concealment

Archive | concealment

FLORIDA AG ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) & DOCX 10-13-2010

FLORIDA AG ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) & DOCX 10-13-2010

Today the Florida Attorney General issued Subpoenas Duces Tecum’s to both Lender Processing Services Inc. and to a subsidiary DOCX. This involves employees past or present, the four foreclosure firms currently being investigated.

Both Assistant AG’s “McCollum’s Angels” June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards are doing an outstanding job!

.

.

[click image for ]

AG_Subpoena_DT-to-Docx_

AG_Subpoena_LPS

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

______________________________________
ECONOMIC CRIMES
INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

“You,” “Your” or “DOC X” as used herein means DOCX, L.L.c. and any ofthe respondents, their agents and employees or any “affiliate” of the aforementioned entities, as that term is herein defined. Your agents include but are not limited to your officers, directors, attorneys, accountants, CPA’s, advertising consultants, or advertising account representatives. Any document in the possession ofyou, your affiliates, your agents or your employees is deemed to be within your possession or control. You have the affirmative duty to contact your agents, affiliates and employees and to obtain documentation from them, if such documentation is responsive to this subpoena.

B. Unless otherwise indicated, documents to be produced pursuant to this subpoena should include all original documents prepared, sent, dated, received, in effect, or which otherwise came into existence at any time. If your “original” is a photocopy, then the photocopy would be and should be produced as the original.

C. This subpoena duces tecum calls for the production of all responsive documents in your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location ofsaid documents.

D. “And” and “or” are used as terms of inclusion, not exclusion.

E. The documents to be produced pursuant to each request should be segregated and specifically identified to indicate clearly the particular numbered request to which they are responsIve.

F. In the event that you seek to withhold any document on the basis that is properly entitled to some privilege or limitation, please provide the following information:

1. A list identifying each document for which you believe a limitation exists;

2. The name of each author, writer, sender or initiator of such document or thing, if any;

3. The name of each recipient, addressee or party for whom such document or thing was intended, ifany;

4. The date of such document, if any, or an estimate thereof so indicated if no date appears on the document;

5. The general subject matter as described in such document, or, if no such description appears, then such other description sufficient to identify said document; and

6. The claimed grounds for withholding the document, including, but not limited to, the nature of any claimed privilege and grounds in support thereof.

G. For each request, or part thereof, which is not fully responded to pursuant to a privilege, the nature of the privilege and grounds in support thereof should be fully stated.

H. If you possess, control or have custody of no documents responsive to any of the numbered requests set forth below, state this fact in your response to said request.

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “document” shall mean all writings or stored data or information ofany kind, in any form, including the originals and all nonidentical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation(s) made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation: correspondence, notes, letters, telegrams, minutes, certificates, diplomas, contracts, franchise agreements and other agreements, brochures, pamphlets, forms, scripts, reports, studies, statistics, inter-office and intra-office communications, training materials, analyses, memoranda, statements, summaries, graphs, charts, tests, plans, arrangements, tabulations, bulletins, newsletters, advertisements, computer printouts, teletype, telefax, microfilm, e-mail, electronically stored data, price books and lists, invoices, receipts, inventories, regularly kept summaries or compilations of business records, notations of any type of conversations, meetings, telephone or other communications, audio and videotapes; electronic, mechanical or electrical records or representations of any kind (including without limitation tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic tapes, hard drives and recordings to include each document translated, if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form).

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “affiliate” shall mean: a corporation, partnership, business trust, joint venture or other artificial entity which effectively controls, or is effectively controlled by you, or which is related to you as a parent or subsidiary or sibling entity. “Affiliate” shall also mean any entity in which there is a mutual identity of any officer or director. “Effectively controls” shall mean having the status of owner, investor (if 5% or more of voting stock), partner, member, officer, director, shareholder, manager, settlor, trustee, beneficiary or ultimate equitable owner as defined in Section 607.0505(11)(e), Florida Statutes.

K. The term “Florida affiliates” shall mean those of your affiliates which do business in Florida or which are licensed to do business in Florida.

L. If production of documents or other items required by this subpoena would be, in whole or in part, unduly burdensome, or if the response to an individual request for production may be aided by clarification of the request, contact the Assistant Attorney General who issued this subpoena to discuss possible amendments or modifications of the subpoena, within five (5) days of receipt ofsame.

M. Documents maintained in electronic form must be produced in their native electronic form with all metadata intact. Data must be produced in the data format in which it is typically used and maintained. Moreover, to the extent that a responsive Document has been electronically scanned (for any purpose), that Document must be produced in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) format and an opportunity provided to review the original Document. In addition, documents that have been electronically scanned must be in black and white and should be produced in a Group IV TIFF Format (TIF image format), with a Summation format load file (dii extension). DII Coded data should be received in a (Comma-Separated Values) CSV format with a pipe (I) used for multivalue fields. Images should be single page TIFFs, meaning one TIFF file for each page of the Document, not one .tifffor each Document. Ifthere is no text for a text file, the following should be inserted in that text file: “Page Intentionally Left Blank.”

Moreover, this Subpoena requires all objective coding for the production, to the extent it exists. For electronic mail systems using Microsoft Outlook or LotusNotes, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents, in their native file format (i.e., .pst for Outlook personal folder, .nsf for LotusNotes). For all other email systems, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents in OCR and TIFF formats as described above.

P. The relevant time period for the present request shall be from January 1, 2006 to present unless otherwise specifically stated. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce at said time and place all documents, as defined above, relating to the following subjects:

1. Copies ofall “Network Agreements” between DOCX and any law firm with offices located in the State of Florida.

2. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Linda Green to sign documents in the following capacities:

a. Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; ;

b. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.;

c. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

d. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Brokers Conduit;

e. Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation;

f. Vice President, Option One Mortgage Corporation;

g. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for HLB Mortgage;

h. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.;

1. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Family Lending Services, Inc.;

J. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as Successor -ininterest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

k. Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC by Citi Residential Lending, Inc., attorney-in-fact;

1. . Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation f/kJal Option One Mortgage Corporation;

m. Vice President, Amtrust Funsing (sic) Services, Inc., by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as Attorney-in -fact;

n. Vice President, Seattle Mortgage Company.

3. Copies of every document signed in any capacity by Linda Green.

4. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Korell Harp to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

5. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Jessica Ohde to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

6. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Pat Kingston to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

7. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Christina Huang to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

8. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Tywanna Thomas to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

9. All policy and procedure manuals and/or training materials regarding the methods and timing that DOCX uses, including without limitation relating to the drafting and/or execution of foreclosure and mortgage related documents, including but not limited to Assignments of Mortgage, Satisfactions ofMortgage and Affidavits ofany and all kind.

10. A list ofall employees, dates ofhire and termination, and their duties, including whether or not they provide any notary services for DOCX.

11. All documents in your possession regarding any contracts with Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. and The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., including contracts regarding payments to or from any of those entities.

12. Documents relating to the relationship between DOCX and NewTrac and/or NewInvoice, including but not limited to, documents relating to the types ofdocuments that are or can be generated or are requested to be generated.

13. Any price lists published in any manner to prospective customers, whether by printed or electronic means.

14. All communications between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices ofMarshall C. Watson, P.A. relating to procedures, policies, instructions or performance ofthe creation, backdating, modification, amendment, or other alteration ofany real property-related transactional document or records, including assignments, satisfactions ofmortgage, affidavits, notes, allonges, or other documents filed in any court.

15. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P .A.

16. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity that provides payments to DOCX in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

17. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity to whom DOCX provides payment(s) in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

WITNESS the FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of October, 2010.

June M. Clarkson
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 785709
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 110 S.E. 6th Street, 10th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954-712-4600
Facsimile: 954-712-4658

Theresa B. Edwards
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 252794

NOTE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact George Rudd, Assistant Attorney General at (954) 712-4600 no later than seven days prior to the proceedings. Ifhearing impaired, contact the Florida Relay Service 1-800-955-8771 (TDD); or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice), for assistance.

AUTHORITY

Florida Statute 501.206

501.206 Investigative powers of enforcing authority.(

1) If, by his own inquiry or as a result ofcomplaints, the enforcing authority has reason to believe that a person has engaged in, or is engaging in, an act or practice that violates this part, he may administer oaths and affinnations, subpoena witnesses or matter, and collect evidence. Within 5 days excluding weekends and legal holidays, after the service ofa subpoena or at any time before the return date specified therein, whichever is longer, the party served may file in the circuit court in the county in which he resides or in which he transacts business and serve upon the enforcing authority a petition for an order modifying or setting aside the subpoena. The petitioner may raise any objection or privilege which would be available under this chapter or upon service of such subpoena in a civil action. The subpoena shall infonn the party served of his rights under this subsection.

(2) If matter that the enforcing authority seeks to obtain by subpoena is located outside the state, the person subpoenaed may make it available to the enforcing authority or his representative to examine the matter at the place where it is located. The enforcing authority may designate representatives, including officials ofthe state in which the matter is located, to inspect the matter on his behalf, and he may respond to similar requests from officials ofother states.

(3) Upon failure ofa person without lawful excuse to obey a subpoena and upon reasonable notice to all persons affected, the enforcing authority may apply to the circuit court for an order compelling compliance.

(4) The enforcing authority may request that the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena on the ground that testimony or matter may incriminate him be ordered by the court to provide the testimony or matter. Except in a prosecution for perjury, an individual who complies with a court order to provide testimony or matter after asserting a privilege against selfincrimination to which he is entitled by law shall not have the testimony or matter so provided, or evidence derived there from, received against him in any criminal investigation proceeding.

