THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC., a Florida corporation, | FINAL CONSENT DECREE

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC. | FINAL CONSENT DECREE – alleging violated the Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC. | FINAL CONSENT DECREE – alleging violated the Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act

This clearly shows the bifurcation of mortgage and note in ALL MERS assignments! Past, Present and Future…

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12 CH 03602

V.

NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC., a
Florida corporation,
Defendant.

FINAL CONSENT DECREE

I. Plaintiff, the People of the State of Illinois, by Lisa Madigan, Attorney
General of Illinois, has filed a complaint( the ” Complaint”) for a permanent injunction and
other relief in this matter pursuant to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act(” Consumer Fraud Act”), alleging that the Defendant, Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc.
the Defendant”) violated the Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in the course of its business of creating, signing, and recording documents in
the public land records system in Illinois on behalf of financial institutions or mortgage
servicers within the mortgage industry.

2. Plaintiff and Defendant, by their counsel, have agreed to the entry of this Final
Consent Decree by the Court, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This
Final Consent Decree is entered into by the parties to promptly and completely resolve this
controversy and avoid the costs of further litigation.

3. This Final Consent Decree is entered into only for the purpose of resolving the
issues raised in the Complaint. It does not bind any other officers or agencies of the State of
Illinois nor does it in any way restrict or affect Defendant’ s ability to defend itself against
any other claims brought by anyone not a party to this litigation. The Illinois Attorney
General hereby releases Defendant of any claim based on factual allegations of the type
described in Plaintiffs Complaint occurring prior to the date of this Consent Decree under
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act or her common law authority.

4. Defendant acknowledge that it has read and understood the terms of this Final Consent
Decree. Defendant further understands the legal obligations imposed upon it by this Final Consent Decree, and
understands that a violation of this Final Consent Decree may result in proceedings against Defendant, including an
action for contempt of court.

NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

5. Plaintiff and Defendant consent to this Final Consent Decree without an
admission of liability on the part of the Defendant. The Plaintiff and Defendant are settling
this matter so as to avoid the risks and expenses associated with further litigation.

NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

5. Plaintiff and Defendant consent to this Final Consent Decree without an
admission of liability on the part of the Defendant. The Plaintiff and Defendant are settling
this matter so as to avoid the risks and expenses associated with further litigation.

FINDINGS

6. With the consent of the parties and the Court being fully advised of the matter,
the Court hereby finds as follows:

a. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint filed
herein and over the parties to this Final Consent Decree.
b. The Defendant has at all times relevant hereto, engaged in trade and
commerce within the meaning of the Section 1( f) of the Consumer Fraud
Act, 815 ILCS 505/ 1( f), by creating, signing, and recording documents in
county recording offices throughout Illinois.

NON-MONETARY TERMS

7. On the basis of these findings and for the purpose of entering this Final
Consent Decree, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant, its agents, employees, and all
persons or entities associated, affiliated or connected with Defendant, and any successor
corporation or business entity shall, as of the effective date of this Final Consent Decree,
comply with and remain in compliance with Section 2 the Consumer Fraud Act and Section
2 of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Specifically, the Defendant, its agents,
employees, and all persons or entities associated, affiliated or connected with Defendant, and
any successor corporation or business entity shall comply with the following terms:

a. Defendant shall not sign a document that is recorded in the county
recording offices in Illinois unless the person signing the document(” the
signatory”) has performed a substantive review of the information
contained in the document to ensure the accuracy and validity of that
information. Substantive review means that the signatory must read,
understand, and review each document to be recorded. Defendant must
train and supervise each signatory to ensure that the signatory is
performing a substantive review of each document in compliance with this
subsection.
b. Defendant shall ensure that affidavits( or any other document containing
sworn testimony ) executed by the Defendant, or executed by any person at
the direction of the Defendant, are based on the affiant’ s review and
personal knowledge of the accuracy d of the assertions in
the affidavits. Any such affidavit shall set forth facts that Defendant
reasonably believes to be true, and the ffidavit must explain why the
affiant is competent to testify on the matters asserted in the affidavit. The
affiant shall confirm that the affiant has reviewed competent and reliable
information to substantiate the assertions contained within the affidavit.
c. Documents prepared for electronic recording shall be electronically signed
by the signatory only after the signatory has performed the substantive
review described in subsection( a) above. Electronically recorded
documents shall be notarized by the identified notary only after performing
the notarial acts required by law. Electronically recorded documents shall
not be signed or notarized outside of the presence, knowledge and control
of the signatory or notary.
d. Documents signed by signatories at the direction of the Defendant for the
purpose of recordation in Illinois shall accurately identify the signatory’ s
employer( e.g., employed by Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc.) and indicate
that the signatory has the qualified authority to sign on behalf of the
financial institution or mortgage servicer.
e. Documents recorded by Defendant shall accurately reflect the nature and
substance of the transaction.
f. Assignments into and out of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. (” MERS”) shall not claim that both the mortgage and note have been
assigned when, in fact, only the mortgage has been transferred by the
assignment.
g. Defendant shall remediate any document in Illinois that is found by a court
to be a cloud on title or otherwise unlawful. Defendant shall also
remediate any document when reasonably necessary to assist any person or
borrower, or when required by federal, state, or local law. Defendant shall
establish, advertise and staff a toll- free telephone hotline where Illinois
consumers may ask questions regarding any document executed by NTC,
including but not limited to requests that NTC remediate a document.
NTC shall ensure that the hotline is adequately staffed by competent,
trained employees. For a period of twenty-four months NTC shall
maintain a log of calls and responses, including the consumer’ s name,
contact information, and a description of the question or request and
NTC’ s response. NTC shall keep the same type of log for any consumer
communication submitted to NTC by any other form or manner. NTC
shall provide an up-to-date log upon request at any time by the Illinois
Attorney General’ s Office. After conclusion of the 24- month period, the
parties shall confer, and the Attorney General shall make a reasonable
determination as to whether the Defendant shall continue to maintain the
hotline and logs described in this paragraph for a period of no longer than
twelve additional months.

PAYMENT

8. Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff three hundred fifty thousand dollars
350,000). Upon entry of this Final Consent Decree, payment of this amount shall be
tendered to Plaintiff in the form of a cashier’ s or certified check. The amount paid to the
State of Illinois under this section shall be deposited into the Attorney General State Projects
and Court Ordered Distribution Fund. Payment is not and shall not be construed as an
admission of liability on the part of the Defendant. The Defendant shall not be entitled to
further accounting regarding the money deposited into said fund.
JURISDICTION RETAINED
9. Jurisdiction is expressly retained by this Court for the purpose of enforcing
compliance with the provisions of this Final Consent Decree.
10. This is a final order and no just reason exists to delay enforcement.

[…]

Down Load PDF of This Case

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



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8611 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

One Response to “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC. | FINAL CONSENT DECREE – alleging violated the Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act”

  1. Mike says:

    Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins., et al. Published on 12/12/13 California Court of Appeal, Case #B244961 Et als mentioned in the opinion are Lehman Brothers, Aurora, Countrywide, Greenpoint, etc.

    FINALLY…CA Appellate Court Justice J. Rubin apparently “gets it”. Interesting, yet disturbing tidbits taken from Rubin’s dissenting views of the case outcome:

    “As is common in many of these “financial meltdown” cases, promissory notes are separated from deeds of trusts, paperwork is often not complete, and the parade of people and entities appears endless.”.

    He summed it up rather eloquently, opining:

    “In my view the dismissal of this lawsuit under the circumstances described defeats the substantial ends of justice. Instead, it rewards parties who, it would appear, have played a major and unlawful role in the theft of someone’s home.”.

    “I would reverse the trial court’s judgment in its entirety.”.

    Why is it so clear for Justice Rubin, yet not for his colleagues? A must read!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives