dinsfla | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Author Archives | dinsfla

TFH 11/11 | Ten Common Misstates That Many Homeowners and Even Many of Their Attorneys Continue To Make in Defending Foreclosures

TFH 11/11 | Ten Common Misstates That Many Homeowners and Even Many of Their Attorneys Continue To Make in Defending Foreclosures

COMING TO YOU LIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE DUBIN LAW OFFICES AT HARBOR COURT, DOWNTOWN HONOLULU, HAWAII

LISTEN TO KHVH-AM (830 ON THE AM RADIO DIAL)

ALSO AVAILABLE ON KHVH-AM ON THE iHEART APP ON THE INTERNET

.

Sunday – November 11, 2018

Ten Common Misstates That Many Homeowners and Even Many of Their Attorneys Continue To Make in Defending Foreclosures

.

 ———————

 

On past shows John and I have identified many of the mistakes that homeowners and their counsel have been committing while defending against state and federal foreclosures, often resulting in eviction.

Today we highlight and summarize ten such major common mistakes that are still dominant today which, properly understood, could save your home, including the following:

1. Foreclosure litigation is not a static but a dynamic sport, success in which intellectual battle requires an ever changing awareness and constant understanding that nothing is preordained.

2. The outcome of your case will depend not necessarily upon what the law is, but who your judge is, including your adjusting to his or her past decisions and institutional pay grade.

3. Success in foreclosure litigation depends upon basing your arguments in court not upon generalizations but upon your specific facts, and primarily upon the controlling judicial decisions in your jurisdiction and not elsewhere except as used as persuasive authority.

4. Homeowners in foreclosure need to avoid most Internet foreclosure defense advice, any use of generalized foreclosure defense forms, reliance alone on forensic audits, paying for assistance in preparing loan modification applications, and all deceptive mortgage rescue scams.

5. Foreclosure defendants need to avoid being overcome by a dead beat psychosis, blaming yourself for the foreclosure, and causing divorce, depression, illness, drug addiction, and even suicide, when in fact most foreclosures are usually not entirely or even partially a homeowner’s fault.

6. You should marshal your financial resources to delay or to defeat eviction whatever your goal may be, filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition only as a last resort and only if evicted unless needing earlier to discharge other debts.

7. Do not make a fool out of yourself in court by arguing unavailing defenses, such as the Justice Mahoney defense, the copyrighted name defense, the Hawaiian Kingdom or Spanish Land Grant defense, the Postal Court defense, the Admiralty Law defense, and/or the DC defense.

8. Do not consider a loan modification as a gift, but as your federal right and your lender having a duty to grant you one, and specifically document both the contents and the timing of your loan modification application with witnesses’ signatures properly notarized, and when turned down internally appeal and if necessary thereafter sue.

9. Do not file lengthy memoranda of law in court. Winning based on “the weight of the evidence” does not mean how much your papers weigh. Get right to the point. Many judges typically only will read the first few pages and eye scan the rest. Avoid defending with empty labels like “fraud” and “predatory lending” and “robo-signer,” which unless fully explained and documented mean nothing by themselves and will turn away your judge.

10. Do not agree to stipulate or accept any fact submitted by your lender. Deny every material fact. Make your lender prove with evidence based on personal knowledge every material burden of its required proof, including its having sent you an accurate notice of default and to the correct address, the contents your loan general ledger, and its standing to bring the foreclosure action against you.

Listening to today’s show hopefully will save many more homes from foreclosure. One might be yours.

Please remember that most of the Nation (except Hawai’i which remains on standard time) went back to standard time last week.

As a result, The Foreclosure Hour is now heard live one hour earlier on most of the Mainland on iHeart Radio on the Internet, which live show however repeats itself streaming the following hour on iHeart Radio for those who missed our live broadcast.

Gary Dubin

.
Host: Gary Dubin Co-Host: John Waihee

.

CALL IN AT (808) 521-8383

Have your questions answered on the air.

Submit questions to info@foreclosurehour.com

The Foreclosure Hour is a public service of the Dubin Law Offices

Past Broadcasts

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII 
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO

The Foreclosure Hour 12

 

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

He never missed a payment, but the bank still foreclosed on his home anyway

He never missed a payment, but the bank still foreclosed on his home anyway

WLTX-

Marcus Green knows the stress and anger of a customer-service nightmare.

The repetitive phone calls to a string of service agents, each telling him something different.

Letters demanding a resolution that never comes.

He also knows what it’s like when what’s at stake is his most important possession: his home.

“They said, ‘Oh, yeah, we’re gonna get this house.’ I said, ‘You’re going to get this house?’ They said, ‘Yeah.’ I said, ‘Well, is there anything I can do? Is there anyone I can talk to?’ They say, ‘No,’” Green said.

Green sued his mortgage lender, Chase Home Finance, after the bank foreclosed on his New Orleans East home in 2011. Chase tried to take the house shortly after Green rebuilt it using flood insurance proceeds from Hurricane Katrina, and Green’s attorney, Marc Michaud, argues in court filings that Chase committed fraud to justify foreclosing on him.

[WLTX]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments

Wells Fargo Executives Knew How Screwed Up Their Car Insurance Program Was for Years: Lawsuit

Wells Fargo Executives Knew How Screwed Up Their Car Insurance Program Was for Years: Lawsuit

JALOPNIK-

Bank scandals, electric-vehicle production, carmakers spending cash like a kid with too big of an allowance, recall investigations and how the midterm elections affected legislators who deal with the auto industry. All of that and more in The Morning Shift for Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2018.

