Posted on 26 October 2011.
Take your pick of either REUTERS or BLOOMBERG to read the latest developing story.
Excerpt:
Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance firm controlled by the U.S., said Chief Executive Officer Charles E. Haldeman will step down and named Christopher S. Lynch to replace John Koskinen as non-executive chairman.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 26 October 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
-against-
RAJAT K. GUPTA and
RAJ RAJARATNAM,
Defendants.
[ipaper docId=70393258 access_key=key-mavjtxlc8hjz46hks63 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
![[VIDEO] New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman “MBS’s That Brought Down The Country…All Issued Out of NY, DE Trusts” – The Rachel Maddow Show](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ericschneiderman1.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Posted on 26 October 2011.
Rachel Maddow interviews NY AG Eric Schneiderman on 10/25/2011. “One Set of Rules for Everyone”
.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 26 October 2011.
Wait until the “BIG” states file one against MERS, et al. This is going to lead all the lawsuits against the banking industry.
Follow the paper and audit MERS. Go down the MERS-HOLE & You’ll find out, what really went down.
Phillyburbs-
Montgomery County’s recorder of deeds on Tuesday said she is going after about $15.7 million she claims is owed to the county by an electronic mortgage registry company and banks doing business with that company.
“I am filing a class action lawsuit against MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registry System) and the banks using MERS for failing to record certain mortgage assignments and, therefore, not paying the required fees,” recorder Nancy J. Becker said.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments
Posted on 26 October 2011.
Woman in wheelchair engulfed in tear gas cloud in Oakland viaAdreadonymous
Then report of a child that passed out due to the tear gas.
Then reports of other children in the middle of the cloud
Then came a second blasts of more tear gas as reported by ABC7
Do Not wear contacts and see image below on how to protect elders and children if this happens anytime
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 25 October 2011.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he is working with Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden to investigate possible criminal acts by financial institutions tied to the foreclosure crisis in an interview today on the cable news network MSNBC.
Tried to get the video clip off the Rachel Maddow show but it would never work. So until it’s fixed there won’t be a video of his interview.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD3 Comments
Posted on 25 October 2011.
I am confident that many more counties will step up to the plate and demand their cut from all the revenue that has been lost due to the MERS artifice.
Norman Transcript-
Cleveland County commissioners on Monday hired a law firm to investigate whether a banking system systematically failed to pay mortgage filing fees to the county clerk.
Commissioners Rod Cleveland and Rusty Sullivan said national banking companies joined the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) Inc., a private enterprise that started in 1997, to handle records of mortgage transactions.
The problem, Cleveland said, is that “any time a mortgage is touched, any transaction at all, then there should be a filing fee paid to the county.”
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD3 Comments
Posted on 25 October 2011.
WHATLEY, Judge.
Julia Feltus appeals a final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee of Mastr Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-3 (U.S. Bank or the Bank). We reverse because material issues of fact as to which entity holding the promissory note executed by Feltus existed at the time the trial court entered summary judgment.
On August 24, 2009, U.S. Bank filed an unverified complaint seeking to reestablish a lost promissory note and to foreclose the mortgage on Feltus’s home. U.S. Bank attached to the complaint a copy of the note and the mortgage, but both documents showed the lender to be Countrywide Bank, N.A. In the count to reestablish the note pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2009), U.S. Bank alleged that the note was executed by Feltus on February 16, 2007; U.S. Bank is the owner and holder of the note; the original note has been lost and is not in U.S. Bank’s custody or control; the note was continuously in the possession and control of the Bank’s assignor and predecessor from the date of execution until the loss, at which time the assignor and predecessor was entitled to enforce the note; and the note has not been paid or otherwise satisfied, assigned, or transferred, or lawfully seized. Notably, these allegations did not include an allegation that Countrywide had assigned the note to U.S. Bank.
After Feltus filed a motion to dismiss alleging that U.S. Bank had failed to establish that it owned or held the subject note, on November 16, 2009, U.S. Bank filed an affidavit of indebtedness executed by Kathy Repka, an assistant secretary of BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, L.P. Repka asserted that her affidavit was based on the loan payment records of the servicing agent and her familiarity with those records. After she explained that the purpose of the records was “to monitor and maintain the account relating to a note and mortgage that are the subject matter of the pending case,” Repka asserted that U.S. Bank owns and holds the note described in its complaint. Then on November 18, 2009, U.S. Bank filed another copy of the note as a supplemental exhibit to its complaint. In contrast to the copy attached to the complaint that contained no endorsements, this copy contained two endorsements that were side by side on the last page—the first stated “PAY TO THE ORDER OF: COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. WITHOUT RECOURSE COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A.” and the second stated “PAY TO THE ORDER OF: __________ WITHOUT RECOURSE COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.” Notwithstanding this filing, eight days after Feltus filed her answer and affirmative defenses, on May 26, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a motion for summary final judgment alleging that it “owns and holds a promissory note and mortgage” and that the original note had been lost and is not in U.S. Bank’s control. But on June 4, 2010, the Bank filed a reply to Feltus’s affirmative defenses in which it asserted that it is now in possession of the original note, which it attached and which is the same note it filed on November 18, 2009. The Bank further asserted that because the note is endorsed in blank and it is in possession of the note, it is the bearer and entitled to foreclose the mortgage. See Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting that pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code, negotiation of note by transfer of possession with blank endorsement makes transferee the holder of the note entitled to enforce it).
We view U.S. Bank’s filing of a copy of the note that it later asserted was the original note as a supplemental exhibit to its complaint to reestablish a lost note as an attempt to amend its complaint in violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a). U.S. Bank did not seek leave of court or the consent of Feltus to amend its complaint. A pleading filed in violation of rule 1.190(a) is a nullity, and the controversy should be determined based on the properly filed pleadings. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Patrick, 428 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Before a court may grant summary judgment, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and any affidavits must “`conclusively show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'” Allenby & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown St. Vincent Ltd., 8 So. 3d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Fini v. Glascoe, 936 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden to show conclusively that there is a complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Id.
The properly filed pleadings before the court when it heard the Bank’s motion for summary judgment were a complaint seeking to reestablish a lost note, Feltus’s answer and affirmative defenses alleging that the note attached to the complaint contradicts the allegation of the complaint that U.S. Bank is the owner of the note, a motion for summary judgment alleging a lost note of which U.S. Bank is the owner, an affidavit of indebtedness alleging that U.S. Bank was the owner and holder of the note described in the complaint, and U.S. Bank’s reply to Feltus’s affirmative defenses asserting that it was now in possession of the original note, which it attached to the reply. But the note attached to the complaint showed the lender to be Countrywide Bank, N.A. And the complaint failed to allege that “[t]he person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.” § 673.3091(a). In addition, the affidavit of indebtedness revealed no basis for the affiant’s assertion that U.S. Bank owns and holds the note. The affiant is an assistant secretary for the alleged servicing agent of the Bank, and she asserted that she had personal knowledge of the loan based on the loan payment records. She did not assert any personal knowledge of how U.S. Bank would have come to own or hold the note. See Shafran v. Parrish, 787 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“When affidavits are filed to establish the factual basis of the motion [for summary judgment], they must be made on personal knowledge, demonstrate the affiant’s competency to testify, and be otherwise admissible in evidence.”).
The trial court erred in entering final summary judgment of foreclosure because the documents before it created a genuine issue of material fact of who owned or held the note. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
CRENSHAW, J., Concurs.
CASANUEVA, J., Concurs with opinion.
CASANUEVA, Judge, Concurring.
I fully concur with the majority opinion and write only to point out further failings in the affidavit of indebtedness.
The affidavit of indebtedness was the sole affidavit offered in support of U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment. The affiant was an assistant secretary employed by the Bank’s loan servicing agent. She set forth, under oath, that her direct personal knowledge was restricted to that learned in maintaining the loan payment records of the servicing agent. And, as the majority opinion points out, she did not assert any personal knowledge of how U.S. Bank had come to own or hold the note. Beyond this deficiency noted in the majority opinion, the affiant also stated that U.S. Bank had accelerated the entire principal balance due and had “retained Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. to represent it in this matter.” Because the affiant’s competency was based only on her review of the loan payment records, she was not competent to aver as to actions of the Bank in accelerating the loan or hiring counsel, and her averments are hearsay and inadmissible at trial. The Bank could have easily established the facts of acceleration of the note and hiring of counsel with affidavits from the Bank’s official in charge of foreclosing this loan and/or the Bank’s counsel to establish the fact of hiring and of the fee arrangement. Such bank official or counsel would have direct personal knowledge, would be competent, and would have presented evidence admissible at trial.
The affidavit the Bank submitted fell woefully short of these requirements and could not aid the Bank in any way to support its motion for summary judgment of foreclosure.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
[ipaper docId=70313218 access_key=key-4zh4guv7i4lndu77hex height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 25 October 2011.
BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
In re: ELIZABETH R. COLLINS,
Debtor.
No. 10-8085
_____________________________________
J. JAMES ROGAN, Trustee,
Appellant,
v.
LITTON LOAN SERVICING, L.P.,
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, MELLON FKA
THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS SUCCESSOR
TO JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF POPULAR, ABS,
INC. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-3,
AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK DBA
WILMINGTON FINANCE,
CITIBANK, NA, and
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Bankruptcy Case No. 10-50990; Adv. Proceeding No. 10-05065
EXCERPT:
STEVEN RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. J. James Rogan, the trustee in this
chapter 7 case, appeals an opinion and order of the bankruptcy court dismissing his complaint. The
complaint sought a declaratory judgment to determine the validity, extent, and priority of liens on
the real property of the debtor, Elizabeth Collins, held by defendants Litton Loan Servicing, Bank
of New York, GMAC Mortgage, and Wilmington Finance. The trustee also appeals an opinion and
order of the bankruptcy court granting a motion to vacate the default judgment entered against
Wilmington Finance.
For the reasons that follow, as to defendants Litton Loan Servicing and Bank of New York,
the Panel vacates the dismissal and remands the matter for further proceedings to determine who was
the holder of the first mortgage on the date of filing, and if it was either Litton Loan Servicing or
Bank of New York, then whether either was the holder of a fully and properly indorsed note.
[…]
On the day after the first mortgage was recorded, February 5, 2005, Wilmington Finance
assigned the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). On June 16,
2005, this assignment was recorded. (Addendum to Br. of Bank of New York, February 16, 2011,
app. case no. 10-8085, ex. 2.)
The record also includes an assignment dated March 26, 2010, the day after the debtor filed
bankruptcy. MERS assigned this mortgage to the Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New
York, as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as trustee for the benefit of the certificate holders
of Popular ABS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-3 c/o Litton Loan Servicing.
(bankr. claim 1-1.) On April 7, 2010, which was twelve days after the debtor filed bankruptcy, this
assignment was recorded. Thus, on the day that the debtor filed bankruptcy, it appears that neither
Bank of New York nor Litton Loan Servicing held any interest in the first mortgage. Inexplicably
however, the debtor listed Bank of New York/Litton Loan Servicing on schedule D as the secured
creditor holding the first mortgage. (bankr. dkt. #1.) Schedule D appears to have been filed on the
date of the petition. The record does not provide an explanation for how the debtor would have
known that Bank of New York/Litton Loan Servicing would be the secured creditor prior to the
assignment.
[…]
[ipaper docId=70278657 access_key=key-2vekkki5b1mumnt9ak9 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 25 October 2011.
It’s quite easy because most information is already on this site.
It’s so simple and no tax dollars will go to waste…. Trust me.
Bloomberg-
The Texas county that includes Houston will ask the state attorney general to investigate suing Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. over unpaid filing fees on behalf of all the counties in Texas, an official said.
“If this is something that affects county government all over the state, why isn’t the state attorney general pursuing it?” Harris County Judge Ed Emmett said in an interview today. Emmett is a member of the Harris County Commissioners Court and the highest elected official of the county.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 25 October 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTIAN COUNTY CLERK, by and through
its County Clerk, MICHAEL KEM;
WASHINGTON COUNTY CLERK, by and through
its County Clerk, GLENN BLACK; on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
INC.; MERSCORP, INC,; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
CCO MORTGAGE CORPORATION; CITIMORTGAGE, INC;
CORINTHIAN MORTGAGE COMPANY;
EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY; GMAC RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION;
GUARANTY BANK; HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION;
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION;
NATIONWIDE ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE COMPANY;
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.;JPMORGAN
CHASE & CO.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; AND
WMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendants
[ipaper docId=70276713 access_key=key-1ltvdkngodowjj0xtcpg height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 25 October 2011.
Who’s afraid of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board? Banks and other financial institutions should be, even though the PCAOB regulates their auditors and not them.
American Banker-
Unlike banks, which have had federal and state regulators looking over their shoulders for more than a century, the Big Four accounting firms are still not used to having a truly disinterested party auditing their audits. Before the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the audit industry was largely self-regulated through peer reviews coordinated by the AICPA, a trade group.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 25 October 2011.
Unreal and they wonder why anyone would do business with these fools. Perhaps the market won’t turn around because many not all lenders did fraudulent activities with these loans.
Seems they are trying to go back to the easy billions they are used to making.
They aren’t billionaires because they were hard working or smart 🙂
BLOOMBERG-
Government efforts to make lenders pay for soured mortgages may be keeping potential borrowers from record-low interest rates, slowing home sales and refinancing as banks tighten standards to avoid more demands for refunds.
Lenders are insisting on higher credit scores and more documents than required by the Federal Housing Administration and government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Quicken Loans Inc. and Vision Mortgage Capital are among firms saying they are increasing scrutiny of would-be borrowers in response to pressure to cover losses incurred on U.S.-backed housing debt.
“You’ve got to take measures now to protect yourself,” John B. Johnson, chief executive officer of Birmingham, Alabama- based MortgageAmerica Inc., said during a panel discussion this month. Demands that lenders repurchase bad mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “casting a pall over the market. I fear that it will face a much longer recovery because of this.”
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 25 October 2011.
Hackers today released personal information of release data of Former Treasury Secretary and Senior Advisor at Citigroup Robert Rubin.
The document titled “DOX OF THE RUBIN FAMILY”, posted to the Pastebin Web site, includes the Rubin’s recent addresses, contributions, details of Goldman Sachs he has been involved in, as well as registration information for businesses etc.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 24 October 2011.
| Time |
Tuesday, October 25 · 5:00pm – 8:00pm
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Location | |
|
|
|
| Created By | |
|
|
|
| More Info |
William Black will be in Zucotti Park tomorrow talking with members of OWS movement. He will lead an open forum / teach-in @ 5 pm, but will be around throughout the day doing interviews and having conversations. If you are in the area come and say hello!
|
.
This should be awesome. He is also scheduled to appear on The Dylan Ratigan Show @ 4pm EDT.
.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 24 October 2011.
For Immediate Release
Contact: Corinne Russell (202) 414-6921
Stefanie Johnson (202) 414-6376
October 24, 2011
.
Washington, DC – The Federal Housing Finance Agency, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), today announced a series of changes to the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) in an effort to attract more eligible borrowers who can benefit from refinancing their home mortgage. The program enhancements were developed at FHFA’s direction with input from lenders, mortgage insurers and other industry participants.
[…]
The new program enhancements address several other key aspects of HARP including:
Questions I would ask if I’m eligible for and accept the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP)
[ipaper docId=70175625 access_key=key-16n4zqw7ljvrl3tap6lp height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 24 October 2011.
1. Will the HARP process be anything like the disastrous HAMP?
2. What happens if there is fraud within my current loan documents? Will I waive any rights?
3. I don’t want my documents Robo-Signed. Will Mortgage Electronic Registration System Inc. (MERS) be named in my refi loan package?
4. If so, What will happen if I reject MERS? Will I no longer be eligable for HARP?
5. If I am forced to have MERS on my loan, will it be disclosed that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with most mortgage lenders are shareholders of MERS?
6. Will it be disclosed to me who is the Owner & Holder of my note, Including the name of the trust that it’s in, if there is any?
I am not an attorney but I highly recommend you seek the advice of an attorney who has been fighting for homeowners before signing into a refi.
Do The Math. If you’re 50-90% Underwater, is a savings of $200.00 off your mortgage really going to help you?
HARP is heading towards a failure and to cater to the wealthy only. Has anything worked for you? NO.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 24 October 2011.
Excellent piece by Richard (RJ) Eskow
HuffPO-
Imagine that a group of arsonists was terrorizing your town. First they’d buy insurance on a stranger’s home, then they’d show up with a blowtorch and a tanker truck filled with gasoline and burn the place down. Imagine that they’ve burned down a thousand homes this way, ruining the lives of the homeowners — and everyone else’s, too, as real estate values plunged and the local economy collapsed.
Now let’s imagine that the Mayor, the DA, and the Chief of Police said they’ve come up with a great “settlement”: The arsonists will pay a small fine, and they’ll never be prosecuted for arson. Plus, if they’re asked very nicely, they’ll also agree to provide a little help to 27 out of the 1,000 families they made homeless — although they’d control the ‘help’ process and the town might wind up footing the bill anyway.
And one more thing: They get to keep the gasoline truck and the blowtorch.
____________________________
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 24 October 2011.
Docx, LLC
Law Offices of David Stern
Lender Processing Services
Cheryl Samons
Action Date: October 24, 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
HURRICANE CHERYL DESTROYS LAND RECORDS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY
In the six month period from September 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009, 502 mortgage assignments, signed by Cheryl Samons, were filed in the official records of Palm Beach County, FL.
Samons was the office manager for the Law Offices of David J. Stern, but she signed as a MERS officer.
Mortgage-backed trusts were the primary beneficiary of these Samons Assignments.
Mortgage Assignments Signed by Cheryl Samons Filed in Palm Beach County from September, 2008, through February, 2009:
September, 2008: 75
October, 2008: 125
November: 2008: 56
December, 2008: 85
January, 2009: 101
February, 2009: 60
Multiplied by three, in the 18-month period from July 4, 2008 though January 4, 2009, Samons is likely to have signed 1,506 Assignments.
This is the same 18-month period that 1,742 Docx Assignments were being filed in Palm Beach County. These had a stated mortgage value of $560,239,797 or an average mortgage value of $321,607 per assignment.
Samons Palm Beach County assignments filed from July 4, 2008 through January 4, 2009 have an estimated value of $484,340,182, nearly half a billion dollars.
This does not include the assignments signed by other Stern employees, associate Beth Cerni or paralegal Carol Wasserman.
The combined value of mortgages, primarily transferred to mortgage-backed trusts, for one county for one 18-month period: $1,044,579,939.
While Docx Assignments were only filed for 18 months in Palm Beach County, Samons assignments appeared regularly from 2007 through 2010.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 24 October 2011.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ANGELA HEREDIA-BONNET,
Appellant,
vs.
FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR
TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC, A
FOREIGN ENTITY AND MERS, A
FOREIGN ENTITY,
Respondents.
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition
for judicial review in a foreclosure mediation action and a post-judgment
order denying an NRCP 60(b) motion for relief from the initial order.
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.
Following an unsuccessful mediation conducted under
Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program (the Program), appellant Angela
Heredia-Bonnet (Bonnet) filed a petition for judicial review in district
court. Among other things, Bonnet contended that respondent MERS’
conduct was sanctionable because it failed to produce certain required
documents at the mediation.’ See NRS 107.086(4), (5). The district court
denied Bonnet’s petition and ordered that a foreclosure certificate be
issued. As explained below, we reverse.
Standard of review
“[W]e. . review a district court’s decision regarding the
imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure
Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard.” Pasillas v.
HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1281, 1286 (2011).
MERS failed to produce the required documents
To obtain a foreclosure certificate, a deed of trust beneficiary
must strictly comply with four requirements: (1) attend the mediation, (2)
participate in good faith, (3) bring the required documents, and (4) if
attending through a representative, have a person present with authority
to modify the loan or access to such a person. NRS 107.086(4), (5); Leyva
v. National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275,
1279 (2011) (concluding that strict compliance with the Program’s
requirements is necessary).
NRS 107.086(4) states that the deed of trust beneficiary or its
representative “shall bring to the mediation the original or a certified copy
of the deed of trust, the mortgage note and each assignment of the deed of
trust or mortgage note.” Moreover, the Foreclosure Mediation Rules
(FMRs) require the beneficiary or its representative to conduct an
appraisal of the homeowner’s home. FMR 11(3)(b).
Here, the record demonstrates that MERS failed to produce
the deed of trust and any assignments. 2 Moreover, it failed to conduct an
appraisal of Bonnet’s home. Because MERS failed to strictly comply with
the Program’s requirements, the district court abused its discretion in
ordering a foreclosure certificate to be issued. Leyva, 127 Nev. at , 255
P.3d at 1279; Pasillas, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 1286.
