Reuters-
* U.S. judge orders Flagstar to pay Assured Guaranty $90.1 million
* Lawsuit focused on quality of loans in mortgage-backed securities
* Assured had sought $116 million
By Nate Raymond
NEW YORK, Feb 5 (Reuters) – Flagstar Bancorp Inc was ordered on Tuesday to pay $90.1 million to bond insurer Assured Guaranty Ltd in a contract dispute over loans underlying $900 million in mortgage-backed securities.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan ruled that Flagstar had materially breached contracts specifying the quality and characteristics of the loans to be packaged into the securities.
[REUTERS]
~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
————————————-x
ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL CORP.
f/k/a FINANCIAL SECURITY ASSURANCE
INC.,
Plaintiff,
-v-
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB; FLAGSTAR CAPITAL :
MARKETS CORP.; and FLAGSTAR ABS, LLC,:
Defendants. :
————————————-x
[ipaper docId=124072909 access_key=key-1j8stinjfliqc88etsn6 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
why are all these investors sueing the banks yet homeowners are still considered deadbeats and get nothing?
Very interesting…
“rendered Constructively aware”” or, at a minimum, put on inquiry notice..
Assured, by informing Flagstar “‘of pervasive
breaches’ affecting the charged off loans” with its January 2009
repurchase demand, “rendered Flagstar constructively ‘aware’ –
or, at a minimum, put Flagstar on inquiry notice – of the
substantial likelihood that these breaches extended beyond the
charged off loan population and into the broader loan
portfolio.”
I have always wondered
“When is the point, “when do some of the banks and/or Fannie/Freddie reach constructive awareness?”
ala LPS and others…
tsk.. tsk .. tsk.. “Who would order a limited title search?
Citibank’s argument that the evidence does not establish fraud sufficient to void the deed is rejected by this court.
Citibank discloses that, pursuant to an order placed July 25, 2005, its title company performed “a limited title search” on July 27, 2005, confirming that Melnikoff held title.
Whether the failure to perform a search sufficient to disclose plaintiffs’ Notice of Pendency was the result of Citibank’s direction to limit the search or due to negligence on the part of the title company is unknown.
However, this court fails to perceive how such lack of care on the part of either Citibank or its title company can inure to Citibank’s benefit in the circumstances. The fault lies either with defendant Citibank or its title company. See Goldstein v. Gold, id at 103.