2012 January 19 | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Archive | January 19th, 2012

Foreclosure king’s unemployment mill

Foreclosure king’s unemployment mill

Not all is lost…you can still catch him in a rare court room appearance this coming Jan 24th @ 12pm in Poughkeepsie!

NYPost-

He’s a one-person, countywide economic disaster.

Steven J. Baum, whose Buffalo-area home-foreclosure mill is slated to close next month under pressure, could move the county unemployment rate up by nearly two-tenths of a percentage point all by himself.

Nearly 700 workers — just under 600 from Pillar Processing, a document processing firm he started years ago, and about 90 lawyers from his firm — will be out of a job when Baum’s firm shuts its doors.

The Baum-fueled pink slips could boost the jobless rate in Buffalo’s Erie County area to nearly 7.4 percent from 7.2 percent.

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Why is the President of The NY State Bar Vincent E. Doyle representing Steven J. Baum? Baum Ordered to personally appear 1/24/2012 at 12:00 PM in Poughkeepsie

Why is the President of The NY State Bar Vincent E. Doyle representing Steven J. Baum? Baum Ordered to personally appear 1/24/2012 at 12:00 PM in Poughkeepsie

Well, I for one am not surprised but isn’t the New York State Bar Association suppose to uphold Truth, Justice and Ethics? Hmm…

Now, here’s the best part, if you can recall the article the New York Post wrote about the Judge that gave NY foreclosure king the Baum’s rush?

Here’s an excerpt:

Doc# 64 Notice of Adjournment of Hearing Re: AMENDED Order to Show Cause ordering Mr. Steven J. Baum, Esq. personally appear To SHOW CAUSE why an Order should not be entered holding him in contempt of the standing General Order M-364 of this Court. Why he should not be sanctioned pursuant Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 and 28 U.S.C. 1927 and the inherent powers of this Court to control and manage its docket; Failing to participate in loss mitigation in good faith, failing to turn over files, unreasonably, and vexatiously multiplying proceedings; Hearing held and adjourned to 1/24/2012 at 12:00 PM at Poughkeepsie Office – 355 Main Street (LaChappelle, Jennifer). Document #: 64

and last but not least Doc# 65

Doc# 65 Notice of Adjournment of Hearing Re: Declaration in Opposition to the Order to Show Cause Directing Attorney to Appear filed by Vincent E. Doyle on behalf of Steven J. Baum; Hearing held and adjourned to 1/24/2012 at 12:00 PM at Poughkeepsie Office – 355 Main Street (LaChappelle, Jennifer). Document #: 65

Scribd

image:NYPost

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD4 Comments

Brown to Feds: Don’t Let Wall Street Banks Use the Assets of Middle Class Ohioans to Pay the Penalty for Breaking the Law

Brown to Feds: Don’t Let Wall Street Banks Use the Assets of Middle Class Ohioans to Pay the Penalty for Breaking the Law

As Big Banks Prepare to Settle Case on Mortgage and Foreclosure Fraud, Brown Urges Involved Parties to Reject Wall Street Plan to Allow Banks to Use the Assets of Hardworking Americans to Pay the Penalty for Illegal Foreclosure Practices

January 19, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As officials near a settlement agreement with the nation’s largest banks following last year’s robo-signing crisis, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) urged Administration officials and state attorneys general to hold banks financially accountable for illegal practices and to protect the pensions of Ohio’s workers. The current settlement terms allow mortgage servicers to use mortgage capital to pay penalties—hurting investors, but not the banks that broke the law.

In a letter to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Brown said that mortgage servicers should be required to provide meaningful assistance to Ohio homeowners who lost their homes illegally, but not on the backs of other working Ohioans.

“Instead of taking full responsibility for illegal foreclosures, Wall Street banks are trying to use the assets of middle class Americans to pay the penalty,” Brown said. “Penalties for Wall Street’s illegal practices must ensure meaningful relief for the more than one in five homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth. But Wall Street banks must not be allowed to pass the buck to investors. The reported settlement terms would amount to a slap on the wrist, allowing banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything. Teachers, first responders, law enforcement officials, and other pensioners and retirees should not be penalized for wrongdoing by Wall Street.”

