defendants, without regard to the investors that relied on the critical, false information provided to them with respect to the related certificates,” lawyers for Sealink said in the lawsuit.

Sealink filed a similar suit yesterday in the same court against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) over $2.4 billion worth of residential mortgage-backed securities purchased between 2005 and 2007.

[BLOOMBERG]

image credit: mybanktracker

Hackers today released personal information for JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer James Dimon.

The document titled DOX THE BANKER: James Dimon, posted to the Pastebin Web site, includes the CEO’s age, recent addresses, contributions, details of litigation he has been involved in, as well as registration information for businesses, but no sensitive information such as financial data.

A twitter account “CabinCr3w” took credit for the data leak.

UPDATE: California breaks from 50-state probe into mortgage lenders

Lets make this perfectly clear, If one’s job is to enforce the law and make sure the people are protected but choose otherwise, than you must step down and give the power to another who will make sure justice and the rule of law is carried out. Not one person should try to convince the AG not do what they are there to do AND that is to Protect ThePeople. We see what’s going on in Florida and in other states and quite frankly this is deeply disturbing.

LA TIMES-

California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris is attracting increasing pressure from powerful Golden State players to reject a major settlement with U.S. banks accused of wrongful foreclosures.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has joined a group of California union leaders, activists and politicians in calling the direction of negotiations “a deeply flawed settlement proposal with the banks at the heart of the nation’s mortgage crisis.”

Harris has emerged as a key player in pursuing the nationwide settlement with major U.S. banks accused of wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners. She has been urged to take a hard line by consumer groups seeking help for homeowners devastated by the mortgage crisis.

[LA TIMES]

image credit: Laist

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2011

CHRISTOPHER REGNER and KARIN REGNER,
Appellants,

v.

AMTRUST BANK,
Appellee.

No. 4D11-1281

September 28, 2011]

GERBER, J.

The defendants, whose home was sold at a foreclosure sale, appeal
the circuit court’s order denying their verified motion to vacate the
certificate of title issued after the sale. The court denied the motion even
though it recognized that the bank had not offered any evidence in
opposition to the motion. The defendants argue that the court erred in
denying their motion because the clerk of court issued the certificate of
title while their objections to the sale were pending and because the
court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on their objections.
We agree with the defendants’ arguments a n d reverse.
Compare § 45.031(5), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If no objections to the sale are
filed within 10 days after filing the certificate of sale, the clerk shall file a
certificate of title . . . .”), with § 45.031(8), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If timely
objections to the bid are served, the objections shall be heard by the
court.”); see also Opportunity Funding I, LLC v. Otetchestvennyi, 909 So.
2d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“The Clerk of the Court lacks authority
to issue a certificate of title . . . when an objection to a foreclosure sale is
timely filed.”). “For the court to ‘hear’ objections, it must provide both
notice and an opportunity for any interested party to address those
objections.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bjeljac, 43 So. 3d 851, 853 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2010) (citations omitted). Further, “‘it is reversible error for a trial
court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which [the party] is
entitled.’” Avi-Isaac v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 59 So. 3d 174, 177 (Fla.
2d DCA 2011) (quoting Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So. 2d
1168, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)).

We remand for an evidentiary hearing on the defendants’ claims that:
(1) they did not receive notice of the sale; (2) the bank breached the
parties’ settlement agreement by wrongfully rejecting the defendants’
final redemption payment; a n d (3) the bank’s purchase price was
inadequate. See Bennett v. Ward, 667 So. 2d 378, 382 (Fla. 1st DCA
1995) (“Th e failure to give adequate notice of a judicial sale may
effectively deprive the mortgagor of the right to redeem the property.”);
Indian River Farms v. YBF Partners, 777 So. 2d 1096, 1098-99 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2001) (remanding for evidentiary hearing on whether mortgagor’s
assignee timely exercised its right of redemption before the issuance of
the certificate of title); Blue Star Invs., Inc. v. Johnson, 801 So. 2d 218,
219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“[T]o vacate a foreclosure sale, the trial court
must find (1) that the foreclosure sale bid was grossly or startlingly
inadequate; and (2) that the inadequacy of the bid resulted from some
mistake, fraud or other irregularity in the sale.”) (citations and internal
quotations omitted).

On remand, the defendants bear the burden to establish their claims.
See Richardson v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 941 So. 2d 435, 437 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2006) (“On remand [the mortgagor] bears the burden to establish at
the evidentiary hearing that she did not receive notice of the rescheduled
sale and must also show what harm, if any, she suffered by reason of not
being notified of the sale.”). The defendants shall be entitled to testify at
the evidentiary hearing if they so request. See Sperdute, 585 So. 2d at
1169 (“Neither the submission of affidavits nor argument of counsel is
sufficient to constitute an evidentiary hearing. Since the purpose of an
evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to
contest’ the factual issues, this purpose is not effectuated if a party is not
allowed to testify.”) (citation omitted).

