From a Maine House, a National Foreclosure Freeze

By DAVID STREITFELD
Published: October 14, 2010

DENMARK, Me. — The house that set off the national furor over faulty foreclosures is blue-gray and weathered. The porch is piled with furniture and knickknacks awaiting the next yard sale. In the driveway is a busted pickup truck. No one who lives there is going anywhere anytime soon.

Nicolle Bradbury bought this house seven years ago for $75,000, a major step up from the trailer she had been living in with her family. But she lost her job and the $474 monthly mortgage payment became difficult, then impossible.

It should have been a routine foreclosure, with Mrs. Bradbury joining the anonymous millions quietly dispossessed since the recession began. But she was savvy enough to contact a nonprofit group, Pine Tree Legal Assistance, where for once in her 38 years, she caught a break.

Her file was pulled, more or less at random, by Thomas A. Cox, a retired lawyer who volunteers at Pine Tree. He happened to know something about foreclosures because when he worked for a bank he did them all the time. Twenty years later, he had switched sides and, he says, was trying to make amends.

Suddenly, there is a frenzy over foreclosures. Every attorney general in the country is participating in an investigation into the flawed paperwork and questionable methods behind many of them. A Senate hearing is scheduled, and federal inquiries have begun. The housing market, which runs on foreclosure sales, is in turmoil. Bank stocks fell on Thursday as analysts tried to gauge the impact on lenders’ bottom lines.

All of this is largely because Mr. Cox realized almost immediately that Mrs. Bradbury’s foreclosure file did not look right. The documents from the lender, GMAC Mortgage, were approved by an employee whose title was “limited signing officer,” an indication to the lawyer that his knowledge of the case was effectively nonexistent.

Mr. Cox eventually won the right to depose the employee, who casually acknowledged that he had prepared 400 foreclosures a day for GMAC and that contrary to his sworn statements, they had not been reviewed by him or anyone else.

Continue reading…NYTIMES

.

Scribd

Business Insider published this report yesterday:

Excerpts:

Earlier, we wrote about Felix Salmon’s contention that there’s a new mortgage fraud scandal that has the potential to dwarf Goldman’s ABACUS dealings. In this fraud scenario, banks took advantage of their information advantage and sold CDOs with mortgages they knew to be bad without clear representation to investors.

In August, Manal Mehta and Branch Hill Capital put together a presentation targeting Bank of America’s potential exposure to this mortgage fraud, as well as other problems in the mortgage market.

The presentation comes to a pretty damning conclusion: Bank of America’s exposure could nearly halve its share price.

It’s all about what capital Bank of America has in reserve for the scenario of mortgages having to come back on its balance sheet.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-mortgage-report-2010-10#ixzz12X9OhENP

.

CONFIDENTIAL PRESENTATION

Scribd

HOMEOWNER
vs.
ROBO SIGNERS

Watch the full episode. See more Nightly Business Report.

SOURCE: PBS

Related Links:

_________________

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons

_________________

Law Offices of David J. Stern, MERS | Assignment of Mortgage NOT EXECUTED but RECORDED

_________________

Cheryl Samons | No Signature, No Notary, 1 Witness…No Problem!

_________________

STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!

Foreclosure Crisis Trips Up a SPAC

October 15, 2010, 10:00 am

The foreclosure crisis has an unusual capital markets twist. A law firm at the center of the controversy in Florida, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, sold its foreclosure-servicing business to a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, the Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corporation, less than a year ago. The newly formed company is called DJSP Enterprises.

When I last wrote about SPACs, it was to note their looming death. SPACs are specially formed public companies set up to acquire a single public company and take it private. I have previously criticized these entities on the following grounds:

A purchase of SPAC securities is typically an investment in a single, to-be-determined acquisition. At the time of his or her purchase, a public investor is uncertain what business or industry the SPAC will enter, the size of the SPAC’s acquisition and the leverage it will bear and whether the SPAC’s management will have any facility in the industry of the investment. Their influence on these matters is instead limited to a vote on the acquisition.

However, this vote is one that has an inherently coercive aspect to it; a nay vote entitles investors only to their share of the remaining offering proceeds, an amount that is less than their original investment. By this time, you are unlikely to want to take the loss instead preferring to take a flyer on the acquisition. A SPAC investor is also left relying upon the SPAC sponsors to select an appropriate target.