(5) Any person upon whom a subpoena is served pursuant to this section shall comply with the tenns thereof unless otherwise provided by order of the court. Any person who fails to appear with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance in whole or in part with any investigation under this part or who removes, destroys, or by any other means falsifies any documentary material in the possession, custody, or control of any person subject to any such subpoena, or knowingly conceals any relevant infonnation with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

Affidavit of Service Attached

RELATED LINK:

LPS 101

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, concealment, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, deed of trust, DOCX, FDLG, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, jeff carbiener, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, notary fraud, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com1 Comment

Government had been warned for months about troubles in mortgage servicer industry

Government had been warned for months about troubles in mortgage servicer industry

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 9, 2010; 10:11 PM

Consumer advocates and lawyers warned federal officials in recent years that the U.S. foreclosure system was designed to seize people’s homes as fast as possible, often without regard to the rights of homeowners.

In recent days, amid reports that major lenders have used improper procedures and fraudulent paperwork to seize properties, some Obama administration officials have acknowledged they had been aware of flaws in how the mortgage industry pursues foreclosures.

But the officials said they could take only limited action to address the danger. In part, this was because they wanted lenders’ help carrying out federal programs to modify mortgages that had fallen into default or were poised to do so.

New concerns about improper practices – such as those involving faked documents or “robo-signers” who signed tens of thousands of documents without reviewing them – have prompted the mortgage servicing arms of the country’s largest banks to freeze millions of foreclosures. As momentum builds for a national moratorium, the administration has begun assessing the potential impact, examining the threat it could pose for the ailing housing market and the wider financial system.

There is no evidence so far that the specific abuses made public in the past few weeks were known to government officials. Nor is it clear whether they were aware that the process of the selling and reselling of mortgages among financial firms – which became extremely common and highly profitable during the housing boom – was raising legal questions about who actually owned the loans and had the right to foreclose if they want bad.

But government officials were told repeatedly that the mortgage servicing industry was deeply troubled, according to administration officials, consumer advocates, housing lawyers and congressional aides.

Continue reading…WASHINGTON POST

.

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.3 Comments

MAINE: Jeffrey Stephan “Deposition Transcript” Protective Order DENIED

MAINE: Jeffrey Stephan “Deposition Transcript” Protective Order DENIED

Excerpt:

In addition to renewing it’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Entry of Protective Order pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 26 (c). This motion is likewise denied.

Rule 26(c) provides that “for good cause shown” a court may enter a protective order “which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense….” M.R.Civ. P. 26(c). Plaintiff seeks a protective order prohibiting the dissemination of discovery materials obtained in this case.” Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order at 7. As grounds for it’s motion, Plaintiff points to the embarrassment GMAC and it’s employees have suffered, and will continue to suffer, from the posting of excerpts from Stephan’s deposition transcript on an Internet blog. The court is not persuaded that the Plaintiff has shown the requisite “ good cause” to justify entry of a protective order in this case. See e.g. Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 789 (1st Cir. 1988) (agreeing with Second Circuit in noting that “the party seeking a protective order has burden of  showing that good cause is not shown, the discovery materials in question should not receive judicial protection and therefore would be open to the public for inspection”) (citation omitted).

Stephan’s deposition was taken in advance a legitimate purpose, and the testimony elicited has directed probative value to dispute. Attorney Cox did not himself take action other that to share the deposition transcript with an attorney in Florida. That the testimony reveals corporate practices that GMAC finds embarrassing in not enough to justify issuance of a protective order. Further, Plaintiff has failed to establish that GMAC has been harmed specifically as a result of the dissemination of the June 7, 2010 deposition transcript, given that similarly embarrassing deposition from December 10, 2009 Florida deposition also appears on the Internet, and will remain even were this Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to satisfy it’s burden of persuasion under Rule 26(c), it’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order is denied.

[ipaper docId=38686209 access_key=key-1r8729c9qjfdkt6gvvoi height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, concealment, conspiracy, deed of trust, deposition, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, GMAC, jeffrey stephan, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., robo signers, servicers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, trade secrets3 Comments

There you go Connecticut ‘ALL’ Bank Foreclosures Stopped

There you go Connecticut ‘ALL’ Bank Foreclosures Stopped

Connecticut halts all foreclosures for all banks

By Ariana Eunjung Cha  | October 1, 2010; 2:41 PM ET

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Friday ordered a moratorium on all foreclosures by all banks for 60 days–the most radical action taken by a state on issue of document irregularities.

California also expanded the moratorium on foreclosures it announced last week on Ally Financial foreclosures to include those by J.P. Morgan Chase.

Calling the companies’ review of key foreclosure documents “a ruse,” California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) ordered J.P. Morgan to prove it is following the law before it continues foreclosures in the state.

Both J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally have frozen foreclosures in 23 states because some employees had signed off on foreclosure paperwork without properly reviewing the files.

Colorado and Illinois have stopped foreclosures by Ally and at least seven other states have launched probes into the issue. But Connecticut is the first to institute an industry-wide ban.

Washington Post

.

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



Posted in concealment, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, robo signers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

DOCX / LPS Price List…any documents you want!

DOCX / LPS Price List…any documents you want!

Looks like this is becoming more and more like a fabricating factory mill full of ?????????

DOCX’s GetNet™ Document Recovery solution is a national network of runners that is engaged to provide document recovery, expedited recordation services, title searches, and insurance submissions.

The service is unique in that our clients can request that DOCX obtain any missing recordable documents through this web site through our online GetNet™ Work Order Form. Status of existing projects can also be obtained through our Online Services.

We also accept work orders the “old fashioned” way via fax or mail. Upon receipt of the work order, DOCX will access the national network of runners, place the order and follow up to ensure prompt delivery.

GetNet™ was designed to assist mortgage servicers in meeting agency certifications and to avoid costly penalties for filing late satisfaction pieces.

GetNet™ Features

  • A National Network of title runners retains presence in every county jurisdiction nationwide.
  • Obtains missing mortgage documents, assignments, title policies and LGC/MICs.
  • Expedites recordation by physically walking documents in to county recorder offices.
  • Provides title searches to identify mortgage holders.
  • Provides online reporting capabilities.

GETNET™ RATE SHEET

[ipaper docId=38616465 access_key=key-1gta9io0omavgx417a90 height=600 width=600 /]

.

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bogus, concealment, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, DOCX, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD3 Comments

California Attorney General Demands Halt To Foreclosures By Mortgage Giant

California Attorney General Demands Halt To Foreclosures By Mortgage Giant

California Demands Halt To Foreclosures By Mortgage Giant

By Dale Kasler
dkasler@sacbee.com

Published: Friday, Sep. 24, 2010 – 11:39 am
Last Modified: Friday, Sep. 24, 2010 – 11:46 am
.

California officials today demanded that Ally Financial Inc. stop foreclosing on homes in the state, citing reports indicating the big mortgage lender is violating the law.

The cease-and-desist letter, issued by Attorney General Jerry Brown, came as officials in several other states began investigating Ally’s operations.

The controversy stems from a Florida court case in which an Ally official reportedly testified that he signed thousands of documents in foreclosure cases without even reviewing the homeowners’ loan documents.

Continue Reading…THE SACRAMENTO BEE

.

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



Posted in chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, deed of trust, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, GMAC, investigation, jeffrey stephan, MERS, MERSCORP, Moratorium, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., non judicial, note, robo signers, stopforeclosurefraud.com2 Comments

FORECLOSURE FRAUD LETTER TO FANNIE MAE FROM GRAYSON, FRANK and BROWN

FORECLOSURE FRAUD LETTER TO FANNIE MAE FROM GRAYSON, FRANK and BROWN

This should send a powerful message to each and every Foreclosure Mill out there! You are NEXT!

September 24, 2010

Michael J. Williams
President and Chief Executive Officer
Fannie Mae
3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Mr. Williams,

We are disturbed by the increasing reports of predatory ‘foreclosure mills’ in Florida working for Fannie Mae servicers.  Foreclosure mills are law firms representing lenders that specialize in speeding up the foreclosure process, often without regard to process, substance, or legal propriety.  According to the New York Times, four of these mills are both among the busiest of the firms and are under investigation by the Attorney General of Florida for fraud.  The firms have been accused of fabricating or backdating documents, as well as lying to conceal the true owner of a note.

Several of the busiest of these mills show up as members of Fannie Mae’s Retained Attorney Network, a set of legal contractors on whom Fannie relies to represent its interests as a note-holder.  The network also serves as a pool of legal talent that represents Fannie in its pre-filing mediation program, a program designed to facilitate communication between borrowers and servicers prior to foreclosure. In other words, Fannie Mae seems to specifically delegate its foreclosure avoidance obligations out to lawyers who specialize in kicking people out of their homes.

The legal pressure to foreclose at all costs is leading to a situation where servicers are foreclosing on properties on which they do not even own the note.  This practice is blessed by a legal system overwhelmed with foreclosure cases and unable to sort out murky legal details, and a set of law firms who mass produce filings to move foreclosures as quickly as possible.  At the very least, we would encourage you to remove foreclosure mills under investigation for document fraud from the Fannie Mae’s Retained Attorney Network. We also believe that Fannie should have guidelines allowing servicers to proceed on a foreclosure only when its legal entitlement to foreclose is clearly documented.  In addition, these charges raise a number of questions for us about the foreclosure process as it pertains to Fannie Mae’s holdings.

Why is Fannie Mae using lawyers that are accused of regularly engaging in fraud to kick people out of their homes?  Given that Fannie Mae is at this point a government entity, and it is the policy of the government that foreclosures are a costly situation best avoided if there are any lower cost alternatives, what steps is Fannie Mae taking to avoid the use of foreclosure mills?  What additional steps is Fannie Mae going to take to ensure that foreclosures are done only when necessary and only in accordance with recognized law?  How do your servicer guidelines take into account the incentives for fraud in the fee structure of foreclosure attorneys and others engage in the foreclosure process?  What mechanisms do you employ to monitor legal outsourcing?

We look forward to your responses and to understanding more about these disturbing dynamics in future hearings.

Sincerely,

Alan Grayson
Member of Congress

Barney Frank
Member of Congress

Corrine Brown
Member of Congress


[ipaper docId=38085026 access_key=key-16a2ffn67hrkd71ga6q0 height=600 width=600 /]

BELOW ARE EXAMPLES OF THE WORK COMING

FROM FANNIE/FREDDIE/MERS/LPS

FORECLOSURE MILL BARON’S

THERE IS MORE OF THESE


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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bogus, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, djsp enterprises, DOCX, fannie mae, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, GMAC, investigation, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, Lender Processing Services Inc., linda green, mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., notary fraud, robo signers, roger stotts, securitization, shapiro & fishman pa, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, Wall Street5 Comments

HEY NY TIMES…’NO PROOF’ JEFFREY STEPHAN HAS AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AFFIDAVIT FOR WELLS FARGO

HEY NY TIMES…’NO PROOF’ JEFFREY STEPHAN HAS AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AFFIDAVIT FOR WELLS FARGO

I guess WELLS FARGOT…

This statement from Wells Fargo appears on NY TIMES 10/1/2010:

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said “the affidavits we sign are accurate.”

SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
I.A.S. PART XXXVI SUFFOLK COUNTY

PRESENT:
HON, PAUL J. BAISLEY, JR., J.S.C.

INDEX NO.: 16038/2008
MOTION DATE: 11/24/2008
Plaintiff, MOTION NO.: 001 MI)

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY:
STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1291
Buffalo, New York 14240- 1291

Wells Fargo v. Oleg Dmitriev

Plaintiffs application is defective because there is no “affidavit made by the party” of “the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due” as required by CPLR §3215(f). The proffered “affidavit of merit and amount due” of Jeffrey Stephan identifies him as “the Limited Signing Officer of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, servicer,” but no proof of Mr. Stephan’s authority to execute such affidavit on behalf of plaintiff is offered. The proffered affidavit does not otherwise comply with the requirements of CPLR $2309(c) for an out-of-state affidavit. In addition, the facts and dates recited in the affidavit regarding the consolidated mortgage and consolidated note that are the subject of this floreclosure action are at variance with the underlying documents.

In light of the foregoing, the motion for an order of reference is denied, without prejudice to renewal on proper papers.

Proposed order of reference marked “not signed.”
Dated: March 16, 2009

Paul J. Baisley, JR
J.S.C.

[ipaper docId=37975402 access_key=key-281pa58f9x2mia6kmvxp height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, deed of trust, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, GMAC, jeffrey stephan, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, MERS, MERSCORP, Moratorium, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, rmbs, robo signers, securitization, Steven J Baum, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, wells fargo3 Comments

FL 4th DCA To Review Controversial Switch of Lender Plaintiff, Borrowers Seek To QUASH Judge Sasser ‘Confidential’ Order

FL 4th DCA To Review Controversial Switch of Lender Plaintiff, Borrowers Seek To QUASH Judge Sasser ‘Confidential’ Order

Remember Judge Meenu Sasser? Recently in the Palm Beach Post she said, “I haven’t seen any widespread problem,”…referring to fraudulent foreclosure documents.

The Bender’s should take a look at this similar case…“Cat Out Of the Bag” (Trade Secrets) in CAPITAL ONE, NA v. Forbes, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeal, 2nd Dist. 2010

Foreclosure Crisis

4th DCA to review controversial switch of lender plaintiff

September 22, 2010 By: Polyana da Costa

arret Bender and his wife Gina started a court battle more than a year ago against SunTrust Mortgage, which wanted to foreclose on their Delray Beach house to recoup a $4 million mortgage.

The Benders asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to intervene last week after they came across what many foreclosure defense attorneys call growing and serious problems in South Florida courts — plaintiff substitutions and the increasing use of confidentiality in foreclosures against a backdrop of the muddled world of securitized mortgages.

Lender-plaintiffs have often lacked the documentation to prove they are the actual owner of the mortgage in question. Many loans in foreclosure have been sold in securitized packages numerous times and tracking ownership can be complicated. Critics say judges, overwhelmed by the volume of pending foreclosures cases, have overlooked the critical issue to move cases more quickly, taking away the homeowners’ right of due process.

The Benders filed a petition to quash an order by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser granting a motion by SunTrust to keep confidential the documents related to the transfer and sale of the Benders’ mortgage. In the petition, the couple also criticized the order that allowed SunTrust to name a new plaintiff to replace itself in the foreclosure action. The order granting confidentiality was decided without a hearing and failed to identify the grounds for making the court records confidential, Fort Lauderdale appellate attorney Laura Watson claims in the petition she filed on behalf of the Benders. Watson did not return a call seeking comment by deadline.

Sasser ordered the documents related to the purchase and servicing of the mortgage be made available to attorneys representing the Benders but otherwise remain confidential. SunTrust claimed in its motion for confidentiality that the documents contained “proprietary commercial information.”

Florida International University law professor Howard Wasserman said the ruling seems unusual since no hearing was held on the confidentiality motion and the justification for granting confidentiality isn’t detailed in the order.

“Ideally, there would be an opportunity for the defense to respond, and you have to have good reason why the records should be confidential,” he said.

Continue reading…DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW

.

.

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, Judge Meenu Sasser, mortgage1 Comment

AMENDED |NEW YORK FORECLOSURE CLASS ACTION AGAINST STEVEN J. BAUM & MERSCORP

AMENDED |NEW YORK FORECLOSURE CLASS ACTION AGAINST STEVEN J. BAUM & MERSCORP

Class Action Attorney Susan Chana Lask targets Foreclosure Mill Attorneys as source of foreclosure crisis.

This is the amended complaint against Foreclosure Mill Steven J. Baum and MERSCORP.

Want to join the Class? No problem!

Please contact: SUSAN CHANA LASK, ESQ.

[ipaper docId=37881265 access_key=key-2hj0jnnmfxmm0i37q7l0 height=600 width=600 /]

Related posts:

CLASS ACTION | Connie Campbell v. Steven Baum, MERSCORP, Inc

_________________________

CLASS ACTION AMENDED against MERSCORP to include Shareholders, DJSP

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., notary fraud, note, racketeering, RICO, Steven J Baum, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, Susan Chana Lask, Trusts, truth in lending act, Wall Street2 Comments

MERS is a “defective” product, should MERS be recalled nationwide?

MERS is a “defective” product, should MERS be recalled nationwide?

This is not a GMAC thing… this is a MERS thing!

THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS THIS IS A MERS THING!

THIS IS A 65 MILLION LOAN THING!

I know if I purchased a stroller for my kid and later knew it these strollers are all defective …I hope the government would kick in and do a nationwide RECALL!!

GMAC stops some evictions, foreclosed home sales

By JANNA HERRON (AP) –

NEW YORK — GMAC Mortgage LLC said Monday it halted certain evictions and sales of foreclosed homes as it corrects “a potential issue” in its foreclosure process.

The action highlights what is becoming a larger problem for lenders and servicers that may have illegally driven homeowners out of their houses. The issue is threatening to clog up an already overloaded foreclosure process.

Lenders took back more homes in August than in any month since the start of the U.S. mortgage crisis, foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc. said last week. Banks have been stepping up repossessions to clear out their backlog of bad loans.

GMAC, which is owned by Detroit-based Ally Financial Inc., did not identify the specific internal issue that prompted the moratorium in its statement, but it has been linked to lawsuits this year surrounding the alleged falsification of a key foreclosure document.

The Florida attorney general is investigating three law firms for allegedly providing fraudulent affidavits that identify who holds the original mortgage note in foreclosure cases. In Florida and in other states, this document allows lenders to bypass a costly trial and proceed with a foreclosure.

Two of the three firms being investigated — the Law Office of Marshall C. Watson and the Law Offices of David J. Stern PA — have represented GMAC in foreclosure proceedings. And the person who signed many of these allegedly false affidavits was an employee of GMAC.

In a deposition taken in December, GMAC employee Jeffrey Stephan said he signed 10,000 affidavits or similar documents a month without personally verifying who the mortgage holder was. That means many foreclosures could have taken place based on false documentation. Stephan could not be located for comment.

“That’s hundreds of thousands of cases,” said Ice Legal PA attorney Christopher Immel who took the deposition. “And there are other people at other places who sign these kinds of documents as well.”

GMAC did not address how many homeowners would be affected by its suspension of evictions and foreclosure sales. It expects the issues to be resolved within a few weeks or, at latest, by year-end. The company didn’t respond to questions beyond its statement.

The issue of documenting who holds the mortgage is not unique to GMAC. Judges and lawyers nationwide are taking a second look at foreclosure affidavits. Many mortgages have been sliced up and sold to many investors as securities and that makes it harder to determine who is the ultimate mortgage holder.

In August, a judge in Duval County, Fla., ruled that JPMorgan Chase could not foreclose upon two homeowners because Fannie Mae carried the mortgage on its books and JPMorgan Chase only serviced the loan. JPMorgan Chase had identified itself as the owner of the loan. Similar cases across the country are pending.

The law firm that represented JPMorgan Chase in that case — Shapiro & Fishman — is the third law firm being investigated by the Florida state attorney.

Related:

MERS101


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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, jeffrey stephan, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, MERS, MERSCORP, Moratorium, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, notary fraud, QUI TAM, quiet title, racketeering, RICO, robo signers, shapiro & fishman pa, signatures, Wall Street0 Comments

GMAC, MERS & STEVEN J. BAUM PC…THE COURT IS AT LOSS ON A PURPORTED “CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT”

GMAC, MERS & STEVEN J. BAUM PC…THE COURT IS AT LOSS ON A PURPORTED “CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT”

I go through hundreds of cases each week and I have been saving this one for a rainy day. We’ll it’s raining today.

SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART XXXVI SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL J. BAISLEY, JR., J.S.C.