The pending agreement would require the largest mortgage servicers to commit to between $17 and $25 billion to help borrowers.  The proposed settlement would offer one million borrowers nationwide an average of $20,000 in principal reduction.  According to a recent report, Ohio alone has 482,048 homeowners who are nearly $15 billion underwater. The average underwater Ohioan owes $31,000 more than their home is worth.  According to CoreLogic, about 22 percent of all U.S. homes have negative equity totaling about $750 billion.

The reported settlement would also permit servicers to pay the proposed penalty by writing down the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) owned by investors—including Ohio pensions funds, without requiring servicers to reduce principal on the mortgages and second liens that they own. Ohio’s pension funds, retirement systems, and universities, all heavily invested in MBS, are key stakeholders in any settlement.  

Brown has led the fight against wrongful foreclosures and unfair practices by Wall Street. Brown is the sponsor of the Foreclosure Fraud and Homeowner Abuse Prevention Act of 2011.  This legislation would expand access to foreclosure prevention services, while increasing protections for homeowners and investors in mortgage-backed securities. Last July, in the wake of reports that banks and mortgage processors have continued forging signatures and submitting false affidavits, Brown wrote to federal regulators urging them to better protect consumers by publicly releasing information related to their settlements with 14 mortgage servicers in order to prevent further illegal practices.

Brown also encouraged federal regulators to freeze foreclosures after the discovery last year that many servicers were wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners and not following existing foreclosure procedures and laws. Both the Associated Press and Reuters reported that despite regulators’ assurances to the contrary, illegal robo-signing allegedly remains rampant in both foreclosure and non-foreclosure cases.  The reports also suggest that some regulators are aware of these violations.

Below is full text of the letter.

January 19, 2012

The Honorable Thomas Perrelli
Associate Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20530

The Honorable Richard Cordray
Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
(Attn: 1801 L St.)
Washington, D.C.  20220

The Honorable Shaun Donovan
Secretary
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20410

The Honorable Tom Miller
Iowa Attorney General
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA  50319

Dear Associate Attorney General Perrelli, Secretary Donovan, Director Cordray, and Attorney General Miller:

As the senior Senator from Ohio and a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I am all too familiar with the struggles faced by distressed homeowners, resulting from a pattern of abuse by the largest bank servicers.  My home state experienced 14 consecutive years of increasing foreclosures until 2010, when some of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers instituted a foreclosure moratorium amid reports of widespread legal document forgery.  This issue is at the heart of your 50-state mortgage and foreclosure fraud investigation.  Accordingly, I write today to express my concern based upon recent reports outlining some of the proposed settlement terms.

It is reported that the proposed settlement will include a number of components to address the wrongdoings of Wall Street banks and their affiliated servicers, including a system of mortgage principal reduction based on a credit system.  With more than one in five Ohioans owing more on their mortgage than their house is worth, and Ohioans nearly $16 billion underwater on their mortgages, there is no question that principal reduction can and should be an element of any plan to aid homeowners.   Many of these people are underwater through no fault of their own.  As New York Federal Reserve President Bill Dudley said recently, “[t]his isn’t a moral hazard issue, this is just the bad luck associated with the timing of the purchase and an exceptionally weak jobs market.”   A settlement must provide meaningful, widespread relief to Ohio homeowners.  Unfortunately, the numbers reported in various media accounts fail to meet this test.  The settlement must also redress the injuries suffered by families that have already lost their homes.  Any settlement that fails to achieve these two goals would be insufficient.

A settlement must also impose adequate penalties on servicers who broke the law.  There are reports that the settlement could permit servicers to receive credit for writing down the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) owned by investors, without requiring servicers to reduce principal on the mortgages and second liens that they own.   Ohio’s public employee pension funds have significant investments in MBS, and therefore have significant interest in the terms of the settlement.   The reported settlement terms would allow banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything.  And, depending upon the scope, any settlement could potentially preclude these funds from pursuing actions to recoup more than $457 million in losses, allegedly due to credit ratings agencies improperly rating MBS.   Such terms are unacceptable.