1st Gear: Here Comes the “You Knew About It” Lawsuit

The new Wells Fargo “re-established in 2018” commercials are all nice and “We’re sorry we screwed up” and all, but its scandals extend wide and far. Just get a load of this one: Reuters reports that a new lawsuit alleges Wells Fargo executives knew how bad the bank’s auto-insurance program was for years.

Our big breakdown on the Wells Fargo insurance scandal is here, but, to be quick: The bank forced around 800,000 people to purchase insurance they didn’t need along with their car loans, pocketing millions that it’s now having to pay back. Wells Fargo called it “collateral protection insurance,” or CPI.

[JALOPNIK]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Wells Fargo now estimates that about 545 homeowners lost their homes after they were “incorrectly denied” a loan modification or deemed ineligible to apply.

Wells Fargo now estimates that about 545 homeowners lost their homes after they were “incorrectly denied” a loan modification or deemed ineligible to apply.

CNN-

Wells Fargo has identified 145 more customers whose homes were foreclosed on because of an apparent computer glitch.

The embattled bank first revealed a disastrous “calculation error” in its mortgage modification underwriting tool in August.
Wells Fargo (WFC) said in a filing on Tuesday that an expanded review found additional “errors” that inflated estimates of attorneys’ fees for homeowners in the foreclosure process.
Legal fees are taken into account when banks determine if customers qualify for mortgage modifications or repayment plans. Wells Fargo said homeowners were not actually charged the inaccurate attorney costs.
[CNN]
© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

1st Cir. Confirms Rooker-Feldman Barred Borrower’s State and Federal Law Claims

1st Cir. Confirms Rooker-Feldman Barred Borrower’s State and Federal Law Claims

Lexology-

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a borrower’s state and federal law claims, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, because the borrower’s federal suit sought to invalidate the state courts’ judgments.

A copy of the opinion in Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is available at: Link to Opinion.

After a borrower defaulted on her mortgage loan, the assignee to the borrower’s mortgage (“mortgagee”) filed a petition in the Massachusetts Land Court to foreclose the mortgaged property. Final judgment was entered in the mortgagee’s favor, and the property was sold to the mortgagee at a foreclosure sale.

The mortgagee then turned to the state’s county Housing Court and filed a summary process action to evict the borrower, who in turn filed a counterclaim. After lengthy motion practice, and challenges to the validity of the mortgage assignment, the mortgagee was eventually awarded possession of the property. The borrower’s appeal of the final judgment in the eviction action was dismissed for failure to post bond.

[LEXOLOGY]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

TFH 11/4 | Ten Major Myths Versus Realities in Foreclosure Litigation

TFH 11/4 | Ten Major Myths Versus Realities in Foreclosure Litigation

COMING TO YOU LIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE DUBIN LAW OFFICES AT HARBOR COURT, DOWNTOWN HONOLULU, HAWAII

LISTEN TO KHVH-AM (830 ON THE AM RADIO DIAL)

ALSO AVAILABLE ON KHVH-AM ON THE iHEART APP ON THE INTERNET

.

Sunday – November 4, 2018

Ten Major Myths Versus Realities in Foreclosure Litigation

.

 ———————

 

John and I been discussing on past shows the increasing yet frustratingly slow changes in favor of homeowners taking place today in foreclosure litigation in many States, particularly in Hawaii which developments we highlighted on last week’s show.

Mainly responsible for all of these changes are shifting public and judicial attitudes regarding the archaic unfairness of an ancient common law foreclosure system, largely inherited from English law.

Those of us committed to reversing so many still entrenched attitudes unfairly harming homeowners can ultimately only succeed if we openly challenge such misguided received legal traditions, in effect, amounting to historical brainwashing, improperly hiding behind such doctrines as stare decisis and res judicata.

In doing so, we must expose and openly challenge at least ten major myths underlying those entrenched attitudes, which are the subject of today’s show, including the following departures from reality:

Myth # 1: Foreclosure defendants want a free house.

Myth #2: Foreclosure auctions produce fair sale prices.

Myth #3: Recorded loan documents are trustworthy.

Myth #4: Foreclosures promote market stability.

Myth #5: Foreclosure defendants have no standing to challenge securitized trust documents.

Myth #6: Stare Decisis and Res Judicata cannot be challenged in foreclosure litigation.

Myth #7: Attorney affirmations have evidential weight.

Myth #8: Mortgage and Trust Deed Notes are negotiable instruments.

Myth #9: The mortgage follows the note.

Myth #10: Foreclosure judges are dishonest.

Listen to this Sunday’s show to match reality against these ten major myths.

And please remember that most of the Nation (except Hawai’i which remains on standard time) goes back to standard time today.

As a result, The Foreclosure Hour will now be heard live one hour earlier on most of the Mainland on iHeart Radio on the Internet, which live show however repeats itself the following hour on iHeart Radio as well for those who missed our live broadcast.

Gary Dubin

.
Host: Gary Dubin Co-Host: John Waihee

.

CALL IN AT (808) 521-8383

Have your questions answered on the air.