On remand, the district court must determine how MERS
should be appropriately sanctioned. Pasillas, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at
1286-87 (construing NRS 107.086(5) to mean that a violation of one of the
four statutory requirements must be sanctioned and that the district court
is to consider several factors in determining what sanctions are
appropriate). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to jtttAistrict court for proceedings consistent with
this order. 3
FOOTNOTES:
1The record indicates that a non-party, Chase Home Financing,
LLC, attended the mediation. Because MERS maintains that Chase
attended the mediation on its behalf, Chase’s conduct at the mediation is
properly imputed to MERS for purposes of this appeal.
2We recognize that Bonnet’s original lender may still own her loan,
in which case no assignments would exist. However, MERS’ inability to
verify who currently owns Bonnet’s loan necessarily means that MERS
was unable to confirm that no assignments needed to be produced.
3In light of the above disposition, Bonnet’s motion for summary
remand is denied as moot. Likewise, Bonnet’s appeal from the district
court order denying her motion for NRCP 60(b) relief is dismissed as moot.
See Estate of LoMastro v. American Family Ins., 124 Nev. 1060, 1079
11.55, 195 P.3d 339, 352 n.55 (2008).
[ipaper docId=70125501 access_key=key-64cbgpzkzydt7w2ha74 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD3 Comments
Posted on 24 October 2011.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PATRICK MALLOY AND ORLENE
MALLOY,
Appellants,
vs.
WELLS FARGO BANK,
Respondent.
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition
for judicial review in a foreclosure mediation action. Second Judicial
District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.
Following an unsuccessful mediation conducted under
Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program (the Program), appellants
Patrick and Orlene Malloy filed a petition for judicial review in district
court. The Malloys contended that respondent Wells Fargo Bank’s
conduct was sanctionable because it failed to produce certain required
documents at the mediation. See NRS 107.086(4), (5). The district court
denied the Malloys’ petition and ordered that a foreclosure certificate be
issued. As explained below, we reverse.
Standard of review
“[W]e. . review a district court’s decision regarding the
imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure
Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard.” Pasillas v.
HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1281, 1286 (2011).
Wells Fargo failed to produce the required documents
To obtain a foreclosure certificate, a deed of trust beneficiary
must strictly comply with four requirements: (1) attend the mediation, (2)
participate in good faith, (3) bring the required documents, and (4) if
attending through a representative, have a person present with authority
to modify the loan or access to such a person. NRS 107.086(4), (5); Leyva
v. National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275,
1279 (2011) (concluding that strict compliance with the Program’s
requirements is necessary).
NRS 107.086(4) states that the deed of trust beneficiary or its
representative “shall bring to the mediation the original or a certified copy
of the deed of trust, the mortgage note and each assignment of the deed of
trust or mortgage note.” Moreover, the Foreclosure Mediation Rules
(FMRs) require the beneficiary or its representative to provide the
homeowner with an appraisal of the homeowner’s home prior to the
mediation. FMR 11(1), (3)(b).
Here, the record on appeal demonstrates that Wells Fargo
failed to produce a certified copy of the mortgage note and that it failed to
provide the Malloys with an appraisal prior to the mediation. Because
Wells Fargo failed to strictly comply with the Program’s requirements, the
district court abused its discretion in ordering a foreclosure certificate to
be issued. Levva, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 1279; Pasillas, 127 Nev. at
, 255 P.3d at 1286.
On remand, the district court must determine how Wells
Fargo should be appropriately sanctioned. Pasillas, 127 Nev. at , 255
P.3d at 1286-87 (construing NRS 107.086(5) to mean that a violation of
one of the four statutory requirements must be sanctioned and that the
district court is to consider several factors in determining what sanctions
are appropriate). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
[ipaper docId=70123911 access_key=key-x73lindxwi0mg2wsu2m height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 24 October 2011.
CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ – William Black
This pretty much sums this up… But go ahead and read.
Excerpt:
705. DEFENDAN T et al., al. stand-by and know, Plaintiff’s foreclosure, and others similarly situated are fraudulent in their nature, supra, but stand silent in condolence, over a system in their care custody and control under the corporate veil of MERSCORP, which either created, support financially or employ thus making DEFENDANT co-conspirator, liable as a facilitator of said Fraudulent behavior facilitator of Larceny on a grand scale.
[…]
[ipaper docId=70114752 access_key=key-2308jy3fszbv2555ftg4 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
© 2010-20 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | Managed by INNZES SOLUTIONS.
Recent Comments