Teachers, first responders, law enforcement, and other pensioners and retirees should not be penalized for wrongdoing by Wall Street.  An adequate loss-sharing arrangement would acknowledge the reality that there is no penalty for servicers writing down the value of assets that belong to someone else.  There is also no penalty associated with servicers writing down a portion of their assets – in this case, their second lien holdings – that actually have no value.  It is often in investors’ best interest to reduce mortgage principal, but this settlement must penalize the servicers who broke the law.

As Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve said recently, financial penalties “remind regulated institutions that noncompliance has real consequences; the law is not a scarecrow where the birds of prey can seek refuge and perch to plan their next attack.”   It thwarts the objective of punishing servicer wrongdoing and deterring future robosigning, predatory lending, consumer deception, and other violations by permitting wrongdoers to settle exclusively with “other people’s money.”  State attorneys general tried this approach in a 2008 settlement with servicer Countrywide—it did not work.

Accordingly, mortgage servicers must not be able to settle these claims using investments held by state pension funds, retirement systems, and universities.  The penalty for bank servicer misconduct must come from the bank’s balance sheets, not other sources of mortgage capital.  The proposed principal reduction program must focus on banks settling with their own money, rather than shifting their financial liability to Private Label Securities (PLS) trusts.  And the net present value (NPV) model for calculating the value of a mortgage modification must be publicly disclosed, transparent, and based upon reasonable economic assumptions (e.g., the correct discount rate), to ensure that principal is being reduced when it is financially appropriate.

Mortgage servicers must be required to assist homeowners who have lost their homes illegally or are underwater through no fault of their own.  But the remedies and penalties must be meaningful, and not come solely from the retirement savings of middle class workers—some of whom may have already lost their homes as result of the illegal practices that the settlement is meant to address.  

This is a critical issue for Ohioans who have been victimized by widespread foreclosure fraud and will be affected by any settlement, both as homeowners and as investors in MBS portfolios managed by public pension and retirement systems.  Your efforts to ensure a fair and transparent settlement will have lasting effects for a generation and establish a very important legal precedent.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this important matter.


Respectfully,


Sherrod Brown
United States Senator


Cc: The Honorable Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General


Press Contacts:
202-224-3978source: http://brown.senate.gov

Scribd

 

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD4 Comments

Law Offices of David J. Stern PA vs Bank of America “Miami Court Denies BAC MTD, May Owe Stern Over $10 Million”

Law Offices of David J. Stern PA vs Bank of America “Miami Court Denies BAC MTD, May Owe Stern Over $10 Million”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN,
P.A .,
Plaintiff,

v

BANK OF AM ERICA CORP., BANK OF
AMERICA N.A., and BAC HOM E LOAN S
SERVICING, L.P.,
Defendants.

Scribd

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Mortgage registry MERS wants Delaware lawsuit dismissed

Mortgage registry MERS wants Delaware lawsuit dismissed

Meanwhile back in the same Delaware, MERS just settled a potential class action lawsuit!

WDEL 1150am-

A company that registers mortgages electronically is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Delaware attorney general’s office accusing it of deceptive trade practices.

State officials sued Virginia-based Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. last fall, claiming it has sown confusion among consumers, investors and other stakeholders in the mortgage finance system.

[WDEL 1150AM]

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Bad Bankers, Bad Fraud Deals, and the President’s ‘Great Gatsby’ Problem

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Bad Bankers, Bad Fraud Deals, and the President’s ‘Great Gatsby’ Problem

Richard always finds a way to tie this all together, placing the Obama Administration front and center!

HuffPO-

“Investigate the Banks!” Today a coalition of progressive groups handed in a petition with more than 360,000 signatures that demanded exactly that. It calls on the Administration to stop pushing a cushy fraud settlement for bankers, to pursue a fair deal for shafted homeowners, and to let criminal investigations against Wall Street crooks proceed.

Yet White House officials are still aggressively pushing the very same cushy deal on foreclosure fraud that inspired the petition. And just this week the Justice Department declined to prosecute fraudulent bankers once again as it worked to settle another bank fraud case.

Thinking about this relentless pursuit of Wall Street settlements, suddenly the last line of The Great Gatsby — the one about “boats against the current” — came to mind. Bankers are today’s Jay Gatsbys. They’re shady figures who have adopted a veneer of respectability, yet remain relentlessly, ruthlessly, and sometimes illegally self-interested.

[HUFFINGTONPOST]

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Mortgage and Foreclosure Complaints Quadruple at MASS AG’s Office

Mortgage and Foreclosure Complaints Quadruple at MASS AG’s Office

Now Ranks First in Number of Requests for Assistance to AG’s Office and Mediation Programs

BOSTON – Mortgage and foreclosure related complaints have quadrupled over the past two years to become the number one reason consumers contacted the Attorney General’s Office for assistance in 2011, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today during a speech before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. 

The Public Inquiry and Assistance Center (PIAC), Local Consumer Programs (LCP) and regional offices across the Commonwealth combined to handle 983 complaints reporting issues with mortgages, foreclosures and loan modifications in 2011, representing a 431% increase since 2009. For the first time ever mortgage complaints ranked first in 2011, outnumbering those related to auto sales, leasing and defective auto parts by 164 (see graph below).

“This data confirms what we have known for some time – the subprime lending and foreclosure crisis is a major concern for homeowners who are often faced with losing their most valued possession,” said AG Coakley. “It is further evidence that resolving this foreclosure crisis is the single most important thing we can do to restore a healthy economy. Our office has filed legislation to comprehensively address this issue and brought a landmark suit against the banks seeking real accountability for their unlawful conduct and relief for homeowners.”

In December, the AG’s Office filed the first comprehensive lawsuit to address the foreclosure crisis by seeking to hold banks accountable for illegal and deceptive conduct. Filed against Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi and GMAC, the lawsuit sues the banks for their role in allegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures on properties in Massachusetts as well as deceptive loan servicing.

[MASS.GOV]

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Bank of NY Trust Co., successor to JPMC v. RODGERS | FL 3RD DCA: Dissenting Judge “file contained neither the original note nor the original mortgage”

Bank of NY Trust Co., successor to JPMC v. RODGERS | FL 3RD DCA: Dissenting Judge “file contained neither the original note nor the original mortgage”

Many original notes and mtges have never been filed as I previously warned about BONY and/or the endorsement page(s) are missing. Especially from Countrywide/ Bank of America/ America’s Wholesale Lender!

__________________________________

Q. Okay, as far as the copy of the note is concerned, to your knowledge do you know anybody who held the note whether or not any of the people named in this action ever held a note to your knowledge?

[Objection sustained. Counsel nonetheless continuing . . . .]

Q. Whether Fairbanks Capital Corporation, Residential Funding
Corporation[,] J.P. Morgan, New York Bank of New York [sic] ever
held the original note?

A. I do not have personal knowledge of the original note.
. . . .

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Opinion filed January 18, 2012.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as successor to
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as trustee,
Appellant,
vs.
George H. Rodgers and Caroline J. Rodgers,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Margarita

EXCERPT:

SHEPHERD, J., dissenting.

This case is illustrative of the consequences of a breakdown of a property
transfer system. Because of the breakdown in this case, I would affirm the
involuntary dismissal of the Bank of New York’s (the Bank) attempted foreclosure
action in this case.

The Bank’s action is based upon a standard FNMA/FHLMC promissory
note and mortgage executed on June 25, 1999, by George H. Rodgers and Caroline
J. Rodgers to Metropolitan Mortgage Co., in its capacity as the originating lender
on the Rodgers’ residential property. The action was initiated on January 5, 2005,
by JP Morgan Chase Bank, formerly known as Chase Manhattan, as Trustee,
Residential Funding Corporation, as Attorney in Fact (JP Morgan Chase). The
sole witness offered by the Bank to prove the Bank’s ownership of the promissory
note and mortgage, and the default on the loan, was Annassa Blackman, Business
Relationship Manager for Litton Loan Services, the servicing agent for the loan
since January 30, 2002.1 Ms. Blackman testified from a file she brought with her
to trial, but it is clear she was not the custodian of those records, and Bank counsel
did not attempt to prove otherwise. Despite vigorous objection by counsel for the
Rodgers, the trial court nevertheless permitted Ms. Blackman to testify as to the
contents of the file.

