Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp v Flagstar Bank, FSB | NY judge finds Flagstar liable for $90.1 mln in mortgage case

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp v Flagstar Bank, FSB | NY judge finds Flagstar liable for $90.1 mln in mortgage case

Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp v Flagstar Bank, FSB | NY judge finds Flagstar liable for $90.1 mln in mortgage case

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 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8683 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

4 Responses to “Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp v Flagstar Bank, FSB | NY judge finds Flagstar liable for $90.1 mln in mortgage case”

  1. lies is all they tell says:

    why are all these investors sueing the banks yet homeowners are still considered deadbeats and get nothing?

  2. nydeemarie says:

    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…

  3. nydeemarie says:

    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.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Read the case: Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp v Flagstar Bank, FSB | NY judge finds Flagstar liable for $90.1 mln… […]


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives