baum | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Search Results | baum

Susan Chana Lask: New York Foreclosure Update: Dismissing Baum’s Flopped Foreclosure Complaints and the Foreclosure Fraud Prevention Act’s Criminal Consequences

Susan Chana Lask: New York Foreclosure Update: Dismissing Baum’s Flopped Foreclosure Complaints and the Foreclosure Fraud Prevention Act’s Criminal Consequences

By Susan Chana Lask, Esq.

New York’s Attorney General Schneiderman and the Department of Justice went after Steven Baum after I blew the whistle on him with my August 2010 class action. By November, 2011 banks blew off Baum as their foreclosure attorney and he paid a slim Six Million Dollars to settle claims with the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, Baum’s flopped foreclosure complaints live on in the courts and his files were simply transferred to new foreclosure firms to represent the banks statewide, such as Rosicki Rosicki & Associates P.C. and Frankel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon LLP.  The new law firms are simply substituted in the case to continue where Baum left off by proceeding on the very foreclosure complaints Baum filed. The Attorney General refers to this continuation of Baum’s complaints by new law firms as the “shadow docket”.[1]  To combat the “shadow docket”, on May 29, 2013 Attorney General Schneiderman announced a “Certificate of Merit” bill (A. 5582) and the Foreclosure Fraud Prevention Act (A.7395) as “legislation to protect New York homeowners facing foreclosure” that “impose criminal penalties on residential mortgage lenders, servicers and their agents who intentionally engage in fraudulent or deceptive conduct in the preparation, execution or filing of false foreclosure documents”. 

Let’s get real here.  It took the Attorney General three years since 2010 when the media and Judge Schack publicly lambasted Baum’s floppy foreclosures leaving New Yorker’s homewrecked to now draft bills to hold the sloppy filings criminal?   And the Attorney General’s announcement may have good intentions but it fails to note that “bills” take years to pass through the senate before they become enforceable laws. Too much time will be wasted in court with homeowners battling the Baum complaints while waiting for this legislation to pass, so I propose this answer-the banks should do us all a favor and have their new law firms withdraw the faulty Baum filings from the court system. Period. Then the new law firms should review the files to insure everything is in order for a proper foreclosure complaint to be drafted, such as the original note, proper note endorsements for assigning the note, valid certificate of merits that the bank and/or it’s counsel have the original file and checking that the documents have proper notarizations and are not robo-signed.   Of course, we would have to be living in a parallel universe to have that dream come true.

So if the banks and their new firms won’t do what looks like the right thing, then let’s play hard ball. Here’s how to go after the bumbling Baum complaints.  Because the Baum firm was an “alleged” (yes, I said alleged) foreclosure mill then the way a mill operates is to mass produce its product. The Baum complaints were mass produced foreclosure complaints with boilerplate allegations. A quick review of any number of the Baum filings will show they are all the same bare bones complaint alleging at about the third paragraph that “the mortgage was assigned” to the plaintiff bank, but never alleging the note was assigned. The Baum complaints also conspicuosly never plead the banks own the note most likely because no one knows who owns the note with all of the slicing and dicing that occurred. 

Now here’s how to move to dismiss the Baum complaints that the new foreclosure firms represent in courts today. The law is that the plaintiff bank must plead and prove it owns the note and mortgage and that it has the right to foreclose. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. Erobobo et. al, 2013 N.Y Misc. LEXIS 1790,2013 NY Slip Op 50675(U) (Kings Sup. Ct, April 29, 2013);Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 80 AD3d 753, 915 N.Y.S.2d 569 (2d Dept 2011); Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v. Mentesana, 79 AD3d 1079, 915 N.Y.S.2d 591 (2d Dept 2010); Campaign v Barba, 23 AD3d 327, 805 NYS2d 86 (2nd Dept 2005).  One, Baum’s complaints never plead the Bank owns the note, never pleads the note was assigned and only pleads there was an assignment of mortgage. Without pleading ownership of the note then the complaint fails. Remember when everyone relied on whether the bank had standing to bring the foreclosure?  Two, in addition to standing is whether the complaint pleads a cause of action. Do not confuse standing with ownership of the note as they are two distinct elements and both must be pled and proven in a foreclosure complaint. Erobobo.  “There is a difference between the capacity to sue which gives the right to come into court, and possession of a cause of action which gives the right to relief. Kittinger v Churchill Evangelistic Assn Inc., 239 AD 253, 267 NYS 719 (4th Dept 1933). Incapacity to sue is not the same as insufficiency of facts to sue upon. Ward v Petri, 157 NY3d 301 (1898).” Id. at 4. 

Baum’s bare bones foreclosure complaints dolled out to the new foreclosure law firms in courts today are ripe for motions to dismiss because they do not plead a cause of action that the bank owns the note.  Make the new foreclosure firms do their job because in my opinion they should be withdrawing the Baum complaints from the court system on their own and not putting the homeowners and the courts to task. Meanwhile, one day this will all become criminal under the Foreclosure Fraud Prevention Act (A.7395) so foreclosure firms will think twice before perpetuating another attorney’s suspect files subject to Attorney General and Department of Justice settlements as what the new attorneys are doing just diminishes the public’s confidence in the court system and attorneys at large.


[1] http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-senate-majority-coalition-leader-klein-highlight-foreclosure-relief?sf13318705=1

Susan Chana Lask

Susan Chana Lask is an author, lecturer and accomplished attorney litigating in State and Federal Courts, including the United States Supreme Court for the past 25 years. She is named by the media as “New York’s High Profile Attorney” who consistently makes headlines worldwide and changes history with her controversial dogged lawsuits. Her 2010 lawsuit shut down the country’s most notorious Foreclosure Mill in New York State for the benefit of the public suffering from fraudulent foreclosure filings. In 2011 she appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States with the support of five Attorneys General where she obtained a historical decision that strip searching non-criminal offenders is unacceptable unless they are in the general population. Her 2006 lawsuit against the makers of Ambien resulted in the FDA complying with her demands to change prescription drug warnings to protect some 26 Million consumers. Her cases are monumental and have changed history.

Follow Ms. Lask on twitter @SusanChanaLask

This article is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. You should seek counsel from a licensed attorney if you have legal questions.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD4 Comments

Mulvaney v. FATIGATI-KLEMPKA | Judge Spinner Orders hearing determining what sanctions, if any, should be imposed upon Steven J. Baum P.C.

Mulvaney v. FATIGATI-KLEMPKA | Judge Spinner Orders hearing determining what sanctions, if any, should be imposed upon Steven J. Baum P.C.

Look at all the Foreclosure Firms involved in this one!

2012 NY Slip Op 31218(U)

CONCETTA MULVANEY, Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTINA FATIGATI-KLEMPKA, WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. As Trustee Of Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-5 Asset Back Certificates Series 2005-5, SLOMINS INC., JUSTIN MANJARES, JAMES SEAN and GREG ROCHESTER, Defendants.

2009-35237, Mot. Seq. 004-RRH.
Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
May 1, 2012.
Jeffrey B. Hulse, Esq., 295 North Country Road, Sound Beach, New York 11789, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Scott Lockwood, Esq., 1476 Deer Park Avenue, North Babylon, New York 11703, Referee.

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates P.C., 87 East Bethpage Road, Plainview, New York 11803, Successor Counsel for Defendant.

Steven J. Baum, Esq., Steven J. Baum P.C., 170 Northpointe Parkway, Amherst, New York 14228, Former Attorney for Defendant.

Jason B. Desiderio, Esq., Gross, Polowy & Orlans, 25 Northpointe Parkway, Amherst, New York 14228.

ORDER

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, Judge.

Plaintiff commenced this action on September 11, 2009 claiming foreclosure of a privately held first mortgage encumbering premises known as 76 Westwood Avenue, Deer Park, Town of Babylon, New York District 0100 Section 024.00 Block 01.00 Lot 027.000. On August 9, 2011 a Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale was granted by the Court (Mayer, J.) and on November 11, 2011, a public sale was conducted by the Referee pursuant to that judgment. By Order To Show Cause dated November 16, 2011 (Spinner, J.), Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. sought, albeit unsuccessfully, a stay of all proceedings under this index number. This Order To Show Cause is the matter that is presently before the Court.

Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., through the office of its former counsel Steven J. Baum P.C., asserts that it is entitled to a stay of proceedings and demands dismissal of this action with prejudice together with several alternative pleas for relief. The application contains no Affidavit of any kind from any representative of WELLS FARGO; instead it relies solely upon the Affirmation of Jason B. Desiderio Esq., an associate of the Baum firm, together with a plethora of selected exhibits. For all of the reasons hereinafter set forth, the relief sought by said Defendant is denied with prejudice and the matter is set down for a hearing to determine what sanctions, if any, should be imposed upon Defendant’s counsel in accordance with the provisions of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1.

The Affirmation of Jason B. Desiderio Esq., submitted as the primary support for the application, is dated November 4, 2011 and avers, in Paragraph 2 thereof, that “I make this affirmation based upon a review of the court file herein, my client’s loan file, public records and communications with my client.” The Affirmation is followed by an undated statement that reads as follows: “Jason B. Desiderio, Esq., an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of New York and the attorney for the Defendant in this action hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of this pleading or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130-1.1-c. /s/ Jason B. Desiderio” When the Order To Show Cause was granted by the Court on November 16, 2011, the Court relied wholly upon the veracity of the statements made by Mr. Desiderio in his Affirmation, presuming that they were true, accurate and correct. Documentary proof submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel reveals, regrettably, that this is not at all the case.

Mr. Desiderio asserts, in Paragraph 4, that Plaintiff “…seeks to foreclose a satisfied mortgage and further improperly seeks to recover attorneys fees in so doing.” continuing on that “…there is no legal basis for any award of attorneys fees…” and “Judgment was sought and obtained ex parte when notice of such application was required.” Counsel then goes on to assert that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed had been satisfied on September 8, 2005, appending a purported Satisfaction dated September 9, 2005 which appears to be an obvious forgery. Continuing on, counsel collaterally attacks the Court’s award of counsel fees as well as the Referee’s computation of interest, neither of which is legally or factually efficacious. Conspicuously absent, however, is any claim of a lack of service or any explanation for Defendant’s default or any reasonable excuse (or indeed, any excuse at all) for the default. Indeed, counsel fails to advise the Court that his client was in default of appearance. The application, considered under both CPLR § 317 and CPLR § 5015 is woefully insufficient as a matter of law and cannot be considered.

Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted opposing papers which reveal, in stark clarity, how Defendant’s counsel has failed to adhere to the obligation of candor toward the tribunal that is imposed upon him (and all attorneys, for that matter) by 22 NYCRR § 1200, Rule 3.3. This alone is sufficient to warrant a hearing.

The opposing papers filed by Jeffrey B. Hulse Esq. are dated November 14, 2011. They reveal that on December 4, 2007 (some 22 months prior to the commencement of this action) WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., through its counsel Steven J. Baum P.C. (the same attorney of record as in this matter), sued to foreclose its mortgage encumbering the same property, under index no. 2007-37620. Inasmuch as that action was commenced in Suffolk County, this Court, in accordance with the provisions of CPLR § 4511, takes judicial notice of all proceedings under that index number.

In the 2007 proceeding by WELLS FARGO (the “2007 Action”), a Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale was granted by the Court (Kent, J.) on April 30, 2009 which, among other things, purported to “cut off” Plaintiff’s senior lien. In the 2007 action, the Court granted an Order To Show Cause brought by Mr. Hulse on June 2, 2009 which was resolved by a written Stipulation of Settlement dated July 7, 2009 which was thereafter ratified by an Order of the Court (Kent, J.) on August 26, 2009. That Stipulation of Settlement, executed by Henry P. DiStefano Esq. on behalf of Steven J. Baum P.C. and by Jeffrey B. Hulse Esq. on behalf of CONCETTA MULVANEY, recited, in pertinent part, that “Plaintiff acknowledges that MULVANEY holds a mortgage which is senior to that of the Plaintiff and is not aware of the filing of any Satisfaction of Mortgage to remove MULVANEY’s mortgage of record.” That Stipulation also expressly vacated the judgment as to Plaintiff and her interest and discontinued the action against her with prejudice. This was all accomplished some 28 months prior to the filing of the instant Order To Show Cause.

It is equally disturbing to the Court that Defendant did not reply, in any manner, to Plaintiff’s voluminous and substantive opposition to the Order To Show Cause. No steps were taken by counsel, either to address or to otherwise rectify what are substantial and serious misrepresentations that were made to the Court, under oath, by Defendant’s counsel, in derogation of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and Rules 3.3 and 3.4 of the Disciplinary Rules.

Glaringly absent from Mr. Desiderio’s papers is any mention of the 2007 Action that was prosecuted by his office. Instead, he puts forth the baseless claim that Plaintiff’s mortgage had been previously satisfied and that this action was wrongfully commenced by Plaintiff. He does so in spite of the fact that his firm was counsel of record when that very issue was fully addressed and resolved. The issues that were determined in the Stipulation of Settlement were fully addressed and subject to the doctrine of res judicata, thus barring any relitigation. In spite of that, the above facts were obviously concealed from this Court.

The so-called “frivolous conduct” rule is embodied in the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts as 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1. The Rule empowers the Court to award costs, attorney’s fees and other financial sanctions against any party or attorney who engages in what is deemed to be “frivolous conduct.” Specifically, Section (c) thereof defines that term as follows: “For purposes of this Part, conduct is frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.” 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (c). It continues, in pertinent part, that “…In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues, (1) the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and (2) whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent or should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party.”

On its face, the facts as they are before the Court lead to the conclusion that the conduct of Mr. Desiderio clearly falls within the parameters of 22 NYCRR §§ 130-1.1(c)(1) & (3). As such, this matter warrants a hearing to determine what sanctions, if any, should be imposed upon Steven J. Baum P.C., Jason B. Desiderio Esq., the Defendant or any one of them.

It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the application of Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. shall be and the same is hereby denied in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the foreclosure sale of November 10, 2011 regarding the subject property shall be and the same is hereby ratified and confirmed; and it is further

ORDERED that a hearing shall be convened on June 20, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. at the Part 21 of the Supreme Court, 1 Court Street, Riverhead, New York, for the purpose of determining what sanctions, if any, should be imposed upon Steven J. Baum P.C. and/or Jason B. Desiderio Esq; and it is further

ORDERED that a principal of Steven J. Baum P.C. as well as Jason B. Desiderio Esq. personally shall be present for said hearing; and it is further

ORDERED that said hearing shall not be adjourned except by express directive of the Court.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Steven J. Baum settles with NY AG Schneiderman; will pay $4M

Steven J. Baum settles with NY AG Schneiderman; will pay $4M

What about the rest? This is an insult!

Update: Pillar Processing is also part of this settlement.

Buffalo Business First-

The case of embattled foreclosure attorney Steven Baum has taken another turn as the Amherst attorney reached a settlement with the New York State Attorney General over charges his firm mishandled foreclosure filings statewide over many years.

Under terms of the agreement, Baum has agreed not to handle mortgages for two years and will pay a penalty of $4 million.

The deal with Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office comes five month after the firm settled with the United States Attorney for the Southern District and paid $2 million while agreeing to drastically overhaul its business practices.

[BUFFALO BUSINESS FIRST]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Baum Fraudclosure Mill Leaves NY Homewrecked

Baum Fraudclosure Mill Leaves NY Homewrecked

AND that must be his attorney Vincent Doyle, President of the NY State Bar with him?

Lohud-

New York’s largest foreclosure firm, which once handled thousands of cases in the Lower Hudson Valley, will officially close Monday, but it has left a trail of questions and frustrated property owners caught in legal limbo.

The Steven J. Baum PC law firm, based in Amherst, N.Y., originally was retained for more than 600 foreclosure cases that remain active in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. In all, Baum’s firm has handled more than 4,000 cases in the three-county region since 1999, court records show.

But last year, the firm announced its official closing, scheduled for Feb. 20, after it came under scrutiny from state and federal agencies for “robo-signing,” or mass producing foreclosure documents without verifying whether they were accurate.

[LOHUD]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

SPIN OFF? | Foreclosure and ‘Home Retention’: a New Firm by Ex-Baum Lawyers, Michigan’s Linda Orlans

SPIN OFF? | Foreclosure and ‘Home Retention’: a New Firm by Ex-Baum Lawyers, Michigan’s Linda Orlans

WSJ-

Two attorneys from one of New York’s largest — and most notorious –foreclosure firms have set up their own shop in suburban Buffalo with 18 attorneys and counting, and they have plans for a downstate satellite office on Long Island.

Steven J. Baum PC shut its doors in November, following a rocky half year that included probes of how the firm handled foreclosures by New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

The likely death knell: a New York Times column that mentioned a Halloween party where some firm employees came dressed as foreclosed-upon homeowners. (See our handy timeline here)

Now two former Baum lawyers, Adam Gross and Amy Polowy, have teamed up with another attorney, Linda Orlans, of Michigan, to form Gross, Polowy & Orlans LLC. The Buffalo News has the full report from upstate here.

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Former Union Lawyer Currently Working At Steven J. Baum Law Firm Accused of Claiming $100K in Fake CLE Expenses

Former Union Lawyer Currently Working At Steven J. Baum Law Firm Accused of Claiming $100K in Fake CLE Expenses

A former general counsel for a Teamsters union has been accused of collecting $211,000 by submitting false expense reports for bogus CLE classes, law books never purchased and shipping at a UPS store that doesn’t exist.

ABA Journal-

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan announced the indictment of Amherst, N.Y., lawyer Kevin Clor on Wednesday, report the Buffalo News, the Associated Press, the New York Post and Thomson Reuters News & Insight. Clor, 40, currently works at the mortgage law firm of Steven J. Baum, according to Thomson Reuters. The law firm is closing after it was barred from doing work for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[ABA JOURNAL]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

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

[ipaper docId=78824258 access_key=key-ol6lmtcyvl4lcybxgpp height=600 width=600 /]

image:NYPost

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD4 Comments

Judge gives NY foreclosure king the Baum’s rush

Judge gives NY foreclosure king the Baum’s rush

What’s really disturbing is all the fraudulent paperwork they push through the courts and filed with the counties …no one seems to care. If a defense attorney or a regular Joe was to pull this shit, would they have the same treatment?

I DON’T THINK SO!


New York Post-

Take that, Steven Baum!

The 50-year-old lawyer, who owns New York’s largest home-foreclosure mill, made a rare appearance in a courtroom yesterday — and was promptly ripped by a Bankruptcy Court judge frustrated by his firm’s sloppy work.

Baum, whose eponymous firm has filed more than 25,000 foreclosure actions across the state over the past three years — many of which have been attacked for containing bogus documents — was lectured by Judge Cecilia Morris to correct his way of practicing law.

“How many times do I have to tell you, you didn’t do it right,” Morris said during the afternoon hearing. “Do you not understand ‘do it right’?” she asked Baum.

[NEW YORK POST]

image: NYPost

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Superintendent Lawsky Protects Homeowners In Foreclosure From Delays Caused By Baum Law Firm’s Closing

Superintendent Lawsky Protects Homeowners In Foreclosure From Delays Caused By Baum Law Firm’s Closing

Press Release

December 16, 2011

Contact: David Neustadt (212) 709-1691

Superintendent Lawsky Protects Homeowners In Foreclosure From Delays Caused By Abusive Law Firm’s Closing

Significant Delays Expected After Closing of Steven J. Baum P.C.; Firm Handled an Estimated 40% of New York Foreclosures.

Benjamin M. Lawsky, Financial Services Superintendent, today said homeowners facing foreclosure should not have to pay additional costs or penalties because of the closing of the largest foreclosure law firm in New York. “New Yorkers facing foreclosure should not be penalized in any way because of delays which may arise because many mortgage servicers will now need to find new counsel. It adds insult to injury for New Yorkers to suffer further as a result of the shuttering of this abusive and discredited firm,” Superintendent Lawsky said. In an industry-wide letter to mortgage servicers operating in New York, Superintendent Lawsky said servicers should proceed expeditiously to substitute new counsel in foreclosure cases previously handled by the Steven J. Baum law firm, which closed last month. However, he said homeowners should not be charged penalties, fees, costs or interest accrued as the direct result of delays caused by the Baum firm’s closing and the substitution of counsel.

A leading mortgage servicer, Ocwen Financial Corporation, has already signed an agreement with the Department of Financial Services (DFS) promising to refrain from charging homeowners for such costs. Ocwen agreed it would not penalize homeowners affected by the Baum closing in an amendment to an agreement reached in September with DFS to adhere to groundbreaking mortgage servicing reforms designed to address troublesome practices in the servicing industry generally.

Based in Amherst in Erie County, Baum closed after being fined $2 million by the federal government for its foreclosure practices, including allegations of “robo-signing,” and after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae removed the firm from their lists of approved law firms.

The Baum firm represented plaintiffs in an estimated 40 percent of the foreclosure proceedings in New York in 2010. Servicers across the state will now have to hire new counsel, who will have to gather and review case files, and ask courts for the approval of new legal representation. As a result, significant delays in pending foreclosure cases are expected.

In the letter to servicers, Lawsky noted that one Baum attorney had asked for a 60 to 90 day continuance for a settlement conference in order to facilitate a change in counsel. Such a delay could cost a homeowner between $1,540 and $2,310 in additional interest charges based on a $150,000 mortgage at a 6.5 percent interest rate.

Meanwhile on December 12, 2011, another mortgage servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, became the eighth servicer to agree to adhere to the landmark reforms in Lawsky’s Agreement on Servicing Practices. The others are Ocwen, Morgan Stanley, Saxon, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Vericrest Financial, Goldman Sachs Bank and Litton Loan Servicing. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, headquartered in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, services more than 216,000 loans nationally with a total unpaid principal balance of more than $16.4 billion and more than 5,800 loans in New York with a total unpaid principal balance of more than $829 million.

Specialized also agreed to refrain from charging homeowners for costs due to delays caused by the Baum firm closing or substitution of counsel.

“I commend Specialized Loan Servicing for being a leader and agreeing to adhere to these higher standards that protect homeowners from abuse. The Cuomo Administration has made it clear that we will do everything possible to see that fair and sensible reforms are put in place in the mortgage industry,” Lawsky said. “Moreover, with the letter issued to the servicing industry today, we are ensuring that borrowers facing foreclosure will not be charged for delays in court appearances, including settlement conferences, which may occur through no fault of their own due to the Baum firm closing.”

Kirsten Keefe, Senior Attorney in the Albany office of Empire Justice Center said, “Empire Justice Center applauds the NYS Department of Financial Services for taking swift steps to prevent any negative financial impact on the thousands of distressed homeowners affected by the closure of the Baum firm. There is a misperception that foreclosure delays benefit homeowners, but that is not the case. Not only is there a psychological cost to homeowners when cases drag on, but there are serious and significant financial consequences as hundreds to even thousands of dollars of additional interest accrues each month a loan languishes in foreclosure. Every dollar of added interest, fees or costs jeopardizes a homeowner’s ability to save their home. We hope the DFS’s actions today are embraced quickly by all servicers so that these innocent homeowners are not left paying for the mistakes of others.”

Josh Zinner, Co-Director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP), said: “The abusive foreclosure practices of the Baum law firm have caused great harm to homeowners and communities throughout the state. We strongly support efforts by the Department of Financial Services to ensure that New York homeowners are not penalized by mortgage servicers for the demise of the Baum law firm.”

Chuck Bell, Programs Director of Consumers Union, said: “Foreclosure proceedings are traumatic enough for consumers, without the pain and expense of lengthy legal delays, higher interest charges and fees. We applaud the Cuomo administration’s efforts to provide vigorous oversight of mortgage servicing practices, and protect New York consumers against the huge potential disruption caused by the closure of the Baum law firm.”

The agreements announced today were arranged through the work of Executive Deputy Superintendent Joy Feigenbaum of the Financial Frauds & Consumer Protection Division, Associate Counsel Brian Montgomery, Assistant Counsel Max Dubin and Associate Counsel Ellen Buxbaum with the assistance of Deputy Superintendent of Mortgage Banking Rholda Ricketts.

 

source: dfs.ny.gov

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

NYSC Judge Hammers Fremont, MERS, Pillar, Steven J. Baum PC, U.S. Bank “ASMT from MERS is defective, as it had no right, authority to assign the mortgage or the note”

NYSC Judge Hammers Fremont, MERS, Pillar, Steven J. Baum PC, U.S. Bank “ASMT from MERS is defective, as it had no right, authority to assign the mortgage or the note”


Decided on December 7, 2011

Supreme Court, Kings County

 

U.S. Bank National Association, AS TRUSTEE FOR SG MORTGAGE SECURITIES ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-FRE2, Plaintiff,

against

Alan Bressler, CCU LLC, MERS, INC. ET AL, Defendants.

33920/08

Debra Silber, J.

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and for the appointment of a Referee to compute in this foreclosure action, and defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss.

PapersNumbered

Notice of Motion and Exhibits Annexed ……………………………….1-12

Cross-motion and Exhibits Annexed ……………………………………13- 20

Answering Affidavits …………………………………………………………21-30

Reply Affidavits ………………………………………………………………..

Other:

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this application is as follows:

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the appointment of a referee to compute in this foreclosure action concerning 1477 East 32nd Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11234, Block 7694, Lot 85, is denied and defendant mortgagor’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing is granted, for the reasons set forth herein.

Defendant Alan Bressler alleges in his Answer to the Complaint that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. In response to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, defendant cross moves to dismiss the foreclosure action on the grounds that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. The court finds that defendant is correct, and as such, the action must be dismissed.

The mortgage in question was issued by Fremont Investment and Loan on May 4, 2006. The loan states “for purposes of recording, MERS is the mortgagee of record.” The tortured history of MERS is described in Bank of NY v. Silverberg, 2011 NY Slip Op 5002, 86 AD3d 274 (2nd Dept), and need not be repeated. On December 18, 2008, an Assignment of Mortgage was executed, and subsequently recorded, which assigns the mortgage and not the note, and assigns it from MERS to plaintiff. First, the assignment of a mortgage without the note is defective as the transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity. In a decision citing Silverberg, the court said “an assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity” Citimortgage, Inc. v Stosel, 2011 NY Slip Op 8319 (2nd Dept) citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v [*2]Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see Bank of NY v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532.

Secondly, an assignment from MERS to plaintiff is defective, as MERS had no right or authority to assign the mortgage or the note. Bank of NY v Silverberg, supra. “The plaintiff, which merely stepped into the shoes of MERS, its assignor, and gained only that to which its assignor was entitled . . . did not acquire the power to foreclose by way of the

. . . assignment.” Id.

It must also be noted that not only did MERS lack the power and authority to execute the assignment on behalf of Fremont Investment and Loan on December 18, 2008, but Fremont did not exist any longer on that date, as it was first subjected to a cease and desist order from the FDIC and then went into Bankruptcy. Then, its assets were apparently sold sometime in 2010 in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding, which started in the summer of 2008, to Signature Group Holdings Inc.[FN1]

Further, it must be noted that the execution of an Assignment of Mortgage by MERS is barred by the Settlement Agreement between the US Attorney’s Office on behalf of the United States of America and the Office of Steven J. Baum P.C. and Pillar Processing, LLC, dated October 6, 2011, which states at paragraph 14 that “Baum shall no longer permit anyone employed by or contracted by Baum to execute any assignment of a mortgage as an officer, director, employee, agent or other representative of MERSCORP, Inc., and/or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” The office of Mr. Baum was the attorney for the plaintiff when this matter was commenced, the assignment at issue is stamped “Pillar Processing LLC” and is signed on behalf of MERS by Elpiniki M. Bechakas, an attorney in the office of Steven J. Baum, according to the public internet attorney registration website maintained by the State of New York.

To the extent that plaintiff’s counsel opposes the defendant’s motion to dismiss with various affirmations of counsel, including one that states that the Note was indeed also assigned, and annexes (Exhibit B) a photocopy of a document alleged to be an assignment of the note, which is merely a blank piece of paper that states “Pay to the order of US Bank National Association as Trustee, without recourse,” and is undated and signed by “Michael Koch, Vice President, Fremont Investment and Loan,” this is insufficient. Ms. Jones, Vice President for Loan Documentation for Wells Fargo Bank N.A., states in her affidavit (Paragraph 5) “the Note was endorsed and was physically delivered to Wells Fargo/ASC as servicing agent and custodian for US Bank prior to the commencement of this action . . . Thus, Wells Fargo’s records specifically reflect that, it was in physical possession of the endorsed note prior to the commencement of this action.” The language in the affidavit indicates that the loan was assigned and transferred to plaintiff while Fremont Investment & Loan was still in existence, in July of 2006, but this is the only indication of this fact, and does not indicate delivery to plaintiff, but merely alleging delivery to plaintiff’s agent for servicing without any supporting documentation. Ms Jones provides no date of the alleged delivery, and as discussed above, at the time of the alleged delivery, Fremont may not have existed, or may have been subject to the restrictions on transfer in the proceedings in Bankruptcy Court, or may have been subject to the FDIC’s cease [*3]and desist order. This cannot be ascertained without a date.

The affirmation of counsel that indicates that the current loan servicer has confirmed that the information in the complaint is accurate is also insufficient, as there is no indication that the alleged servicer is actually the servicer for this loan. The pooling and servicing agreement is between plaintiff and the servicer. There is nothing in the papers from Signature Group Holdings, Inc., the entity that now appears to own the Note and Mortgage, which confirms that they too have retained Wells Fargo as servicer for this loan.

In conclusion, plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment due to the defects in the documentation in their motion, described above. The defendant has made out a prima facie case for dismissal on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing at the time the action was commenced, and may in fact still lack standing, which plaintiff has not overcome with any documentation, in admissible form or not, to prevent dismissal of the complaint.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: December 7, 2011

E N T E R :

Hon. Debra Silber A.J.S.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news18108/former-sub-prime-lender-fremont-exits-bankruptcy-and-re-emerges-signature-group-holdings

[ipaper docId=75268698 access_key=key-11yt6778nbw437v3l28w height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments

Pillar Processing Firm That Helped Steven J. Baum P.C. To Lay Off 590 People

Pillar Processing Firm That Helped Steven J. Baum P.C. To Lay Off 590 People

Just as in Florida with Stern & DJSP, this will continue to repeat with others.

You all know who you are.

Rewind-

In 2007 Steven J. Baum sold all or most of his stake in Pillar to Tailwind Capital. Tailwind is a Hedge Fund that buys companies that are valued between $25 – and $100 Million. Sometime later, Ares Capital Corporation, a publicly traded company invested over $30 Million in Pillar. Both Baum & Pillar share an address.

Ares, Tailwind Said to Be Subpoenaed in N.Y. Foreclosure Probe.

BUFFALO NEWS-

Pillar Processing, a back-office and document-processing firm with close ties to the Steven J. Baum PC foreclosure law firm, will lay off 590 full- and part-time employees at its offices in Amherst.

The company told state and local officials that the layoffs are expected to take effect Feb. 27. Pillar is also laying off about 20 employees in Westbury, on Long Island.

[BUFFALO NEWS]

H/T JeffreyFreedman.com

“I’m not saying Baum and Pillar were not in the wrong, but according to my sources, many other firms in New York were doing the same things as Baum and Pillar,” Freedman said. “However, Baum and Pillar were the only upstate companies handling a large volume of foreclosure business, and now the work is most likely going to move to downstate firms that are still in business.”

I think we all know that they know who they all are. 🙂 Sound Off!

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

FANNIE MAE: Authorization for File Transfers from the Baum Law Firm

FANNIE MAE: Authorization for File Transfers from the Baum Law Firm

Effective immediately, servicers are authorized to transfer any Fannie Mae foreclosure or bankruptcy matters in New York from Steven J. Baum, P.C., to any other Retained Attorney Network firms in the State of New York, a listing of which is posted on eFannieMae.com.

[ipaper docId=73952804 access_key=key-29xzzyberswyxcgijtio height=600 width=600 /]

 

 

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Baum Firm Could Possibly Owe “Millions of Dollars” From Foreclosured Properties

Baum Firm Could Possibly Owe “Millions of Dollars” From Foreclosured Properties

NYPOST-

What’s in this law firm’s wallet?

New York state’s beleaguered, largest foreclosure law firm — which today announced plans to shut down in the face of a firestorm of legal action — has allegedly failed to turn over about $130,000 owed to three people whose co-ops were foreclosed on, and could be sitting on millions of dollars of hundreds of other people’s money without those people knowing, The Post has learned.

Steven J. Baum P.C.’s move to shutter came a week after it was made ineligible to get new referrals on any Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgages — essentially a death knell for the controversial firm. The two federally backed mortgage giants moved in the face of numerous complaints about questionable legal filings by Baum.

 On Friday, a Brooklyn lawyer sued Baum claiming that the firm repeatedly ignored his attempts to obtain about $130,000 for three people whose co-ops were foreclosed on and later sold off in Baum-supervised auctions.
.
.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Steven J. Baum P.C. law firm to close

Steven J. Baum P.C. law firm to close

Get em before they shred… remember 18 wheelers moving boxes at David J. Sterns when they were closing down?

“We will fulfill all of our obligations under WARN and during this process we will also fulfill our remaining work on behalf of our clients,” Baum said in a prepared release. “Disrupting the livelihoods of so many dedicated and hardworking people is extremely painful, but the loss of so much business left us no choice but to file these notices.”

Buffalo Business First-

The embattled Steven J. Baum P.C. law firm is the closing its doors after a series of missteps that included mortgage industry giants Freddie Mac    and Fannie Mae    cutting off business with the Amherst-based firm.

[BUFFALO BUSINESS FIRST]

 

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD14 Comments

Steven J. Baum Weighs In After Uproar

Steven J. Baum Weighs In After Uproar

“Mr. Nocera — You have destroyed everything and everyone related to Steven J. Baum PC. It took 40 years to build this firm and three weeks to tear down.”

There is blood on your hands for this one, Joe,” he wrote at the end of that second e-mail. “I will never, ever forgive you for this.”

I think that’s what they call shooting the messenger.

 NYT-

Thus began a lengthy e-mail that I received, on Thursday evening, from Steven J. Baum, the owner of his eponymous law firm, the largest “foreclosure mill” in New York State. Foreclosure mills, of course, are firms that represent banks and servicers trying to foreclose on the millions of homeowners who have defaulted since the housing bubble burst.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

image: New York Times

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD4 Comments

Occupy Buffalo protesters picket at Baum law office

Occupy Buffalo protesters picket at Baum law office

“Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Steven Baum got to go,” they chanted.

 

Buffalo News-

Nearly three dozen protesters from Occupy Buffalo demonstrated in front of the Amherst offices of Steven J. Baum PC, denouncing the controversial foreclosure attorney and calling on state authorities to shut down his office, take away his law license and even put him in jail.

The ragtag band of protesters, many of whom have been camping out in Niagara Square in downtown Buffalo, held up handwritten cardboard signs and chanted slogans to the beat of a bongo drum. They assembled at the corner of Northpointe Parkway and Sweet Home Road, before beginning a slow march down to Baum’s office at 220 Northpointe.

“Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Steven Baum got to go,” they chanted.

Signs called for a “moratorium on all foreclosures now,” proclaimed that “housing is a right,” and called Baum “the Grinch who stole houses.” Some protesters also wore paper crowns because “Stephen J. Baum is the foreclosure king of New York State,” said Samantha Colon, the spokeswoman for the protesters.

[BUFFALO NEWS]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD4 Comments

Fannie and Freddie terminate Steven J. Baum law firm from attorney networks

Fannie and Freddie terminate Steven J. Baum law firm from attorney networks

This is a major victory. We will not rest until every last one is done… Including MERS!!

Housing Wire-

[Update 1: Adds confirmation that Fannie has terminated Baum firm from its attorney network]

Fannie Mae said Tuesday that it has removed the Steven J. Baum firm from its designated attorney network.

Last week, Freddie Mac told mortgage servicers they may no longer refer New York foreclosure or bankruptcy cases to the Steven J. Baum PC law firm.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Ka-Boom! Freddie Mac Quits Steven J. Baum, P.C. As A Designated Counsel On and after November 10, 2011

Ka-Boom! Freddie Mac Quits Steven J. Baum, P.C. As A Designated Counsel On and after November 10, 2011

via Freddie Mac

On and after November 10, 2011, Servicers may not refer any new Freddie Mac foreclosure or bankruptcy cases in New York to Steven J. Baum, P.C., whether referred within or outside of the Program.

Attorney Susan Chana Lask says

“This looks like the beginning of a well-deserved end for Baum”

 

 

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

U.S. Bank N.A.. v Solorin | NYSC Dismisses Complaint “Abandoned, Steven J. Baum PC Plaintiff Attorney Affirmation”

U.S. Bank N.A.. v Solorin | NYSC Dismisses Complaint “Abandoned, Steven J. Baum PC Plaintiff Attorney Affirmation”

Decided on November 10, 2011

Supreme Court, Queens County

 

U.S. Bank National Association, AS TRUSTEE FOR CSMC 2007-4, 3476 Stateview Boulevard, Ft. Mill, SC 29715, Plaintiff,

against

Ramon M. Solorin, ET.AL., Defendant.

5769/10
Attorney for Plaintiff:

Steven J. Baum, PC

900 Merchants Concourse, Ste. 116

Attorney for Defendant:

R. David Marquez, PC

50 Clinton Street, Ste. 98

Hempstead, New York 11550

Phyllis Orlikoff Flug, J.

The following papers numbered 1 to 4 read on this motion

Notice of Motion1 – 2

Affirmation in Opposition3 [*2]

Reply Affirmation4

Defendant, Ramon Solorin, moves to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint as asserted against him.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on the real property located at 23-11 99th Street, in the County of Queens, City and State of New York.

CPLR 3215[c] provide that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.”

Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint on defendant Solorin by substitute service on March 11, 2010. Defendant Solorin filed an answer on May 19, 2010. On May 27, 2010, plaintiff rejected defendant’s answer as untimely, stating that defendant’s time to answer had expired on April 25, 2010.

Although defendant has been in default since April 25, 2010, plaintiff has not yet moved for entry of a default judgment against him. While plaintiff moved on August 3, 2010, for an order appointing a receiver, plaintiff’s notice of motion did not contain any request for a default judgment (See Arriaga v. Michael Laub Co., 233 AD2d 244, 245 [1st Dept. 1996]). In any event, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew that motion on November 18, 2010.

Plaintiff contends that it has demonstrated sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed. Specifically, plaintiff contends that its attempts to comply with Administrative Order 548/10 (as amended by AO 431/11) provides a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with CPLR § 3215[c].

AO 548/10 went into effect on October 20. 2010 and requires that an attorney for plaintiff in a residential foreclosure action certify the accuracy of the papers filed in support of the action by submitting an affirmation from the attorney that he or she communicated with a representative of the plaintiff and was informed that the representative personally reviewed plaintiff’s documents and records relating to the case, reviewed the Summons and Complaint and all other papers filed in support of the foreclosure, and confirmed the accuracy of the court filings and the notarizations contained therein.

As AO 548/10 merely requires that attorneys certify that they have met a minimum standard of diligence, it does not provide plaintiff with a reasonable excuse for delaying approximately sixteen months before moving for default. Indeed, plaintiff’s papers indicate that [*3]they have still been unable to comply with AO 548/10, despite the fact that it had been in effect for nearly ten months at the time of the motion.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed as asserted against him. The parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered moot.

November 10, 2011 ____________________

J.S.C.

[ipaper docId=72347351 access_key=key-21e8n9jf0kkvkx533wdc height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

HSBC v. NORTON  [NYSC] “Steven J. Baum PC”, “Plaintiff’s attorney shall supply the supplemental attorney affirmation and plaintiff’s affidavit to the Court”

HSBC v. NORTON [NYSC] “Steven J. Baum PC”, “Plaintiff’s attorney shall supply the supplemental attorney affirmation and plaintiff’s affidavit to the Court”

Decided on November 4, 2011

Supreme Court, Yates County

 

HSBC Bank, USA, National Association, As Trustee for WFHET 2006-2, Plaintiff,

against

William F. Norton, a/k/a William Norton, Michelle L. Norton, Defendants.

2009-0488

Steven J. Baum, P.C.,
John A. Belluscio, Esq., of counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Barrett Greisberger, LLP,.
Mark M. Greisberger, Esq., of counsel,
Attorneys for Defendant.

W. Patrick Falvey, J.

This is a residential foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff moves for an order nunc pro tunc validating the court’s January 21, 2010 order of reference, the court’s April 26, 2010 judgment of foreclosure, and substituting nunc pro tunc the affidavit of merit and amount due attached to the motion papers, in place of the affidavit attached to the initial motion papers.

The judgment of foreclosure was executed prior to Chief Administrative Judge Pfau’s Administrative Order 548-10 (revised November 18, 2011) requiring plaintiffs’ attorneys in mortgage foreclosures to confirm the factual accuracy of allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affidavits or affirmations filed with the court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents filed therewith.

Since the order of reference and judgment predated implementation of AO 548-10, in preparing for the foreclosure sale, plaintiff’s attorney attempted to gather the information required to make the affirmation. In doing so, plaintiff’s attorney could not confirm via the attorney’s contacts with the client, the accuracy of the execution and notarization of the original affidavit of merit and amount due, and so seeks this order.

The plaintiff’s attorney was able to obtain a new affidavit of merit by Kara Dolch, a Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, the servicer for plaintiff. Ex E. This affidavit confirms:

Plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage of record.

There is a default because defendants failed to make the February 1, 2009 payment and subsequent payments.

The 90 day pre-foreclosure notice was sent to borrowers by registered or certified mail and by first class mail to last known address of the borrowers, and if different, to the residence that is the subject of the mortgage.

The 90 day pre-foreclosure notice was mailed prior to February 13, 2010, and there was no filing requirement with the superintendent of banks at that time.

A notice of default was mailed to the mortgagors at the last known address provided by the mortgagors. The default stated in the notice was not cured.

Based on the default, plaintiff elected to call due the entire unpaid principal balance with interest, disbursements, attorney fees, costs.

The amount due as reflected in the complaint is $343,299.46, plus 7.375% interest from 1/1/09, plus late charges, etc.

At the initial return, defendants’ attorney appeared, and informed the court that his clients had recently received a letter from the plaintiff, inviting the defendants to apply for a mortgage modification. The Court then adjourned the matter several times to allow the parties to sort out this new development. At the last appearance date of November 1, 2011, neither of the parties offered any information concerning a modification, and so the court determined that it would decide the motion, and reserved decision.

There are form affidavits and affirmations prepared by the Unified Court System, to cover the information required by Judge Pfau’s order. The attorney’s affirmation in support of plaintiff’s motion by Bridget Faso does not contain all the information contained in this form affirmation, and so the court will not grant the relief requested until Ms Faso, or another attorney from the Baum firm, provides an additional affirmation with the missing information, including:

The date she communicated with which representatives of plaintiff, their names and titles.

Based on her communications with these named representatives, as well as upon her own inspection and other reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, she affirms to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, the summons, complaint and other papers filed or submitted to the court ( with the exception of the prior affidavit of merit) contain no false statements of fact or law. That she understands her continuing obligation to amend the affirmation in light of newly discovered material facts following its filing.

That she is aware of her obligations under 22 NYCRR part 1200 and part 130. [*2]

Additionally, Ms. Dolch’s affidavit does not contain all the information required under the rule, and so the court requires that she, or another officer, with knowledge, on behalf of plaintiff, supplement her affidavit to state, if applicable, that she performed the following actions in order to confirm the truth and veracity of the statements set forth, to wit:

1.That she/he reviewed the summons and complaint to confirm the factual accuracy of the identity of the proper plaintiff, the defaults and the amounts claimed to be due to plaintiff as set forth therein,

2.That she/he confirmed the affidavits executed and submitted by plaintiff together with this application have been personally reviewed by her, that the notary acknowledging the affiant’s signature followed applicable law in notarizing the affiant’s signature, and

3.That she/he is unable to confirm or deny that the underlying documents previously filed with the court have been properly reviewed or notarized.

Upon the foregoing, it is therefore,

ORDERED that plaintiff’s attorney shall supply the supplemental attorney affirmation and plaintiff’s affidavit to the Court and opposing counsel by January 2, 2012; and it is further

ORDERED that if these supplemental papers are not received and served upon opposing counsel by January 2, 2012, or if they do not contain all the information herein required by the court, the court will dismiss the foreclosure action, with prejudice.

Submission of an order by the parties is not necessary. The mailing of a copy of this Order and Judgment by this Court shall not constitute notice of entry.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Judgment and Order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November, 2011

________________________________

W. Patrick Falvey

Acting Justice Supreme Court

Yates County

[ipaper docId=72046843 access_key=key-2elhbwpzhli88kuq7y6o height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Foreclosure law firm Steven J. Baum PC is battling rule on accuracy, Asks to overturn ‘procedural hurdle’

Foreclosure law firm Steven J. Baum PC is battling rule on accuracy, Asks to overturn ‘procedural hurdle’

“Are the courts supposed to rubber-stamp the filings, to . . . just sign off?” Judge Walker asked. “How can the court rely on good faith, knowing what the court knows of robo-signing?”

The Buffalo News-

Attorneys for New York State and a delinquent Buffalo borrower facing the loss of her home squared off in court Monday against Steven J. Baum PC, as the state’s biggest foreclosure law firm sought to have a new court mandate for accuracy of documents declared unconstitutional.

The Baum firm wants a state court in Buffalo to overturn a statewide administrative rule, which the firm contends is impeding the rights of its bank and mortgage servicing clients, and intruding on the power of the local court.

[THE BUFFALO NEWS]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

High Profile Susan Chana Lask Joins Rep. Cummings on Taken Steven J. Baum Firm Down

High Profile Susan Chana Lask Joins Rep. Cummings on Taken Steven J. Baum Firm Down

Baum just messed with the wrong attorney!

Just when you thought things just couldn’t seem to get any better after Joe Nocera’s disturbing story of Steven J. Baum’s Halloween Party… it does.

Soon after Joes’ article, Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings sent a letter to the law firm of Steven J. Baum requesting records, documents, and communications relating to allegations of improper and potentially illegal actions in the processing of foreclosures.

Oops.. it gets even better…

Today, Respectable Attorney Susan Chana  Lask received a letter to help in Rep. Cummings investigation, asking for copies of all documents in your possession relating to these allegations, as well as any other documents you believe are relevant to this inquiry.

I think the Baum firm needs to brace its self, as Attorney Lask is coming to deliver one final blow!

Here is Susan Chana Lask’s video from youtube-

Letter from Rep. Cumming to Susan Lask

[ipaper docId=72012175 access_key=key-1ktdnyg6r5hm0raclcy6 height=600 width=600 /]

image: Wall Street Journal

 

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

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

Archives