JULIA FELTUS, Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as TRUSTEE of MASTR ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES TRUST 2007-3, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

The properly filed pleadings before the court when it heard U.S. Bank’s
motion for summary judgment were a complaint seeking to reestablish a lost note to
which was attached a copy of a note made payable to Countrywide, N.A., 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, and
an affidavit of indebtedness alleging that U.S. Bank was the owner and holder of the
note described in the complaint. The endorsed note that U.S. Bank claimed was now in
its possession was not properly before the court at the summary judgment hearing
because U.S. Bank never properly amended its complaint.2 In addition, the complaint
failed to allege that U.S. Bank “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). The affidavit of indebtedness provided no assistance in this
regard because the affiant 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 judgment of foreclosure because the
documents before it did not establish conclusively that there was no genuine issue of
material fact and that U.S. Bank was entitled to foreclose Feltus’s mortgage as a matter
of law. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

Scribd

Miami Herald-

Religious and community groups urged Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday to take a tougher stance on a proposed settlement with the nation’s five largest mortgage lenders over deceptive foreclosure practices.

A pair of ministers and an evicted former homeowner delivered a letter after holding a news conference outside Bondi’s office at the Capitol.

They contend the proposed $25 billion national deal that Bondi supports doesn’t go far enough. They say that’s because the negative equity on homes in Florida alone is about $120 billion.

[MIAMI HERALD]

The BIG question remains, What happens if there is origination fraud? Will there be a separate fund for victims in this instance?

HuffPO-

In a letter dated Friday, emailed to federal officials and obtained by The Huffington Post, Nevada’s attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto, asked 38 questions referencing a variety of concerns, including fears that states would play second fiddle to the federal government in making decisions. She also questioned if the states would lose their ability to pursue certain types of lawsuits against banks and whether the states would get their fair share of the housing assistance for their borrowers.

“What would happen if all of the state attorney general representatives had one view and the federal agencies disagreed?” Masto asked in her letter.

[HUFFINGTONPOST]

Scribd

ProPublica & NPR-

Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, has placed multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates.

Freddie began increasing these bets dramatically in late 2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.

No evidence has emerged that these decisions were coordinated. The company is a key gatekeeper for home loans but says its traders are “walled off” from the officials who have restricted homeowners from taking advantage of historically low interest rates by imposing higher fees and new rules.

[PROPUBICA]

“It’s not common to have a combined regulatory and enforcement function,” he said, adding, “It’s effectively very competitive with the attorney general’s jurisdiction.”

The two agencies are publicly cordial, but behind the scenes they are much like two boxers feeling each other out in an opening round. Already, turfs are overlapping.

 NYT-

Benjamin M. Lawsky is not the attorney general of New York State.

But one could be forgiven for being confused. Since Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo installed him as superintendent of a new state agency, the Department of Financial Services, which became active in October, Mr. Lawsky has been making headlines normally associated with attorneys general.

He has forced insurers to turn over more than $100 million in unpaid death benefits to surviving family members, dispatched rafts of subpoenas to banks, and pressed lenders to curb abusive foreclosure practices.

[NEW YORK TIMES]