Submit questions to info@foreclosurehour.com

The Foreclosure Hour is a public service of the Dubin Law Offices

Past Broadcasts

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII 
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO

The Foreclosure Hour 12

 

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

RENALDO vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST | FL 4DCA – we find that the Bank failed to prove compliance with the condition precedent of mailing Borrowers a default notice as required by paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order of involuntary dismissal.

RENALDO vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST | FL 4DCA – we find that the Bank failed to prove compliance with the condition precedent of mailing Borrowers a default notice as required by paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order of involuntary dismissal.

Renaldo vs Deutsche Bank National Trust by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Noll | Florida’s Second DCA Clarifies on Standing if New Case is Commenced While the Clerk Possesses the Note

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Noll | Florida’s Second DCA Clarifies on Standing if New Case is Commenced While the Clerk Possesses the Note

JD SUPRA-

On October 31, 2018, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal recently distinguished two of its prior opinions and held that a foreclosure plaintiff does not lose its standing as a holder of a negotiable instrument if it surrenders a promissory note to the clerk of court for purposes of obtaining a foreclosure judgment, and later re-files the action without retaking possession of the note from the clerk.

Two prior opinions from the Second District Court of Appeal, Partridge v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 224 So. 3d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) and Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) were often misinterpreted by foreclosure defense counsel as holding that a foreclosure plaintiff that surrenders the note and mortgage somehow loses the necessary standing to commence a new foreclosure action.

However, in the opinion issued in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. William Noll, 2D16-5635, the Second District Court of Appeal clarified its prior opinions, stating that:

“At issue in Partridge was a purported assignment of the mortgage, but not the note, after the original note was filed with the court in the prior foreclosure action instituted by a different plaintiff. Geweye, on which this court relied in Partridge, did not address whether the plaintiff had standing at the inception of the action. Rather, the court held that the substituted plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the note at the time of trial despite the original note having been in the court file because the evidence established the mortgage, but not the note, had been assigned to the plaintiff. This case does not turn on the effectiveness of a post-commencement assignment after the original note was surrendered to the clerk.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)

[JD SUPRA]

165635_39_10312018_08570471_i by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Bauer v. Roundpoint Mortg. Servicing Corp. | Loan Servicer Not “Foreclosed” From Reporting Default to CRAs

Bauer v. Roundpoint Mortg. Servicing Corp. | Loan Servicer Not “Foreclosed” From Reporting Default to CRAs

The National Law Review-

We have a good one for our lender and servicer friends out there.

In Bauer v. Roundpoint Mortg. Servicing Corp., No. 18 C 3634, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184328 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2018), the Court held that despite a court order dismissing the mortgage foreclosure with prejudice, plaintiff’s mortgage servicer could report the plaintiff’s default to the credit reporting agencies.

The plaintiff, Bauer, defaulted on his mortgage. Then-mortgagee, JP Morgan Chase (“Chase”), filed a judicial foreclosure (“First Foreclosure”) against Bauer which was voluntarily dismissed in 2013. Chase then filed a second judicial foreclosure action (“Second Foreclosure”) against Bauer.  The Second Foreclosure was voluntarily dismissed in 2015. In March 2016, then-mortgagee, U.S. Bank, filed a third foreclosure action (“Third Foreclosure”) against Bauer.

Bauer moved to dismiss the Third Foreclosure based on Illinois’s “single filing rule.” Under the rule, after a voluntary dismissal, a plaintiff may only commence a new action on the same cause of action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever greater.   The court agreed that the rule applied and dismissed the Third Foreclosure with prejudice. In relevant part, the dismissal order (“Order”) said, “… Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice based on the single re-filing rule.”

[THE NATIONAL LAW REVIEW]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Alleged mail bomber lost home to bank once owned by Secretary Mnuchin

Alleged mail bomber lost home to bank once owned by Secretary Mnuchin

Chicago Tribune-

The bank that foreclosed on the home of Cesar Sayoc, the suspect in the pipe bomb mailings, was formerly owned by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Sayoc lost his home in 2009 when IndyMac moved to foreclose on his south Florida home, according to Florida property and court records. IndyMac was a California-based bank that failed during the recession and was later purchased by a group of investors that included Mnuchin. IndyMac was renamed OneWest Bank.

Further, there are signs that Sayoc may have been a victim of a controversial industry practice during the recession.

The lawyer who signed Sayoc’s foreclosure paperwork was Erica Johnson-Seck, a lawyer for OneWest. Johnson-Seck was an official at the center of OneWest’s so-called “robo-signing” scandal. Robo-signing is where banks signed off on thousands of legal documents automatically without checking their accuracy, causing thousands of people to lose their homes without proper procedures.

[CHICAGO TRIBUNE]

See the fraudulent assignment of mortgage I pulled from Broward County below:

Cesar Sayoc ASMNT by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

TFH 10/28 | Summarizing and Understanding the Thirty-Five Year Transformation of Foreclosure Defense in Hawaii from 1983 to 2018, What Remains Ahead, and What the Hawaii Experience Can Mean for Listeners in Other States

TFH 10/28 | Summarizing and Understanding the Thirty-Five Year Transformation of Foreclosure Defense in Hawaii from 1983 to 2018, What Remains Ahead, and What the Hawaii Experience Can Mean for Listeners in Other States

COMING TO YOU LIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE DUBIN LAW OFFICES AT HARBOR COURT, DOWNTOWN HONOLULU, HAWAII

LISTEN TO KHVH-AM (830 ON THE AM RADIO DIAL)

ALSO AVAILABLE ON KHVH-AM ON THE iHEART APP ON THE INTERNET

.