DATED: MAY 10. 2010

The Court is at a loss to understand how a purported “correcting assignment” can be executed eight days before the assignment it is purporting to correct. Moreover, the Court is at a loss as to the identity of the true holder of the mortgage at the time of the commencement of the action (irrespective of any arguments regarding the validity of the purported assignment(s) by MERS as nominee of the original mortgagee; see, for example, US Bank, N.A. II Collymore, 200 NY Slip Op 09019 [2d Dept 2009]), While it is well established that any issues as to a plaintiff’s standing to commence a foreclosure action are waived by the defendant-mortgagor’s failure to appear and answer (HSBC Bank v Dammond, 59 A03d 679 l2d Sept 2009]), the contradictory and conflicting submissions on this motion implicate far more than the more issue of “standing.” Indeed, the submissions appear to have been drafted with utter disregard for the facts, or for counsel’s responsibilities as an officer of the Court, and border on the fraudulent.

In the the circumstances, the motion, which is unsupported either factually or legally, is denied in all respects. Moreover, in light of the failure of the movant to establish that any party was in fact the holder of the mortgage (and the underlying note, see KLuge v Fugm:y, 145 AD2d [2d Sept 1988J) at the time of the commencement of this action – an omission that in the circumstances may not be corrected by mere amendment — the Court, on its own motion, hereby directs the plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed; and further directs Steven J. Baum, P.c. and Heather A. Johnson, Esq., the attorney of record for the plaintiff in this action and the scrivener of the affirmation referred to above, to appear before the undersigned on June 24, 2010 at II :00 a.m. to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on plaintiff and/or its attorney(s) for frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 (c).

Dated: May 10. 2010

[ipaper docId=37796861 access_key=key-1qsedtbin3aqnf0ty1c1 height=600 width=600 /]


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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bogus, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, note, RICO, Steven J Baum, Supreme Court, Susan Chana Lask, Trusts1 Comment

Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo Must Face Trial in SEC Suit, U.S. Judge Rules

Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo Must Face Trial in SEC Suit, U.S. Judge Rules

I’m really waiting to see who else will join Madoff with “Racketeering”?

By Edvard Pettersson – Sep 17, 2010 12:01 AM ET

Countrywide Financial Corp. former Chief Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo must face trial on regulators’ claims he misled investors about risks tied to subprime lending, a judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge John F. Walter in Los Angeles yesterday denied requests by Mozilo and two other former senior Countrywide executives, David Sambol and Eric Sieracki, for a ruling that there were no genuine issues to be tried. The case is now set for a jury trial in October.

“It remains to be seen whether the Securities and Exchange Commission will be able to convince a jury that defendants’ statements were indeed misleading and material,” Walter said in his decision. “At the summary judgment stage, the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter.”

The SEC sued Mozilo, 71, in June 2009, saying he publicly reassured investors about the quality of Countrywide’s loans while he issued “dire” internal warnings and sold about $140 million of his own shares.

Mozilo is the most prominent executive targeted by U.S. regulators examining the subprime mortgage crisis. He co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the nation’s biggest mortgage lender, helping trigger the subprime bubble by offering loans to customers with below-average credit scores.

‘Flying Blind’

He wrote in an e-mail that Countrywide was “flying blind” and had “no way” to determine the risks of some adjustable- rate mortgages, according to the SEC complaint.

Continue reading…. BLOOMBERG

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



Posted in bloomberg, concealment, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, countrywide, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, investigation, mbs, mozillo, rmbs, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, trade secrets, Violations, Wall Street0 Comments

EXTRA! EXTRA! FLORIDA APPEALS COURT REVERSES IT’S OWN OPINION: RUSCALLEDA v. HSBC BANK USA No. 3D09-997

EXTRA! EXTRA! FLORIDA APPEALS COURT REVERSES IT’S OWN OPINION: RUSCALLEDA v. HSBC BANK USA No. 3D09-997

RUSCALLEDA v. HSBC BANK USA

Glazy Ruscalleda and Jose Ruscalleda, Appellants,
v.
HSBC Bank USA, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D09-997.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 15, 2010.

John H. Ruiz and Karen Barnet-Backer, for appellants.

Shapiro & Fishman and Heidi J. Weinzetl (Boca Raton), for appellee.

Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION.

ROTHENBERG, J.

Upon consideration of the appellee’s motion for rehearing or clarification, we withdraw our previous opinion filed on June 9, 2010, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.

This is an appeal of a final summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action entered in favor of plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA (“HSBC”), and against the defendants, Glazy Ruscalleda and Jose Ruscalleda. Based on the unique circumstances of this case, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The unique circumstances surrounding this case involve a rather confusing situation caused by two banks—the appellee, HSBC, and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“American Home Mortgage”)—because they were simultaneously attempting to foreclose the same mortgage. On October 8, 2008, American Home Mortgage filed a foreclosure action against the defendants.[ 1 ] A week later, HSBC filed an action to foreclose the same exact mortgage. The complaint filed by HSBC falsely alleged that it was the current owner and holder of the mortgage and note, when, in reality, American Home Mortgage was still the holder of the note and mortgage.[ 2 ] On October 28, 2008, due to the actions of American Home Mortgage and HSBC, the defendants, who were acting pro se at that time, filed an answer and affirmative defenses only in the foreclosure action filed by American Home Mortgage, which was the holder of the mortgage and note, because they mistakenly believed that the complaints involved the same foreclosure action.

After filing their pro se answer and affirmative defenses, the defendants retained counsel. Continuing in their mistaken belief, they did not inform their attorney of the action filed by HSBC. On November 13, 2008, counsel filed an amended answer and affirmative defenses on behalf of the defendants in the American Home Mortgage action, but took no action on the HSBC complaint.

Although the defendants did not file an answer in response to HSBC’s complaint, HSBC never moved for a default judgment.[ 3 ] Instead, on January 22, 2009, HSBC moved for summary judgment, scheduling the hearing for March 24, 2009. When the defendants received the motion for summary judgment in the HSBC action, it sent the motion to their counsel. It was at that point, that the defendants and their counsel realized that two separate banks were attempting to simultaneously foreclose on the same mortgage, but that they only had been defending the initial action filed by American Home Mortgage.

On February 23, 2009, the defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the affidavit of Glazy Ruscalleda, and a motion to transfer the case to the division where the foreclosure action filed by American Home Mortgage was pending (“Motion to Transfer”). On February 25, 2009, the defendants filed a request for production, request for admissions, and notice of interrogatory. American Home Mortgage waited until the day before the scheduled hearing to file its notice of voluntary dismissal, although it had executed the assignment of mortgage almost three months earlier.

At the scheduled hearing, the trial court heard the arguments raised by HSBC in its motion for summary judgment and by defense counsel in his memorandum of law filed in opposition. Although it is undisputed that the defendants’ discovery was still pending, the trial court entered final summary judgment on the same day as the hearing, March 24, 2009, in favor of HSBC.[ 4 ]

Based on the unique circumstances set forth above, we conclude that the order under review must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, with directions to allow the defendants to file an answer and affirmative defenses and to require HSBC to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests. The record clearly demonstrates that the defendants’ failure to file a timely answer and affirmative defenses in the action filed by HSBC was due to the confusion caused by American Home Mortgage and HSBC when they were simultaneously attempting to foreclose on the same exact mortgage in two different divisions of the circuit court.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

[ipaper docId=37553372 access_key=key-2hn44kayr0ix1ahp23yq height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, HSBC, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, note, reversed court decision, stopforeclosurefraud.com, trustee, Trusts2 Comments

Congress Needs To ZERO IN On A “Common Thread” To Fannie, Freddie Mortgage Crisis

Congress Needs To ZERO IN On A “Common Thread” To Fannie, Freddie Mortgage Crisis

Anyone can see the “Fiction” that was set into place from all the institutions in this article below. Each one of these named parties as a shareholder utilizes Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., yet Washington never mentions this MERS device.

All this talk of false and misleading loans blah blah blah …I mean grab the bull by it’s nuts and put these criminals behind bars. Not just seek refunds! This clean up should also seek Racketeering Indictments.

Congress Seeks Fannie, Freddie Exit as Banks Eat Soured Loans

By Dawn Kopecki – Sep 15, 2010 1:00 AM ET

U.S. lawmakers will grapple today with how to end the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after two years and almost $150 billion, and who pays the bill for bad loans made during the housing boom.

Regulators who seized control of the two mortgage lenders in 2008 are under pressure to stem losses for taxpayers and recoup money from banks that sold faulty loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — all without hindering the housing market’s recovery. Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr and Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, are scheduled to testify today on their progress at the House Financial Services Committee.

The Obama administration and Congress are weighing the future of the two companies as part of an overhaul of the U.S. housing finance system. Fannie Mae, based in Washington, and Freddie Mac, based in McLean, Virginia, lost $166 billion on guarantees of single-family mortgages from the end of 2007 through the second quarter, according to the FHFA. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has promised a comprehensive proposal by early next year.

“The biggest problem in the economy is that we have three or four million too many homes,” said Chris Kotowski, a banking analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The solution “will take another two or three years to work out until we sop up the excess supply,” Kotowski said.

Loan Clean-Up

The clean-up includes seeking refunds from lenders who sold loans based on false or misleading information, and the two government-backed firms aren’t the only ones demanding buybacks. The Federal Reserve, private mortgage investors and mortgage insurers are combing through loan documents for faulty appraisals, inflated borrower incomes and missing documentation that would support a refund request.

As of the end of the second quarter 2010, Fannie Mae had $4.7 billion in outstanding repurchase requests, and Freddie Mac had $6.4 billion in outstanding repurchase requests. DeMarco said in his prepared testimony that outstanding repurchase requests continue to be “of concern.”

Continue reading…BLOOMBERG

.

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



Posted in bank of america, chain in title, CitiGroup, concealment, congress, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, Credit Suisse, fannie mae, federal reserve board, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., RICO, scam, servicers, settlement, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, trustee, Trusts, us bank, Wall Street2 Comments

MUST WATCH: ‘MERS’ ON FOX NEWS!!!

MUST WATCH: ‘MERS’ ON FOX NEWS!!!

I was wondering why this site blew up with hits today!

THIS INVOLVES 65 MILLION LOANS…it was ’62’ !!! I have a source that confirmed this.


“The Curse Of The MERS”

READ ALL ABOUT MERS HERE…MERS 101

.

.

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



Posted in chain in title, class action, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, deed of trust, Economy, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, Notary, notary fraud, note, quiet title, R.K. Arnold, racketeering, Real Estate, repossession, RICO, rmbs, robo signers, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, trade secrets, trustee, Trusts, Wall Street4 Comments

Allegations: An Ohio Judge Rigged Foreclosures

Allegations: An Ohio Judge Rigged Foreclosures

Frank Russo charges suggest he corrupted county judges

Published: Thursday, September 09, 2010, 6:10 PM     Updated: Thursday, September 09, 2010, 9:09 PM

Leila Atassi, The Plain Dealer Leila Atassi, The Plain Dealer

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The charges filed Thursday against Cuyahoga County Auditor Frank Russo offer the most detailed description yet of the suspected corrupt activities of two Common Pleas Judges — one of whom is seeking re-election.

Excerpts:

In exchange for his help, Russo wanted control over the outcome of certain [of Terry’s ] civil cases, according to the charges. The docket Terry inherited included numerous civil foreclosure cases involving Russo’s close friend O’Malley, who was representing one of the litigants. American Home Bank was seeking $190,000 in damages from O’Malley’s client.

O’Malley called upon Russo to wield his influence over Terry and convince the judge to deny motions for summary judgment in the case to force it to a settlement.

According to the charges, Russo called Terry in July 2008 and asked, “Did (a county employee) give you the case numbers? … I talked to you about this once before … it’s about denying the motions for summary judgment.”

Yep, I still have the note you gave me,” Terry replied.

“Okay, good, so deny the motions for summary judgment, okay, good. …I just wanted to touch base with you on that,” Russo said.

The following day, Terry reported to Russo that he had followed through on his promise.

I called just to tell you that I took care of those two issues with those two cases that we talked about. … Denied everything.”

Continue Reading…CLEVELAND.com

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



Posted in coercion, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, contempt, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, mortgage, settlement, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

INSIDE CHASE and the Perfect Foreclosure

INSIDE CHASE and the Perfect Foreclosure

“JPMorgan CHASE is in the foreclosure business, not the modification business’.”  That, according to Jerad Bausch, who until quite recently was an employee of CHASE’s mortgage servicing division working in the foreclosure department in Rancho Bernardo, California.

I was recently introduced to Jerad and he agreed to an interview.  (Christmas came early this year.)  His answers to my questions provided me with a window into how servicers think and operate.  And some of the things he said confirmed my fears about mortgage servicers… their interests and ours are anything but aligned.

Today, Jerad Bausch is 25 years old, but with a wife and two young children, he communicates like someone ten years older.  He had been selling cars for about three and a half years and was just 22 years old when he applied for a job at JPMorgan CHASE.  He ended up working in the mega-bank’s mortgage servicing area… the foreclosure department, to be precise.  He had absolutely no prior experience with mortgages or in real estate, but then… why would that be important?

“The car business is great in terms of bring home a good size paycheck, but to make the money you have to work all the time, 60-70 hours a week.  When our second child arrived, that schedule just wasn’t going to work.  I thought CHASE would be kind of a cushy office job that would offer some stability,” Jerad explained.

That didn’t exactly turn out to be the case.  Eighteen months after CHASE hired Jared, with numerous investors having filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of the housing meltdown, he was laid off.  The “investors” in this case are the entities that own the loans that Chase services.  When an investor files bankruptcy the loan files go to CHASE’S bankruptcy department, presumably to be liquidated by the trustee in order to satisfy the claims of creditors.

The interview process included a “panel” of CHASE executives asking Jared a variety of questions primarily in two areas.  They asked if he was the type of person that could handle working with people that were emotional and in foreclosure, and if his computer skills were up to snuff.  They asked him nothing about real estate or mortgages, or car sales for that matter.

The training program at CHASE turned out to be almost exclusively about the critical importance of documenting the files that he would be pushing through the foreclosure process and ultimately to the REO department, where they would be put back on the market and hopefully sold.  Documenting the files with everything that transpired was the single most important aspect of Jared’s job at CHASE, in fact, it was what his bonus was based on, along with the pace at which the foreclosures he processed were completed.

“A perfect foreclosure was supposed to take 120 days,” Jared explains, “and the closer you came to that benchmark, the better your numbers looked and higher your bonus would be.”

CHASE started Jared at an annual salary of $30,000, but he very quickly became a “Tier One” employee, so he earned a monthly bonus of $1,000 because he documented everything accurately and because he always processed foreclosures at as close to a “perfect” pace as possible.

“Bonuses were based on accurate and complete documentation, and on how quickly you were able to foreclosure on someone,” Jerad says.  “They rate you as Tier One, Two or Three… and if you’re Tier One, which is the top tier, then you’d get a thousand dollars a month bonus.  So, from $30,000 you went to $42,000.  Of course, if your documentation was off, or you took too long to foreclose, you wouldn’t get the bonus.”

Day-to-day, Jerad’s job was primarily to contact paralegals at the law firms used by CHASE to file foreclosures, publish sale dates, and myriad other tasks required to effectuate a foreclosure in a given state.

“It was our responsibility to stay on top of and when necessary push the lawyers to make sure things done in a timely fashion, so that foreclosures would move along in compliance with Fannie’s guidelines,” Jerad explained.  “And we documented what went on with each file so that if the investor came in to audit the files, everything would be accurate in terms of what had transpired and in what time frame.  It was all about being able to show that foreclosures were being processed as efficiently as possible.”

When a homeowner applies for a loan modification, Jerad would receive an email from the modification team telling him to put a file on hold awaiting decision on modification.  This wouldn’t count against his bonus, because Fannie Mae guidelines allow for modifications to be considered, but investors would see what was done as related to the modification, so everything had to be thoroughly documented.

“Seemed like more than 95% of the time, the instruction came back ‘proceed with foreclosure,’ according to Jerad.  “Files would be on hold pending modification, but still accruing fees and interest.  Any time a servicer does anything to a file, they’re charging people for it,” Jerad says.

I was fascinated to learn that investors do actually visit servicers and audit files to make sure things are being handled properly and homes are being foreclosed on efficiently, or modified, should that be in their best interest.  As Jerad explained, “Investors know that Polling & Servicing Agreements (“PSAs”) don’t protect them, they protect servicers, so they want to come in and audit files themselves.”

“Foreclosures are a no lose proposition for a servicer,” Jerad told me during the interview.  “The servicer gets paid more to service a delinquent loan, but they also get to tack on a whole bunch of extra fees and charges.  If the borrower reinstates the loan, which is rare, then the borrower pays those extra fees.  If the borrower loses the house, then the investor pays them.  Either way, the servicer gets their money.”

Jerad went on to say: “Our attitude at CHASE was to process everything as quickly as possible, so we can foreclose and take the house to sale.  That’s how we made our money.”

“Servicers want to show investors that they did their due diligence on a loan modification, but that in the end they just couldn’t find a way to modify.  They’re whole focus is to foreclose, not to modify.  They put the borrower through every hoop and obstacle they can, so that when something fails to get done on time, or whatever, they can deny it and proceed with the foreclosure.  Like, ‘Hey we tried, but the borrower didn’t get this one document in on time.’  That sure is what it seemed like to me, anyway.”

According to Jerad, JPMorgan CHASE in Rancho Bernardo, services foreclosures in all 50 states.  During the 18 months that he worked there, his foreclosure department of 15 people would receive 30-40 borrower files a day just from California, so each person would get two to three foreclosure a day to process just from California alone.  He also said that in Rancho Bernardo, there were no more than 5-7 people in the loan modification department, but in loss mitigation there were 30 people who processed forbearances, short sales, and other alternatives to foreclosure.  The REO department was made up of fewer than five people.

Jerad often took a smoke break with some of the guys handing loan modifications.  “They were always complaining that their supervisors weren’t approving modifications,” Jerad said.  “There was always something else they wanted that prevented the modification from being approved.  They got their bonus based on modifying loans, along with accurate documentation just like us, but it seemed like the supervisors got penalized for modifying loans, because they were all about finding a way to turn them down.”

“There’s no question about it,” Jerad said in closing, “CHASE is in the foreclosure business, not the modification business.”

Well, now… that certainly was satisfying for me.   Was it good for you too? I mean, since, as a taxpayer who bailed out CHASE and so many others, to know that they couldn’t care less about what it says in the HAMP guidelines, or what the President of the United States has said, or about our nation’s economy, or our communities… … or… well, about anything but “the perfect foreclosure,” I feel like I’ve been royally screwed, so it seemed like the appropriate question to ask.

Now I understand why servicers want foreclosures.  It’s the extra fees they can charge either the borrower or the investor related to foreclosure… it’s sort of license to steal, isn’t it?  I mean, no one questions those fees and charges, so I’m sure they’re not designed to be low margin fees and charges.  They’re certainly not subject to the forces of competition.  I wonder if they’re even regulated in any way… in fact, I’d bet they’re not.

And I also now understand why so many times it seems like they’re trying to come up with a reason to NOT modify, as opposed to modify and therefore stop a foreclosure. In fact, many of the modifications I’ve heard from homeowners about have requirements that sound like they’re straight off of “The Amazing Race” reality television show.

“You have exactly 11 hours to sign this form, have it notarized, and then deliver three copies of the document by hand to this address in one of three major U.S. cities.  The catch is you can’t drive or take a cab to get there… you must arrive by elephant.  When you arrive a small Asian man wearing one red shoe will give you your next clue.  You have exactly $265 to complete this leg of THE AMAZING CHASE!”

And, now we know why.  They’re not trying to figure out how to modify, they’re looking for a reason to foreclose and sell the house.

But, although I’m just learning how all this works, Treasury Secretary Geithner had to have known in advance what would go on inside a mortgage servicer.  And so must FDIC Chair Sheila Bair have known.  And so must a whole lot of others in Washington D.C. too, right?  After all, Jerad is a bright young man, to be sure, but if he came to understand how things worked inside a servicver in just 18 months, then I have to believe that many thousands of others know these things as well.

So, why do so many of our elected representatives continue to stand around looking surprised and even dumbfounded at HAMP not working as it was supposed to… as the president said it would?

Oh, wait a minute… that’s right… they don’t actually do that, do they?  In fact, our elected representatives don’t look surprised at all, come to think of it.  They’re not surprised because they knew about the problems.  It’s not often “in the news,” because it’s not “news” to them.

I think I’ve uncovered something, but really they already know, and they’re just having a little laugh at our collective expense… is that about right?  Is this funny to someone in Washington, or anyone anywhere for that matter?

Well, at least we found out before the elections in November.  There’s still time to send more than a few incumbents home for at least the next couple of years.

I’m not kidding about that.  Someone needs to be punished for this.  We need to send a message.

Mandelman out.

@ MANDELMAN MATTERS


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



Posted in chase, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, geithner, hamp, jpmorgan chase, Wall Street1 Comment

CALL TO ACTION: MERS ASSIGNMENTS

CALL TO ACTION: MERS ASSIGNMENTS

The Time To Act Is NOW!

I am working on a special project & need your help to gather as many MERS Assignments as we can possibly get.

What is especially needed are the Certifying Officers signing these assignments for MERS. I don’t care if it’s old, new, signed, undated, unmarked, lender has gone bankrupt ages ago…I just want them ALL!


Click the Envelope to load up your MERS Assignment(s).

Or Info at stopforeclosurefraud.com

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



Posted in Bank Owned, bankruptcy, chain in title, concealment, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, Notary, notary fraud, note, quiet title, racketeering, Real Estate, REO, RICO, rmbs, robo signers, securitization, servicers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, Supreme Court, trade secrets, trustee, Trusts, Wall Street1 Comment

MERS FAILS AS NOMINEE, AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF NOTE!

MERS FAILS AS NOMINEE, AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF NOTE!

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT NASSAU

In support of its standing to maintain the action when the action was commenced is an “Assignment of Mortgage” executed by MERS as nominee of Home Funds Direct which includes a provision indicating the assignment is TOGETHER with the bond or note. . . ” . Not only has plaintiff failed to establish MERS’ right as a nominee for purposes of recording to assign the mortgage, more importantly, no effort has been made to establish the authority of MERS, a non-party to the note, to transfer its ownership. Without establishing ownership of the note at the time the action was instituted, the plaintiff lacked a right to maintain the action.

[ipaper docId=37175715 access_key=key-2k2arwpk653s6uaz71jr height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in bank of new york, chain in title, concealment, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dismissed, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, rmbs, securitization, servicers, stopforeclosurefraud.com, Supreme Court, trustee0 Comments

MERS ‘GETS FORECLOSED’| ASSIGNS NADA TO BAC fka COUNTRYWIDE

MERS ‘GETS FORECLOSED’| ASSIGNS NADA TO BAC fka COUNTRYWIDE

Court of Appeals of Ohio

UNION BANK CO. v. NORTH CAROLINA FURNITURE EXPRESS, LLC.

2010 Ohio 4176

The Union Bank Company, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
North Carolina Furniture Express, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and
Jeffrey Smith, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Bac Home Loans Servicing Lp, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jeffrey T. Smith, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Case No. 2-10-01

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Auglaize County.

Date of Decision: September 7, 2010.

Jason A. Whitacre, Laura C. Infante and Kathryn M. Eyster for Appellant, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.

Randy L. Reeves and Sarah N. Newland for Appellees, Jeffrey Smith and Kandi Smith.

John F. Moul for Appellee, Treasurer of Auglaize County

Jerry M. Johnson and Christine M. Bollinger for Appellee, The Union Bank Company

Thomas J. Katterheinrich for Appellee, Minster Bank.

OPINION

PRESTON, J.

{¶1} Appellant-defendant, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f.k.a. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., (hereinafter “BAC”), appeals the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas’ judgments, which vacated BAC’s foreclosure action and denied motions to consolidate and substitute BAC as a party-defendant. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} This case involves two separate foreclosure actions filed in the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas that sought judgments on certain notes and mortgages encumbering the same parcel of real estate, commonly known as 422 South Franklin Street, New Bremen, Ohio (hereinafter “the property”). The facts of this case are largely not in dispute. On November 13, 2002, Jeffrey Smith and Kandi Smith (hereinafter “the Smiths”), who were members of North Carolina Furniture Express, L.L.C., executed a note in favor of SIB Mortgage Corp., a New Jersey corporation (hereinafter “SIB”), and a mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS”), solely as nominee for SIB Mortgage Corp., for $141,000.00. The mortgage was subsequently recorded in the Auglaize County Recorder’s Office on November 18, 2002.

{¶3} Several years later, on January 19, 2007, the Smiths executed another note and mortgage in favor of appellee Minster Bank (hereinafter “Minster Bank”) for $30,000.00. This mortgage was recorded in the Auglaize County Recorder’s Office on January 26, 2007. Then, on March 5, 2007, the Smiths executed three separate notes and mortgages in favor of appellee The Union Bank Company (hereinafter “Union Bank”) for $100,000.00, $25,000.00, and $24,500.00, which were subsequently recorded in the Auglaize County Recorder’s Office on March 9, 2007.[ 1 ]

{¶4} On July 23, 2008, Union Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure against the property, which was designated Case No. 2008 CV 0267 (hereinafter “the 2008 foreclosure”). In the complaint, Union Bank listed North Carolina Furniture Express, L.L.C., the Smiths, Minster Bank, MERS, SIB, the Auglaize County Treasurer, and Entrust Administration, Inc. as defendants possibly having an interest in the property. All named defendants were served with notice. According to the record, MERS was served on July 30, 2008, and SIB was served on November 14, 2008. Minster Bank and the Smiths filed timely answers to the complaint.

{¶5} Union Bank filed a motion for default judgment against defendants MERS, SIB, and Entrust Administration, Inc., on March 10, 2009. The motion for default judgment was sent to all named defendants in the matter, including MERS and SIB. The trial court granted Union Bank default judgment on March 10, 2009, specifically stating that the defendants had “been legally served with summons and that Defendants are in default for answer or appearance and therefore has no interest in and to said premises and the equity of redemption of said Defendants in the real estate described in Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be forever cut off, barred, and foreclosed.” (2008 CV 0267, Mar. 10, 2009 JE). On March 11, 2009, Union Bank filed a motion for summary judgment against the Smiths, Minster Bank, and the Auglaize County Treasurer. Similarly, a copy of the motion for summary judgment was sent to all named defendants in the matter, including MERS and SIB. On March 30, 2009, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and issued a judgment of foreclosure providing that the lien priority on the property was as follows: the Auglaize County Treasurer, Minster Bank, and then Union Bank.

{¶6} Shortly thereafter, the Smiths filed for bankruptcy on May 12, 2009, causing the matter to be stayed. On June 9, 2009, the bankruptcy court issued a relief from stay and abandonment for Union Bank, which allowed the 2008 foreclosure matter to continue effective on July 31, 2009, and the property was scheduled for sheriff’s sale on October 1, 2009. However, due to a notice of sale not being received or served on all party defendants, the sale was cancelled and rescheduled for December 4, 2009.

{¶7} During this time and right after the Smiths had filed for bankruptcy, on June 1, 2009, MERS (acting solely as a nominee for SIB) assigned appellant BAC its interest in the property. (2009 CV 312, Oct. 7, 2009 JE, Ex. A). Consequently, on August 28, 2009, BAC filed a complaint for foreclosure against the property in the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas, which was designated Case No. 2009 CV 0312 (hereinafter “the 2009 foreclosure”). Along with the complaint, BAC filed a preliminary judicial report showing what it believed to be a representation of any and all interests in the property.[ 2 ] In its complaint, BAC named the Smiths, Minster Bank, Union Bank, and the Auglaize County Treasurer as defendants having a possible interest in the property. Only Minster Bank and Union Bank filed answers to the complaint.[ 3 ] Thereafter, on October 7, 2009, BAC filed a motion for default judgment against the non-answering parties, and that same day, the trial court issued a judgment entry and decree in foreclosure granting BAC’s motion for default judgment and listing the lien priority on the property in the following order: the Auglaize County Treasurer, BAC, Minster Bank, and then Union Bank.

{¶8} As a result, on October 9, 2009, Union Bank filed a motion contra to BAC’s motion for default judgment and a motion to dismiss BAC’s complaint in the 2009 foreclosure action based on the existence of the 2008 foreclosure action. Additionally, on October 16, 2009, Union Bank and Minster Bank filed a joint motion to vacate the judgment entry of default in the 2009 foreclosure action, since they had not been afforded sufficient time to respond to BAC’s motion before the judgment entry of foreclosure had been granted.

{¶9} In response to the existence of the 2008 foreclosure action, on October 21, 2009, BAC filed several motions, which included: (1) a motion to substitute defendant BAC for defendant MERS; (2) a motion to set aside the default judgment action entered against MERS in the 2008 foreclosure action; (3) a motion to stay the 2008 foreclosure default judgment entry pending resolution of the motion to set aside the judgment entry; (4) a motion to consolidate cases 2008 CV 0267 and 2009 CV 0312; or in the alternative (5) a motion for leave to file an answer to the 2008 complaint and cross-claim.[ 4 ] Union Bank filed a response opposing all of BAC’s motions in the 2008 foreclosure case.

{¶10} In both of the foreclosure actions, the trial court set all of the motions for a hearing, which was held on November 3, 2009. Thereafter, on December 3, 2009, the trial court issued a judgment entry addressing the issues in both the 2008 and 2009 foreclosure cases, but specifically stating that it was not consolidating the cases for any other purposes other than the issues presented at the November 3, 2009 hearing. Consequently, in its judgment entry, the trial court vacated part of the 2009 foreclosure action, citing that the foreclosure portion of the action had been a “clerical error” within Civ.R. 60(A). Nevertheless, the trial court found that there had been no error as against the Smiths, and thus it allowed the 2009 foreclosure action to stand, but again only as against the Smiths individually. In addition, the trial court dismissed the 2009 foreclosure complaint on the basis of res judicata, and denied the motion to consolidate and motion to substitute defendant BAC as a party-defendant in the 2008 foreclosure action finding that BAC had not acquired an interest in the property by operation of the doctrine of lis pendens.

{¶11} BAC now appeals and raises four assignments of error. For ease of our discussion we also elect to address all of BAC’s assignments of error together.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO EXPRESSLY RULE ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FAILED TO APPLY THE PROPER STANDARD FOR RULING ON SUCH A MOTION.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT VACATED THE OCTOBER 7, 2009 JUDGMENT ENTRY IN CASE NUMBER 2009 CV 0312 PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 60(A).

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REPRIORITIZED THE LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CASE NUMBERS 2008 CV 0267 AND 2009 CV 0312.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND THAT BAC DID NOT OBTAIN AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WHEN IT OBTAINED ITS ASSIGNMENT BY OPERATION OF THE LIS PENDENS DOCTRINE.

{¶12} Essentially, BAC argues that the follwing decisions in the trial court’s December 3, 2009 judgment entry were erroneous: (1) its ruling on the motion to substitute; (2) failing to rule on its motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B); (3) vacating part of the 2009 foreclosure action; and (4) its reprioritization of the liens against the property in the 2008 foreclosure action.

{¶13} As stated above, the trial court first denied the motion to substitute BAC as a party-defendant on the basis that it did not obtain any interest in the subject real estate when it obtained its assignment from MERS. (Dec. 3, 2009 JE at 3-4). As a result, the trial court vacated part of the 2009 foreclosure action (only as against the banks) and failed to address BAC’s motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). (Id.). After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rendering its December 3, 2009 judgment entry.

{¶14} First, we will address the motion to substitute BAC as a party-defendant for MERS in the 2008 foreclosure action. Civ.R. 25 governs the substitution of parties. Specifically, Civ.R. 25(C) provides that “[i]n cases of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original action.” The decision of whether to allow a substitution of parties is discretionary with the trial court and may be granted only upon a finding of a transfer of interest. Ahlrichs v. Tri-Tex Corp. (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 207, 534 N.E.2d 1231. As a result, this Court uses an abuse of discretion standard of review when determining whether a trial court erred with respect to a motion to substitute pursuant to Civ.R. 25. Argent Mtge. Co. v. Ciemins, 8th Dist. No. 90698, 2008-Ohio-5994, ¶9, citing Young v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 12, 623 N.E.2d 94. An abuse of discretion constitutes more than an error of judgment and implies that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140. When applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id.

{¶15} While an assignment typically transfers the lien of the mortgage on the property described in the mortgage, as BAC acknowledged in its reply brief, an assignee can only take, and the assignor can only give, the interest currently held by the assignor. R.C. 5301.31. With that stated, it is clear under the facts of this case that BAC never obtained an interest in the property; thus, it could not have been substituted as a party-defendant in the 2008 foreclosure action. Here, with respect to the 2008 foreclosure action, the date the last party was served with notice was on January 28, 2009, which was almost six months before the purported assignment from MERS to BAC. Next, on March 11, 2009, the trial court issued a judgment entry of default against MERS foreclosing on its interest in the property. Once again, this default judgment was entered against MERS almost three months before the purported assignment from MERS to BAC occurred. The effect of this default judgment against MERS resulted in MERS having “no interest in and to said premises and the equity of redemption of said Defendants in the real estate described in Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be forever cut off, barred, and foreclosed.” (2008 CV 0267, Mar. 10, 2009 JE). Nevertheless, according to the documents filed by BAC to evidence its assignment from MERS, MERS assigned its interest to BAC on June 1, 2009. (2009 CV 312, Oct. 7, 2009 JE, Ex. A). Consequently, as a result of the already entered default judgment against MERS, when BAC was assigned MERS’ interest in the property on June 1, 2009, BAC did not receive a viable interest in the property. See Quill v. Maddox (May 31, 2002), 2nd Dist. No. 19052, at *2 (mortgagee’s assignee failed to establish that it had an interest in the property, as mortgagee’s interest was foreclosed by the court before mortgagee assigned its interest to assignee, which could acquire no more interest than mortgagee held). Thus, we find that it was reasonable for the trial court to have denied the motion to substitute BAC as a party-defendant for MERS given its lack of interest in the property.

{¶16} Additionally, BAC argues that the trial court erred because it did not apply the GTE Automatic standard to its motion for relief from judgment. See GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 150, 351 N.E.2d 113. In particular, BAC claims that the trial court never ruled on its Civ.R. 60(B) motion. BAC claims that not addressing its motion was erroneous. However, in this particular case, in light of our discussion above, there would have been no need to address the motion and apply any standard to the motion for relief from judgment because BAC lacked standing to challenge the default judgment entered against MERS.

{¶17} Civ.R. 60(B) allows “a party or legal representative” to vacate a default judgment upon successfully demonstrating that: “(1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time * * *.” GTE Automatic Elec., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d at 150, (emphasis added). However, BAC was neither a party nor was it a legal representative since it was not included in the original 2008 foreclosure action and was not allowed to be substituted as a party-defendant for MERS. Central Ohio Receivables Co. v. Huston (Sept. 20, 1988), 8th Dist. No. 87AP1-185, at *2-3 (holding that an assignee did not have standing to challenge a default judgment entered against its assignor). Accordingly, BAC lacked standing to challenge the default judgment entered against its assignor MERS in the 2008 foreclosure action, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to rule on its motion.

{¶18} With respect to the trial court’s decision to vacate the 2009 foreclosure action, we note that the trial court did not vacate the 2009 foreclosure action in its entirety; rather, the court only vacated the portion of the action that pertained to an interest in the property. As we will discuss in further detail below, after dismissing the parties who were brought in because they had an interest in the property (i.e., Union Bank and Minster Bank), the only aspect in the 2009 foreclosure action that remained was the default judgment action against the Smiths. (Dec. 3, 2009 JE at 3-4). Nevertheless, we find that the trial court’s decision to vacate part of the 2009 foreclosure action was not an abuse of discretion.

{¶19} First of all, since MERS’ interest in the property had already been foreclosed prior to the filing of the 2009 foreclosure action, BAC did not obtain any interest in the property when it was assigned the mortgage from MERS, thus, BAC could not have brought a foreclosure action at all. Moreover, typically a pending foreclosure action between the same parties is grounds for abatement or dismissal of an assignee’s complaint. Avco Financial Services Loan, Inc. v. Hale (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 65, 520 N.E.2d 1378; High Point Assn. v. Pochatek (Nov. 30, 1995), 8th Dist. Nos. 68000, 68395, at *3; Bates v. Postulate Invests., L.L.C., 176 Ohio App.3d 523, 2008-Ohio-2815, 892 N.E.2d 937, ¶16. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the trial court to dismiss BAC’s complaint based on the fact that the 2008 foreclosure action was still pending at the time BAC filed its 2009 foreclosure action. Therefore, although we may not agree with the trial court’s grounds for vacating most of the 2009 foreclosure action, we find that the trial court’s decision was reasonable under the circumstances and was not an abuse of discretion.

{¶20} Finally, as mentioned above, despite the trial court’s denial of the motion to substitute and its decision to vacate the 2009 foreclosure action as it related to any interest in the property, the trial court did add BAC as a lienholder in the December 3, 2009 judgment entry and stated that BAC had a fourth priority lien against the property. (Dec. 3, 2009 JE at 4). BAC claims this decision was also an abuse of discretion. Specifically, BAC claims that because the trial court recognized it had a lien against the property when it added BAC to the 2008 foreclosure lienholder list, the trial court clearly abused its discretion when it only recognized BAC as being the fourth priority lienholder, despite the fact that it had been assigned MERS lien, which would have given it the first priority lienholder to the property. Overall, BAC claims that the trial court could not have recognized it had an interest in the property without finding that it was also the first priority lienholder. While we acknowledge that the trial court obviously recognized that BAC had an interest the property, we disagree with BAC’s argument that this interest had to come from MERS’ first priority lienholder status pursuant to the mortgage.

{¶21} Despite the fact that the trial court vacated most of the 2009 foreclosure action, the trial court found that BAC’s default judgment and decree of foreclosure was valid but only as against the Smiths. This was because “as between BAC and Defendants Smith, BAC should obtain recovery of its Promissory Note, as assigned.” (Dec. 3, 2009 JE at 4). “The right to judgment on the note is one cause of action. The right to foreclose a mortgage is another cause of action. One is legal-the other is equitable.” Fifth Third Bank v. Hopkins, 177 Ohio App.3d 114, 2008-Ohio-2959, 894 N.E.2d 65, ¶15, quoting Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Simon (Aug. 17, 1977), 9th Dist. No. 8443. This is because a “mortgage is merely security for a debt and is not the debt itself.” Id., quoting Gevedon v. Hotopp, 2nd Dist. No. 20673, 2005-Ohio-4597, ¶27. As another appellate court explained:

A mortgage is a form of secured debt where the obligation, evidenced by a note, is secured by the transfer of an interest in property, accomplished by the delivery of a mortgage deed. Upon breach of condition of the mortgage agreement, a mortgagee has concurrent remedies. It may, at its option, sue in equity to foreclose, or sue at law directly on the note; or, bring an action in ejectment, Equity Savings & Loan v. Mercurio (1937), 24 Ohio Law Abs. 1, 2. Thus, suit on the note was not foreclosed by the disposition of the previous action in foreclosure, * * * Broadview Savings and Loan Company v. Crow (Dec. 30, 1982), 8th Dist. Nos. 44690, 44691, & 45002, at *3.

{¶22} As we explained above, BAC did not obtain an interest in the property since the mortgage it had obtained from MERS had already been foreclosed. Nevertheless, the default judgment entered against the Smiths in the 2009 foreclosure action gave BAC a judgment lien on the note, so BAC still had a right to collect its unsecured judgment lien out of the proceeds from the sale of the real estate. However, BAC’s judgment lien was not superior to those of Minster or Union Bank’s liens because BAC’s judgment on the note had not been issued until after the Smiths had executed mortgages to Minster and Union Bank. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it recognized BAC’s judgment lien against the property in the 2008 foreclosure action and only recognized it as the fourth lienholder, because BAC’s lien was the result of the promissory note assigned from SIB, and not a result of the mortgage assigned by MERS.

{¶23} Overall, while we may not necessarily agree with all of the doctrines and rules the trial court used in reaching its decision, we nonetheless have held that “[a] judgment by the trial court which is correct, but for a different reason, will be affirmed on appeal as there is no prejudice to the appellant.” Wedemeyer v. U.S.S. F.D.R. (CV-42) Reunion Assoc., 3d Dist. No. 1-09-57, 2010-Ohio-1502, ¶50 quoting Davis v. Widman, 184 Ohio App.3d 705, 2009-Ohio-5430, 922 N.E.2d 272, ¶16 (citations omitted). Based on our discussion above, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to substitute BAC as a party-defendant for MERS in the 2008 foreclosure case on the basis that BAC did not acquire any interest in the property, when it failed to rule on BAC’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion, when it partially vacated the 2009 foreclosure action, and when it allowed BAC to have a fourth priority judgment lien.

{¶24} BAC’s first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error are, therefore, overruled.

{¶25} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Judgments Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., concurs in Judgment Only.

ROGERS, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.

{¶26} I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part from the decision of the majority.

{¶27} As to Assignment of Error No. I, I concur fully with the majority’s finding that the trial court did not err in denying BAC’s motion to substitute it as a party-defendant for MERS. I agree with the majority’s finding that, when the trial court issued a judgment entry against MERS foreclosing on its interest on March 11, 2009, MERS no longer had any viable interest in the property which it could assign to BAC on June 1, 2009. As such, I agree that, given BAC’s lack of interest in the property, the trial court was reasonable in denying BAC’s motion to substitute.

{¶28} Additionally, I wish to emphasize that the mortgage designated MERS “solely as nominee for SIB Mortgage Corp.” As expressed in my dissent in Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Shifflet, et al., 3d Dist. No. 9-093-1, 2010-Ohio-1266, ¶¶18-21, I believe this language served solely to designate MERS as an agent for purposes of servicing the note and mortgage, and did not transfer to MERS any interest in the real estate or the repayment of moneys loaned. Therefore, it was never a real party in interest.

{¶29} Additionally, I believe that the majority’s finding in Assignment of Error No. I, with which I concur, is inconsistent with the remainder of the majority opinion.

{¶30} In its analysis of Assignment of Error No. II, the majority finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it vacated the second foreclosure action (filed by BAC) and its default judgment because (1) BAC never obtained any interest in the property when MERS assigned to it the Smiths’ mortgage, and (2) a pending foreclosure action may be grounds for dismissal of an assignee’s complaint where the action is between the same parties. Nevertheless, the trial court did not vacate the portion of the second foreclosure action against the Smiths individually. Further, in its analysis of Assignment of Error No. II, the majority finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in listing BAC as the fourth priority lienholder because (1) BAC had a right to collect its unsecured judgment lien from the sale of the real estate foreclosed upon, and (2) BAC’s judgment lien was subordinate to Minster and Union Bank’s interests.

{¶31} While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in vacating portions of the second foreclosure action, I believe the trial court erred in failing to vacate the entire second foreclosure action. I find inconsistent the majority’s finding that any interest MERS had in the property was extinguished on March 11, 2009, and, thus, that it passed no viable interest to BAC, and the majority’s subsequent validation of the trial court’s finding that BAC’s default judgment and decree of foreclosure was valid against the Smiths. For the same reason, I find inconsistent the majority’s validation of the trial court’s prioritizing of BAC as the fourth lienholder in its December 2009 entry. I believe that the March 11, 2009 default judgment extinguished both the legal and equitable interests MERS, and consequently, BAC, had in the property. I would, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment, finding that it should have vacated the entire second foreclosure action and that it abused its discretion in recognizing BAC as a lienholder in the first foreclosure action, to which it was never a party. See, also, Fifth Third Bank v. Hopkins, 177 Ohio App.3d 114, 2008-Ohio-2959, ¶20 (Carr, P.J., concurring) (noting that, “[I]f such subsequent claims are not barred, consumers will be needlessly forced to defend numerous separate lawsuits. The ramifications could be onerous. First, to pay to defend against multiple lawsuits, debt-laden consumers might be forced to assume even greater financial burdens, taking out second or third mortgages on subsequent real estate purchases. This cycle could lead to consumers’ overextending themselves financially and facing additional subsequent foreclosure actions. Second, I believe that these subsequent lawsuits for money due, which could be resolved in conjunction with an initial foreclosure action, would clog the dockets of our trial courts”).

{¶32} I also disagree with the trial court’s application of the lis pendens doctrine, which it used to support its conclusion that BAC never obtained an interest in the property. I do not believe this is an appropriate use of lis pendens, but rather that any interest MERS had, and consequently that BAC could have obtained, was extinguished as operation of judgment.

{¶33} Finally, even if BAC had a valid assignment from a real party in interest, I would find that BAC’s foreclosure filing was barred by res judicata as argued in Union Bank’s “Motion in Contra to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.” The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata encompasses the two related concepts of claim preclusion, also known as * * * estoppel by judgment, and issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.” Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381, 1995-Ohio-331. This Court has previously held that “[c]laim preclusion prevents subsequent actions, by the same parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of a transaction that was the subject matter of a previous action.” Dawson v. Dawson, 3d Dist. Nos. 14-09-08, 10, 11, 12, 2009O-hio-6029, ¶36. Additionally, “[w]here a claim could have been litigated in the previous suit, claim preclusion also bars subsequent actions on that matter.” Dawson, 2009-Ohio-6029, at ¶36, citing Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d at 382. Here, Union Bank obtained a default judgment against BAC concerning the same subject matter in March 2009. Consequently, I would find BAC’s foreclosure filing in August 2009 to be barred by res judicata.

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



Posted in bac home loans, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dismissed, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, MERS, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., stopforeclosurefraud.com1 Comment

Mr. Velez, I am sorry for what the judge did.

Mr. Velez, I am sorry for what the judge did.

Ok… before we get to the transcript below I want to point out a few issues I found.

The question that remains is how did EVERHOME “ever” get a hold of any mortgage? It has no assignment in PB records.

EVERHOME is a Shareholder/ Owner of MERS. There is also a connection between CitiMortgage and a Verdugo Trustee Service Corporation.

In 2006 MERS released a mortgage belonging to the Velez’s. MERS Vice President name is Merhl Gibson and the notary is Jane Eyler. Both from Maryland. It appears that the same individual signed the entire document. See exhibit below.

Now these same individuals are signing this document below as Vice President and Notary for CitiMortgage. But take a close look and compare the signatures to the release above.Both of these are about a few weeks apart. Merhl’s stamp is from New York.

Not to mention in William C. Hultman’s deposition earlier this year he states MERS has ZERO EMPLOYEES. So where exactly are the live persons whom get these delivered to MERS to sign?

Thank you to 4ClosureFraud for this info below.

Comment from a reader of this site…

Lori Bangor says:

September 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM

“On 8/30, I had a Summary Judgment Foreclosure hearing on Palm Beach County’s “Rocket Docket”. The judge spoke for 14 minutes to the crowd, of mostly pro se defendants, about how they should just agree to the summary judgment and the plaintiffs, (whose attorneys (Shapiro & Fishman had a dedicated courtroom and to whom he referred to as “my attorneys”) would be gracious (Ha!) enough to allow them to stay in their homes for 120 days if needed (even though the statute says he only has to give them 30). When it came to hearing arguments which were fully briefed and provided to the court (pursuant to the instructions of the Divisions head judge) he only allowed 30-60 seconds for argument, failed to read any of the papers, failed to review the plaintiff’s foreclosure package,flatly ignored the Affidavit filed in Opposition, ignored my plea for a trial, signed the judgment and dismissed me. I never was permitted to even read the proposed judgment or to examine the “newly discovered” allonge which Shapiro’s counsel said I had no right to see. Thank God I had a court reporter!”

Well it just happens to be that Lori is an Attorney and got a transcript of  what went down…

This is what happens everyday…

I have seen it first hand…

Horrifying…

Full transcript below…

[ipaper docId=36808660 access_key=key-23og4xre46fgbtqgcorz height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in chain in title, citimortgage, concealment, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., notary fraud, note, Real Estate, robo signers, servicers, shapiro & fishman pa, stopforeclosurefraud.com, trustee, William C. Hultman4 Comments

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

Archives