The file contained neither the original note nor the original mortgage. Ms.
Blackman admitted in her testimony she “[had] no knowledge of the last [entity]
who had it or anything else about the original note.” She thought the note was lost
by counsel during the course of a prior foreclosure action filed by JP Morgan
Chase in January 2003, but upon being shown a copy of the complaint filed in the
2003 foreclosure action, acknowledged that action, like the present one, also
contained a claim for re-establishment of lost note. 2, 3 Thus, it cannot be said, as
the majority asserts, that the note “disappeared in the bowls of the clerk’s office
after being filed in a prior proceeding.”

Nor do the copies of the transfer documentation in the file brought by Ms.
Blackman to the trial conclusively resolve the central issue in this case. The
Rodgers executed the promissory note and mortgage on June 25, 1999. There can
be no question but that Metropolitan Mortgage Co. had the original documents at
that time. The copy of the original note, admitted into evidence by the trial court
over the Rodgers’ objection, reflects it was endorsed on a date unknown by
Metropolitan Mortgage Co. to Fairbanks Capital Corporation, and then on May 14,
2001, Fairbanks Capital executed an Assignment of Deed of Trust, purporting to
assign both the note and mortgage to JP Morgan Chase. A copy of an allonge,
purportedly attached to the promissory note, indicates that on some unknown date
the promissory note was endorsed by Fairbanks Capital Corporation to Residential
Funding Corporation, and on some later date from Residential Funding to JP
Morgan Chase, as Trustee. Absent testimony from a witness with knowledge, it
cannot be determined exactly when, between June 25, 1999, and the date of the
filing of the foreclosure complaint in this case, the promissory note was lost or by
what entity.

Section 673.3091 of the Florida Statutes (2004), titled “Enforcement of lost,
destroyed, or stolen instrument,” provides as follows:

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce
the instrument if:

(a) The 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;
(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the
person or a lawful seizure; and
(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument
because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be
determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person
or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of
process.

As has been the case in many recent foreclosure actions—see, e.g., Mazine v. M &
I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversing final judgment of
foreclosure where the bank failed to prove it holds the note and mortgage in
question); Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 72 So. 3d 211, 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
(reversing final summary judgment of foreclosure where U.S. Bank neither
tendered original note nor offered any evidence of its whereabouts at summary
judgment hearing); Servedio v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 1105, 1107 (Fla.
4th DCA 2010) (reversing final summary judgment of foreclosure where record on
appeal contained neither original note nor any other evidence that U.S. Bank
owned or held the note); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Kimball, 27 A. 3d 1087, 1092
(Vt. 2011) (dismissing foreclosure complaint on basis trial court properly
concluded U.S. Bank lacked standing to show it was holder of note at time
complaint filed); Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Hankins, 25 A. 3d 960, 962 (Me. 2011)
(reversing summary judgment where party did not hold note or mortgage at time
complaint was filed)—the Bank failed to prove, and may be unable to prove, who
owns the promissory note and mortgage in this case. Nor is this the first time in
recent memory the Bank of New York has found itself in this predicament in our
appellate courts. See Verizzo v. Bank of N.Y., 28 So. 3d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA
2010) (reversing summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank of New
York just last year where, as is equally true in the case before us, “[n]othing in the
record reflects assignment or endorsement of the note by JP Morgan Chase Bank to
the Bank of New York . . .”). The Bank should receive the same result in this
district court of appeal this year as it did on nearly identical facts in our sister
Second District Court of Appeal last year.

It is apodictic there can be no cause of action to foreclose a mortgage unless
we know where the paper is and that it actually represents something. There is
much “sand in the gears” of our property transfer system in these times. However,
we cannot bend the rules. A person seeking to enforce an instrument conveying an
interest in real property must demonstrate he has directly or indirectly acquired
ownership of the instrument. The majority errs by not insisting upon this
fundamental precept in this case.

I would affirm the decision of the trial court.

Scribd

 

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


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment


Advert
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Jamie Ranney, www.Nantucketlaw.pro
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com

Archives