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
* * *
Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No.
09-58312CACE.

Charles D. Franken of Charles D. Franken, P.A., Plantation, for
appellants.

Vivian Lasaga of Spear and Hoffman, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Scribd

Now will you look at this, Soon Wall Street will begin to see the impact the college students are making at their door steps. Don’t under estimate the power of the people! They are spreading like a fierce wild fire.

I can tell you from experience it’s not easy spreading the word, “trying” to stop corruption and greed, it takes a team of bloggers, sacrifice, determination, long long hours, organization and most importantly… we count on YOU to continue to spread our blogs like …wild fire.

We did this together.

HuffPO-

New York City labor unions are preparing to back the unwieldy grassroots band occupying a park in Lower Manhattan, in a move that could mark a significant shift in the tenor of the anti-corporate Occupy Wall Street protests and send thousands more people into the streets.

The Transit Workers Union Local 100′s executive committee, which oversees the organization of subway and bus workers, voted unanimously Wednesday night to support the protesters. The union claims 38,000 members. A union-backed organizing coalition, which orchestrated a large May 12 march on Wall Street before the protests, is planning a rally on Oct. 5 in explicit support. And SEIU 32BJ, which represents doormen, security guards and maintenance workers, is using its Oct. 12 rally to express solidarity with the Zuccotti Park protesters.

[HUFFINGTON POST]

Boy oh Boy… I think everyone in Florida needs to examine, re-examine exactly what the heck is going down there. All this funny business is beginning to seem like the new norm.

St. Pete Times-

TALLAHASSEE — For a second time, e-mails to and from Florida Gov. Rick Scott have been deleted in possible violation of state law.

Scott’s team acknowledged in August, months after a Times/Herald request for transition records, that dozens of e-mail accounts had been deleted from a private computer server where the documents were stored.

Now, Scott’s office has confirmed e-mails stored on Scott’s iPad were deleted when a Governor’s Office staffer in charge of technology tried to print the documents. Both incidents have been described as accidental.

[ST. PETE TIMES]

Via: Current

Keith and “Countdown” contributor and Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi discuss how the current Occupy Wall Street protest could sprout a much larger movement for reform. Taibbi also compares the media coverage of this protest to the coverage of the tea party.

Simply Amazing! Now if we can only get these Pilots & USPS to team up with #OCCUPYWALLSTREET and … create beautiful music…

Denver Post-

Over 700 hundred Continental and United pilots, joined by additional pilots from other Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) carriers, demonstrate in front of Wall Street on September 27, 2011 in New York City.

[DENVER POST]

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General
555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone – (702) 486-3420
Fax – (702) 486-3283
Web – http://ag.state.nv.us

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: September 29, 2011

Contact: Jennifer López
702-486-3782

ATTORNEY GENERAL CORTEZ MASTO AND ASSEMBLY MAJORITY LEADER
CONKLIN ANNOUNCE NEW ‘FORECLOSURE FRAUD REFORM’ BILL TO TAKE
EFFECT OCTOBER 1

Las Vegas, NV – Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Nevada Assembly Majority
Leader Marcus Conklin announced that the new ‘Foreclosure Fraud Reform’ law will take effect on
October 1, 2011.

“This new law helps protect Nevadans from improper foreclosures and protects the integrity of the
system for homeowners,” said Cortez Masto. “I was pleased to work with Majority Leader Conklin on
this important bill that creates security, legitimacy, and transparency in the foreclosure process.
Assembly Bill 284 will protect the Silver State’s housing market by ensuring homeowners and
prospective purchasers can get a clean chain of title and are treated more fairly.”

“There have been widespread instances of foreclosures based on false, improper or incomplete
documents throughout the nation over the past few years,” Conklin said. “This new law is part of our
ongoing commitment to prevent foreclosure fraud in our state and to ensure that the Attorney General
has the tools necessary to prosecute those who defraud homeowners.”

The bill gives Nevada residents access to information on the companies that hold their mortgages by
requiring the documents used in the foreclosure process to be recorded in the county where the
property is located. Additionally, the legislation requires a party seeking to foreclose in Nevada to
record a notarized Affidavit of Authority to Foreclose that includes information showing that the party
seeking to foreclose on the property has the legal right to exercise the power of sale. AB 284 also
strengthens the Attorney General’s enforcement authority over foreclosure fraud, and gives property
owners a new right of action to enforce their own legal rights in foreclosures.

###

Scribd

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