Sunday – October 28, 2018

Summarizing and Understanding the Thirty-Five Year Transformation of Foreclosure Defense in Hawaii from 1983 to 2018, What Remains Ahead, and What the Hawaii Experience Can Mean for Listeners in Other States

.

 ———————

 

On past shows John and I, in addition to discussing foreclosure defense issues nationally, have highlighted a number of advances in judicial protections for Hawaii homeowners, in which our law firm has played a part, that have also caught the attention of numerous commentators nationwide.

Several of our listeners have requested that we summarize the history of those changes, how they occurred, and what additional advances in Hawaii can be anticipated in the future, of interest not only to our Hawaii listeners, but listeners in other States, including judges and legislators, who would like to replicate those changes in their jurisdiction.

On today’s show, therefore, John and I will discuss the Hawaii experience, concentrating on ten of the most important Hawaii appellate decisions that collectively have reshaped foreclosure defense in our State, challenging our listeners to achieve the same and more in their jurisdiction, including:

1. Hawai’i Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Haw. 213, 11 P.3d 1 (2000);

2. GE Capital Hawaii v. Yonenaka, 96 Haw. App. LEXIS 113 (2001);

3. Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Kida, 96 Haw. 289, 30 P.3d 895 (2001);

4. U.S. Bank v. Salvacion, 2011 Haw. App. LEXIS 387 (2011);

5. Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Matsuyoshi, 136 Haw. 227, 361 P.3d 454 (2015);

6. Santiago v. Tanaka, 137 Haw. 137, 366 P.3d 612 (2015);

7. Bank of America v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Haw. 361, 390 P.3d  1248 (2017); Bank of America v. Reyes-Toledo 2, 2018 Haw. LEXIS 214, 2018 WL 4870719 (2018);

8. U.S. Bank v. Mattos, 140 Haw. 26, 398 P.3d 615 (2017);

9. Wells Fargo Bank v. Behrendt, 142 Haw. 37, 414 P.3d 89 (2018);

10. Sakal v. AOAO Hawaiian Monarch, 143 Haw. 219, 426 P.3d 443 (App. 2018), reconsideration denied, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 395, 2018 WL 4483207 (Haw. App. 2018).

When the audio of this Sunday’s show is posted on our website www.foreclosurehour.com, we will attach copies of all ten appellate opinions.

Thirty-five years ago in Hawaii our judges asked only whether a foreclosure defendant had timely paid his or her mortgage monthly.

Listen to this Sunday’s show to learn how different things are today in Hawaii Courts and what new protections may be expected.

Gary Dubin

.
Host: Gary Dubin Co-Host: John Waihee

.

CALL IN AT (808) 521-8383

Have your questions answered on the air.

Submit questions to info@foreclosurehour.com

The Foreclosure Hour is a public service of the Dubin Law Offices

Past Broadcasts

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII 
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO

The Foreclosure Hour 12

 

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

NJ Appellate Court Sounds Warning Bell to Lenders About Issuing Pre-Foreclosure Notices

NJ Appellate Court Sounds Warning Bell to Lenders About Issuing Pre-Foreclosure Notices

NJ Law Connect-

In a published decision issued on October 4, 2018, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a controversial ruling that allows a homeowner to pursue a claim against Bank of America under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA) due to the defendants’ failure to identify the lender’s name and address in several pre-action foreclosure notices served on the homeowner, even though  the bank ultimately did not file a foreclosure suit. Wright v. Bank of America, et al., Docket No. A-2358-15T-3 (App. Div. NJ, October 4, 2018).

In this particular case, the homeowner filed a complaint against Bank of America and its loan servicer BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BAC), alleging that five notices of intention to foreclose served on him by BAC violated the FFA because the notices neglected to include Bank of America’s name and address.  The homeowner did not dispute having defaulted on his mortgage or claim that the notices were false and misleading.

The trial court dismissed the homeowner’s complaint against Bank of America and its loan servicer BAC, finding that a violation of the FFA cannot support a TCCWNA claim. The homeowner appealed.

[NJ LAW CONNECT]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC | 7th Cir. Rejects ECOA Claim Based on Vague Statement by Defendant’s Employee

Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC | 7th Cir. Rejects ECOA Claim Based on Vague Statement by Defendant’s Employee

THE CFS BLOG-

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under a disparate treatment theory where their only evidence was a vague statement from one of the defendant’s employees.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

A copy of the opinion in Mario Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion.

The plaintiffs, an African-American couple, purchased a home from the seller in October 2008 for $185,000.  The plaintiffs made a down payment of $12,000, and monthly payments of $1,400 to the seller for about one year.

[THE CFS BLOG]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

California Reinstates Homeowner Bill of Rights with Amendments

California Reinstates Homeowner Bill of Rights with Amendments

JD SUPRA

The State of California recently reinstated and amended its Homeowner Bill of Rights, which previously expired on January 1, 2018.  The Homeowner Bill of Rights contains various foreclosure protections for borrowers pursuing loan modifications or similar foreclosure prevention alternatives.  The law becomes effective on January 1, 2019.

The Homeowner Bill of Rights provides for a variety of requirements and prohibitions in connection with foreclosures.  These provisions generally apply to first lien loans secured by owner-occupied homes.  Among other things, entities that foreclosed on more than 175 homes during the prior reporting year are prohibited, following submission of a complete loan modification application, from recording a notice of default or notice of sale, or conducting a trustee’s sale (if an application is submitted at least 5 business days prior to a scheduled sale) until the borrower: (i) is provided a written denial of an application (including the reasons for denial and foreclosure prevention alternatives) and the 30-day period to appeal the denial expires; (ii) does not accept a written offer to participate in a modification within 14 days; or (iii) defaults under an accepted modification.  Further, prior to recording any notice of default: (i) the borrower must be given written notice of protections that may be available under the federal SCRA and the right to request copies of the evidence of indebtedness and security instrument, any assignment, and payment history since the borrower was last less than 60 days past due; and (ii) 30 days must pass after contacting the borrower or after making diligent effort to do so.  In addition, a notice of default also may not be recorded if the borrower is approved in writing for a foreclosure prevention alternative, and certain other specified conditions are met.

If a foreclosure prevention alternative is offered, a servicer must generally send written communication providing specified information about the alternative within 5 days after recording a notice of default.  If an alternative is approved, a servicer is prohibited from recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s sale if specified conditions are met.  A notice of default must be rescinded, and a pending trustee’s sale canceled, upon execution of a permanent foreclosure alternative.  The law prohibits fees from being charged in connection with a modification or foreclosure prevention alternative, and requires that modifications and prevention alternatives previously approved must be honored following transfer or sale to another servicer.  The law also requires that a notice of default must include a specified declaration regarding contact with the borrower, and provides that a mortgage servicer satisfies specified telephone contact requirements in this regard if the borrower makes a written request to cease communications.  Certain technical changes have also been made to provisions requiring a servicer to establish a single point of contact for a borrower requesting a foreclosure prevention alternative.  The law also defines what it means for a loan modification application to be “complete.”

Violations of the above provisions may result in liability to borrowers, as well as awards of the greater of treble damages or statutory damages of $50,000 for intentional or reckless violations.  Violations of certain provisions by CFL, CRMLA, and REL licensees may be deemed violations of those respective licensing laws.  Mortgage servicers engaging in multiple and repeated filings of unsubstantiated foreclosure documents may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per lien and further administrative enforcement.

Additionally, the law provides that any amendment, addition, or repeal of a section of the Homeowner Bill of Rights does not release, extinguish, or change any liability under a previous section that was in effect at the time of an action.  The law also generally subjects entities that foreclosed on fewer than 175 properties during the prior reporting year to similar, but in some cases less stringent, requirements and restrictions.

A copy of the reinstated California Homeowner Bill of Rights, as amended, is available here.

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Fake Accounts Still Haunt Wells Fargo

Fake Accounts Still Haunt Wells Fargo

Bloomberg-

Oh Wells Fargo.

The Wells Fargo & Co. fake-accounts scandal is one of the highest-profile cases of banking villainy since the financial crisis, but it is an odd kind of villainy. If you were a cartoon-villain banker, this is pretty much the last thing you would do. Wells Fargo’s retail bankers were under a lot of pressure to open accounts, so they responded by opening fake accounts. This angered customers and the public, but it’s not like it did Wells Fargo any favors. Wells Fargo’s goal in pressuring its employees to open lots of accounts for customers was to open lots of real accounts, to get customers to make deposits and take out loans and do transactions and generate revenue for Wells Fargo. The thing about fake accounts is that they mostly don’t bring in any money: At least 95 percent of Wells Fargo’s fake accounts brought in zero dollars, while the rest seem to have brought in about $2.4 million in fees, a rounding error for a bank with $88 billion of net revenue last year, and orders of magnitude less than the fines Wells has had to pay. The fake-accounts scandal is not a story about a clever greedy bank exploiting customers for money; it is a story about a dumb greedy bank with poorly designed incentives and inadequate supervision harming customers without making any money.
© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

A.G. Underwood Announces $65 Million Settlement With Wells Fargo For Misleading Investors Regarding Cross-Sell Scandal

A.G. Underwood Announces $65 Million Settlement With Wells Fargo For Misleading Investors Regarding Cross-Sell Scandal

A.G. Underwood Announces $65 Million Settlement With Wells Fargo For Misleading Investors Regarding Cross-Sell Scandal

Wells Fargo Failed to Disclose to Investors that Success of Cross-Sell Efforts was Built on Misconduct  Such as Opening Millions of Fake Deposit and Credit Card Accounts; NY Investors Lost Millions when Misconduct was Disclosed

Settlement Marks Latest Martin Act Enforcement Action to Protect NY Investors and Integrity of Financial Marketplace

NEW YORK – Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood announced today that Wells Fargo & Company will pay a $65 million penalty following the Attorney General’s investigation into the bank’s fraudulent statements to investors in connection with its “cross-sell” business model, related sales practices, and the bank’s publicly reported cross-sell metrics.

“The misconduct at Wells Fargo was widespread across the bank and at every level of management – impacting both customers and investors who were misled,” said Attorney General Underwood. “State securities laws are vital to protecting the hard-earned savings of working families and Main Street investors from financial fraud, and my office will continue to do what’s necessary to protect the public and the integrity of our markets.”

“Cross-sell” refers to the process of selling new financial products and/or services to an existing customer.?Wells Fargo represented to investors its ability to increase revenues and better serve customers by pursuing its purportedly superior cross-sell strategy; it also regularly reported cross-sell metrics that supposedly reflected the success of that strategy.

However, Wells Fargo failed to disclose to investors that the success of its cross-sell efforts was built on sales practice misconduct at the bank. Driven by strict and unrealistic sales goals, employees in Wells Fargo’s Community Bank division engaged in fraudulent sales practices, including the opening of millions of fake deposit and credit card accounts without customers’ knowledge. Through a significant incentive compensation program, employees who met these targets were eligible for promotions and bonuses, while employees who did not meet the sales targets faced relentless pressure and even termination.

Today’s settlement notes that Wells Fargo made numerous misrepresentations to investors over many years, and failed to disclose its knowledge of systemic problems pervading the bank’s sales practices. In one email from June 2011, a member of the incentive compensation team acknowledged this misconduct by Wells Fargo employees, stating that “I’ve asked bankers… why people cheat… it’s because their manager tells them they’ll be fired if they don’t hit their minimums.”

Beginning as early as 2011, Wells Fargo’s Board of Directors received reports that described increasing numbers of allegations of this sales practice misconduct by its employees. In Congressional testimony, Wells Fargo’s former CEO stated that he personally became aware of widespread fraud by Wells Fargo employees in 2013. Yet Wells Fargo failed to disclose to investors the misconduct at the heart of the bank’s vaunted cross-sell business model. When the truth was publicly disclosed, New York investors lost millions of dollars.

The Attorney General, through the office’s Investor Protection Bureau, is charged with enforcing the New York State securities law (commonly known as the Martin Act), to protect New York investors and the integrity of the marketplace through investigations of suspected fraud in the offer, sale, or purchase of securities.

The Attorney General’s office is also continuing its investigation of Wells Fargo in connection with its illegal business practices of opening millions of unauthorized accounts and enrolling consumers in services without their knowledge or consent. Today’s settlement has no impact on that ongoing investigation and other pending investigations of Wells Fargo.

This matter was handled by Senior Enforcement Counsel Hannah K. Flamenbaum and Assistant Attorneys General Melissa Gable and Amita Singh, all of the Investor Protection Bureau, under the supervision of Investor Protection Bureau Chief Cynthia Hanawalt. Data Scientist Katie Rosman and Director Jonathan Werberg of the Research and Analytics Department and Chief Economist Peter Malaspina also assisted in this matter. The Investor Protection Bureau is part of the Economic Justice Division, which is led by Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice Manisha M. Sheth.

Click here to view the settlement agreement.

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Attorney Mark Stopa’s foreclosure cases are halted but clients’ checks are being cashed

Attorney Mark Stopa’s foreclosure cases are halted but clients’ checks are being cashed

Tampa Bay-

A bankruptcy judge has ordered a temporary halt to all state and appellate court proceedings in which suspended foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa and his former law firm are counsel of record.

The emergency order, effective until Nov. 6, could give dozens of Florida homeowners a temporary respite from the threat of foreclosure. But many have been surprised and dismayed to find that the trustee overseeing the law firm’s bankruptcy case has been cashing post-dated checks they wrote to the firm.

“It’s a hot mess,” Tonya McKendree, a former client of Stopa, said Wednesday. She said trustee Stephen Meininger cashed four checks totaling $1,250, causing her account to be overdrawn by about $400 and costing her more than $100 in overdraft fees.

[TAMPA BAY]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Major Atlanta Foreclosure Attorney Nathan E. Hardwick IV Guilty of Major Fraud and Conspiracy

Major Atlanta Foreclosure Attorney Nathan E. Hardwick IV Guilty of Major Fraud and Conspiracy

Coosa Valley News-

A federal grand jury convicted Nathan E. Hardwick IV of twenty-one counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and one count of making false statements to a federally insured financial institution on October 12, 2018.

“Hardwick was motivated by unadulterated deceit and greed when he blatantly violated the trust placed in him by embezzling millions of dollars from his clients and partners,” said U.S. Attorney Byung J. “BJay” Pak. “The extravagant lifestyle that Hardwick enjoyed at the expense of others will now be traded for time in prison.”

“This case is especially troubling given the illegal actions were orchestrated by a lawyer who swore an oath to uphold the law and represent his clients with integrity,” said Chris Hacker, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “The magnitude of theft Hardwick is convicted of merits a lengthy sentence, one that will hopefully send a message that the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office will not tolerate this type of white-collar crime.”

According to U.S. Attorney Pak, the charges and other information presented in court: Hardwick and Asha Maurya engaged in a scheme to defraud MHSLAW, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Morris Hardwick Schneider, LLC and LandCastle Title, LLC, (collectively referred to as “MHS”). MHS owned and operated a law firm that specialized in residential real estate closings and foreclosures, and it ran a title business. MHS employed approximately 800 people in 16 states. Hardwick was the managing partner of the law firm and the CEO of the title business. He also ran the law firm’s closing division, which was based in Atlanta. Maurya managed MHS’s accounting operations under Hardwick’s supervision and control.

[COOSA VALLEY NEWS]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Florida judge rejects sanctions against Bank of America

Florida judge rejects sanctions against Bank of America

  • Miami attorney Bruce Jacobs, representing a couple in a foreclosure case, had sought to get his allegations against Bank of America heard in court.
  • The bank argued his claims were baseless.
  • Judge Bronwyn Miller dismissed the attorney’s claims over the bank’s purge of 1.8 billion of bank records.

CNBC-

A Miami-Dade County judge on Tuesday turned down requests by a real estate attorney to punish Bank of America over claims of withholding and destroying records.

Judge Bronwyn Miller also dismissed the attorney’s claims over the bank’s purge of 1.8 billion of bank records. The ruling, handed down after a hearing on Monday, did not explain the legal reason for her decision.

Miami attorney Bruce Jacobs, representing a couple in a foreclosure case, had sought to get his allegations against Bank of America heard in court. The bank argued his claims were baseless.

[CNBC]

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Freddie Mac Offers Assistance to Hurricane Michael Borrowers

Freddie Mac Offers Assistance to Hurricane Michael Borrowers

(GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Freddie Mac(OTCQB: FMCC) today reminded Servicers of its disaster relief policies for borrowers who have been affected by Hurricane Michael. Freddie Mac’s disaster relief options are available to borrowers whose homes or places of employment are located in presidentially-declared Major Disaster Areas where federal individual assistance programs are made available to affected individuals and households.

In areas where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not yet made individual assistance available, mortgage servicers may immediately leverage Freddie Mac’s short-term forbearance programs to provide mortgage relief to their borrowers that have been affected by the hurricane.

“Safety is our top priority for those in the Florida panhandle and nearby states as Hurricane Michael approaches,” said Yvette Gilmore, Freddie Mac’s Vice President of Single-Family Servicer Performance Management. “Once safe from this dangerous storm, we strongly encourage homeowners whose homes or places of employment have been impacted by Hurricane Michael to call their mortgage Servicer—the company to which borrowers send their monthly mortgage payments—to learn about available relief options. We stand ready to ensure that mortgage relief is made available.”

News Facts:

  • Freddie Mac disaster relief policies authorize mortgage servicers to help affected borrowers in eligible disaster areas: those federally-declared Major Disaster Areas where federal individual assistance programs have been extended. A list of these areas can be found on the FEMA’s website.
  • Freddie Mac mortgage relief options for affected borrowers in eligible disaster areas include:
    • Suspending foreclosures by providing forbearance for up to 12 months;
    • Waiving assessments of penalties or late fees against borrowers with disaster-damaged homes; and
    • Not reporting forbearance or delinquencies caused by the disaster to the nation’s credit bureaus.
  • Freddie Mac is reminding servicers to consider borrowers who are impacted by the storm, but who live and work outside of an eligible disaster area, for Freddie Mac’s standard relief policies, which include forbearance and mortgage modifications.
  • Affected borrowers should immediately contact their mortgage servicer—the company to which they send their monthly mortgage payment.
  • See http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/service/natural_disasters.html for a description of Freddie Mac disaster relief policies.

Freddie Mac makes home possible for millions of families and individuals by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Since our creation by Congress in 1970, we’ve made housing more accessible and affordable for homebuyers and renters in communities nationwide. We are building a better housing finance system for homebuyers, renters, lenders, investors and taxpayers. Learn more at FreddieMac.com@FreddieMac and Freddie Mac’s blog.

MEDIA CONTACT: Chad Wandler
703-903-2446
Chad_Wandler@FreddieMac.com

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Fannie Mae Reminds Homeowners and Servicers of Mortgage Assistance Options for Areas Affected by Hurricane Michael

Fannie Mae Reminds Homeowners and Servicers of Mortgage Assistance Options for Areas Affected by Hurricane Michael

Pete Bakel

202-752-2034

WASHINGTON, DC – Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) is reminding those impacted by Hurricane Michael of the options available for mortgage assistance. Under Fannie Mae’s guidelines for single-family mortgages:

  • Homeowners impacted by Hurricane Michael are eligible to stop making mortgage payments for up to 12 months, during which time they:
    • will not incur late fees during this temporary payment break
    • will not have delinquencies reported to the credit bureaus
  • Servicers are authorized to suspend or reduce a homeowner’s mortgage payments immediately for up to 90 days without any contact with the homeowner if the servicer believes the homeowner has been affected by a disaster. Payment forbearance of up to 12 months is available in many circumstances.
  • Servicers must suspend foreclosure and other legal proceedings if the servicer believes the homeowner has been impacted by a disaster.

“It is important for those in the path of the storm to focus on their safety as they deal with the potential impact of Hurricane Michael,” said Carlos Perez, Senior Vice President and Chief Credit Officer at Fannie Mae. “Fannie Mae and our lending and servicing partners are focused on ensuring assistance is offered to individuals and families in need. We also are focused on working with our Multifamily DUS® lenders and borrowers to determine appropriate actions to assist renters impacted by the storm. We urge everyone in the area to be safe, and we encourage homeowners affected by the storm to contact their mortgage servicer for assistance as soon as possible.”

Homeowners can reach out to Fannie Mae directly by calling 1-800-2FANNIE (1-800-232-6643). For more information, please visit www.knowyouroptions.com/relief.

 

Fannie Mae helps make the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and affordable rental housing possible for millions of Americans. We partner with lenders to create housing opportunities for families across the country. We are driving positive changes in housing finance to make the home buying process easier, while reducing costs and risk. To learn more, visit fanniemae.com and follow us on twitter.com/fanniemae.

 

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Deposition of Edward Hyne: Nationstar’s witness testifies that Aurora’s policies include forging indorsements

Deposition of Edward Hyne: Nationstar’s witness testifies that Aurora’s policies include forging indorsements

See the attached filing below with deposition transcript, setting out Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s position that Aurora Bank, FSB policies include forging indorsements to give the appearance the promissory notes are indorsed to blank. Edward Hyne, Nationsatr’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness refers to the practice as “preparing indorsement pages”.

EXCEPTS:

BY MR. RILEY: Q What is your testimony about the Note, Mr. Hyne?

A The Note itself is accurate, but as to the page where the endorsements are, um,
there is, actually, um — the original Note has the endorsements on the backside of the
signature page, and this was an alternate second endorsement sheet that had been
prepared by Aurora Bank, it’s my understanding. That’s why there was a discrepancy
raised relating to the endorsements.

MR. OLIVER: Prepared by?

THE WITNESS: Aurora, the prior servicer.

MR. RILEY: Would you, please, read back his answer, if you would.
BY MR. RILEY: Q Why would there be an alternate endorsement sheet prepared by
Aurora?

A Um, well, I don’t have personal knowledge. I didn’t work for Aurora. It’s my
understanding that the, um — Aurora had an image of the Note that, um, apparently,
when imaging their system, they didn’t have the back page with the endorsements on
it, and someone at Aurora had gone in and created a separate endorsement sheet, um,
for the purposes of having a complete version of the Note with an endorsement, not
knowing that the back of the original Note, um, contained the, um, original
endorsements.

Q So it’s your testimony they prepared an allonge, if you’re familiar with the term
“allonge”?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know if you would call it an allonge, um, but they prepared,
um, a sheet that had new endorsements so that it could be imaged, um, with, um, an
image of the Note that was, um, different from the original Note that already had the
endorsements on the backside of the signature page.

Q Let’s go back to the document you’re referring to and that you’re looking at in front
of you. What is that?

A This page, um, is a page that has three endorsements on it.

Q So is it your testimony this was the endorsement that was prepared by Aurora that
was attached to Claim 1?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. RILEY: Q Okay. And how do you have knowledge of how this happened?
A We have — in our imaging system when the loan came across from Aurora to
Nationstar to service. We had images with this Note with this endorsement page, and
a separate image of the Note as it, actually, appears with the other endorsements. Um,
I’ve had discussions with Simon Ward-Brown, who —

Q I’m sorry, who?

A Simon Ward-Brown. He’s an employee of Nationstar now, but was previously
employed by Aurora when this loan — before the loan transferred to Nationstar.

Q And he’s the one that informed you how these signatures came to be on the claim?

THE WITNESS: We discussed as to how there might be two different, um,
endorsement pages.

BY MR. RILEY:Q When would you have had that conversation?

A I think it was last year, late last year

Q Why was an amended Proof of Claim not filed, if that wasn’t the accurate Note?

A I’m not sure why there wasn’t an amended Proof of Claim filed. Certainly
Nationstar wasn’t aware of the issue until, I believe, it was raised later on in the
litigation.

BY MR. OLIVAR: Q Now, I think you testified you spoke with Mr. Ward-Brown about an
alternate second set of — alternate second endorsement sheet. Do I have that right?

A Yes.

Q And the alternate second endorsement sheet, you believe, was prepared by Aurora
Bank?

A Yes.

Q Did he know how that was prepared or why that was prepared when you spoke
with him?

A We had discussed what he believed to have happened, um, to provide an
explanation why there is a second endorsement page.

Q When you say you discussed what he believed to have happened, were the two of
you just speculating as to possibilities, or did anybody know what had happened?

A He didn’t say that he was there when it happened physically at the time that it was
occurring, um, so he was trying — he believed that that is what happened based upon
his, um, knowledge of the servicing policies and processes at Aurora.

Q So based on his knowledge of the general policies at Aurora, he posited some
options as to what might have happened, or was it just one option?

A No. I believe that was the one option.

Q So based on his knowledge of Aurora’s general policy, he said he believed that’s
what had happened?

A Aurora has an imaging system where they image their own documents. An
employee of Aurora had looked at the images of the Note and saw that there was not
an endorsement page image with the Note as part of the Note document. Even
though the original, um, Note has the endorsements on the back page of the signature
page, um, it was Simon’s understanding or belief that, um, an employee of Aurora
then prepared, um, a separate endorsement page, um, for the purposes of completing
the chain of endorsements for the image of the Note that they had in their system.

Q What was the name of the employee at Aurora who saw there was no endorsement
page?

A Um, he didn’t have a name of a person. He believed that’s what would have
triggered an employee looking at the imaging system.

Q When did that unnamed Aurora employee create that second page?

A It’s not dated, so I’m not sure if he could tell but, um, there’s certainly nothing on
the document that would indicate when it occurred.

Q How did the Aurora employee create a second endorsement page?
A I don’t know.

Q Do you know whether the page was photo shopped?

A I don’t know.

Q Do you know whether the page was physically xeroxed with a cut-and-paste
technique?

A I don’t know.

Filed Nationstar Rule 60 by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-18 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