These problems appear to have borne fruit. According to SPAC Analytics, SPACs have significantly underperformed the market. Their index of special purpose acquisition companies shows that since their reappearance back in 2003, SPACs are down 17.8 percent, compared with a fall of 4.5 percent in the Russell 2000. During this time, there have also been some terrible blow-ups. This includes American Apparel which, after a long struggle, was itself acquired by a SPAC, the Endeavor Acquisition Corporation, in 2007. American Apparel has struggled with liquidity problems of late and averted breaching its debt covenants at the last minute when its primary lender, Lion Capital, agreed to modify American Apparel’s loan.

The DJSP Enterprises SPAC was always a particularly risky deal. The initial SPAC was formed under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. This presumably was to take advantage of tax laws and the laxer disclosure laws applicable to foreign issuers, particularly those that are not listed elsewhere.

Continue reading…NY TIMES DEAL BOOK

.

Source: The Dylan Ratigan Show- LINK
.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. GRG [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

JUDITH ALEJANDRE and SERGIO TERRON, Appellants,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
f/k/a BANKER’S TRUST COMPANY, as TRUSTEE
and CUSTODIAN FOR NATIXIS 2007-HE2, Appellee.

No. 4D09-2280.

October 13, 2010 –

Joshua Bleil and Jessica Ticktin of The Ticktin Law Group, P.A.,
Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

No brief filed for appellee.

Judith Alejandre and Sergio Terron (Alejandre) appeal the summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank Trust Company. Alejandre asserts that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment and that they had asserted affirmative defenses which were not denied by Deutsche, dealt with during the hearing on the motion for summary judgment or addressed in the final judgment. We agree and reverse.

Deutsche filed an amended complaint with the necessary documentation alleging that it was entitled to foreclose on the property in question. In Alejandre’s answer to the amended complaint, they asserted as affirmative defenses, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and unclean hands. In moving for summary judgment, Deutsche attached an affidavit stating that it had advanced to Alejandre, and is owed by Alejandre, the sum of $337,567.26. In its motion, however, it did not address any of the pending affirmative defenses. Nonetheless, the trial court granted Deutsche’s motion for summary judgment, prompting this appeal.

“The standard of review of the entry of summary judgment is de novo.” Craven v. TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd.,925 So.2d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Further, [t]he law is well settled in Florida that a party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought.” Id. at 479-80. “Summary judgment cannot be granted unless the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, conclusively show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Frost v. Regions Bank,15 So.3d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

When a party raises affirmative defenses, “[a] summary judgment should not be granted where there are issues of fact raised by [the] affirmative defense[s] which have not been effectively factually challenged and refuted.” Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co.,516 So.2d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Thus, “`[i]n order for a plaintiff . . . to obtain a summary judgment when the defendant asserts affirmative defenses, the plaintiff must either disprove those defenses by evidence or establish the legal insufficiency of the defenses.’” Id. (quoting Bunner v. Fla. Coast Bank of Coral Springs, N.A.,390 So.2d 126, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)). In such instances, “[t]he burden is on the plaintiff, as the moving party, to demonstrate that the defendant could not prevail.” Id.

In Frost, a bank/mortgagee filed a foreclosure claim against a mortgagor. In response to that complaint, the mortgagors filed an answer that contained the affirmative defense of notice and opportunity to cure. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition to that motion, the mortgagors did not file any papers or affidavits. At the hearing, the mortgagors contended that summary judgment was improper because the bank failed to address their affirmative defense. The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Frost, 15 So. 3d at 906.

On appeal, this court reversed. We stated that the bank failed to refute the mortgagors’ affirmative defense of lack of notice and opportunity to cure. The bank failed to meet this requirement because “[n]othing in the bank’s complaint, motion for summary judgment, or affidavits indicate that the bank gave the [mortgagors] the notice which the mortgage required. The bank also did not establish that the [mortgagors'] lack of notice and opportunity to cure defense was legally insufficient.” Id. at 906. This Court held that “[b]ecause the bank did not meet its burden to refute the [mortgagors'] lack of notice and opportunity to cure defense, the bank is not entitled to final summary judgment of foreclosure.” Id. at 906-07.

In the instant case, as in Frost, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was improper. Here, as in Frost, Deutsche moved for summary judgment, but in that motion, it failed to address affirmative defenses raised by the mortgagor, Alejandre. Because Deutsche failed to address Alejandre’s affirmative defenses, it did not carry its burden on summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was erroneous. We do not pass upon the merits of the affirmative defenses, as that is a matter to be addressed in further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded for Further Proceedings Consistent with this Opinion.

TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

ALEJANDRE v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY

Scribd

This is a major victory for Florida residents.

Florida Judge Eileen O’Connor denied Law Office of David J. Stern motion to quash a subpoena from Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in connection with the AG’s investigation into several of the state’s foreclosure firms.

Will add more to this as it comes in.

.

.

David-J-Stern-AG-Subpoena

Scribd

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair to the Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC
October 13, 2010 Opener

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to speak. The real estate sector has played a leading role in the recession and financial turmoil we have experienced in the past few years. The downturn in residential real estate markets and the ensuing financial crisis plunged the country into deep recession.

The economy is now recovering, but progress is slow, and the effects of the recession — including high unemployment — are likely to persist for some time. Once again, the health of the real estate sector will be crucial in determining the path of the entire economy. Restoring stability and normalcy to residential and commercial real estate markets will be essential to establishing a more robust economic recovery. But we still have a lot of work to do to repair our system of mortgage finance.

What I would like to discuss with you today is the work that needs to be done — in the short term and over the long term — to restore the vitality of real estate finance and the stability of our financial system.

Outlook for Housing and the Mortgage Market

After three long and difficult years for the housing sector, we’ve begun to see positive signs — but also continue to see hurdles to overcome. Home prices have largely stabilized in most markets. The Case-Shiller 10-city home price index, which declined by some 33 percent from the height of the crisis, has risen by just over 4 percent in the past year.

Federal policy initiatives — including tax credits for new buyers, the Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program, and the Federal Reserve purchases of mortgage-backed bonds — have played an important role in helping to restore stability to U.S. housing markets. But these initiatives come at the price of unprecedented government intervention. Through the FHA and the GSEs, nearly 60 percent of all mortgages outstanding today have government backing. Of the nearly $2.5 trillion in loan originations since 2009, about 94 percent were guaranteed by the GSEs, the FHA or the VA. In addition, the Federal Reserve has purchased more than $1 trillion of mortgage-backed securities.

And despite this unprecedented intervention, many challenges exist. Expiration of the homebuyer tax credit in April led to a second-quarter slump in new home sales and building-related retail sales that helped to slow the pace of economic growth over the summer.

Mortgage Foreclosures Trends

Meanwhile, a sustained high volume of mortgage foreclosures has been adding to the number of vacant homes and distressed sales. Some 2.4 million mortgages remained in the foreclosure process at the end of June, while another 2.7 million mortgages were at least 60 days past due. As of June, an estimated 11 million homeowners, or nearly 1 in 4 of those with mortgages, were underwater, owing more than their homes are worth. Not only are these borrowers generally unable to take advantage of today’s record low mortgage rates to refinance, but they become more likely to walk-away from their mortgages.

We also need to move away from incentives that encourage the lax underwriting that we saw prior to the crisis.

Sometimes I wonder: Have lenders really learned their lessons?

Just a few days ago, I received a flier from a mortgage lender offering 3.75% fixed rates programs up to 125% of value, and 24-hour underwriting.

And now we have the added concern that lenders may have been foreclosing on homes without proper documentation. The “robo-signing” of foreclosure documents is a serious matter for loan servicers, homeowners, and the entire industry. Upon initial review, it appears that FDIC supervised non-member state banks did not engage in this behavior and have limited exposure to loans signed by “robo-signers.”

We continue to closely monitor the situation, including working with other regulators through our backup examination capacity where the FDIC is not the primary federal regulator. We are also requesting certifications from loss share participants in our failed bank transactions that their foreclosure activity complies with all legal requirements.

The robo-signer situation underscores how wrong things went in the financial crisis and that there is still a lot of work to do. Foreclosure is a costly, unpleasant, and emotional process. It hurts communities and families alike. It should be a last resort. Loan modifications should be considered whenever possible. Foreclosure should only come after careful thought, thorough analysis, and good documentation.

Properly Aligning Incentives and the “Safe Harbor” Rule

The robo-signing issue also points to the poorly aligned incentives that have existed in the mortgage servicing business. Because the pricing of mortgage securitization deals did not adequately provide for special servicing, servicers were not funded or adequately staffed to address problems.

Not only that, servicers are often required to advance principal and interest on nonperforming loans to securitization trusts — but are quickly reimbursed for foreclosure costs. These incentives can have the effect of encouraging foreclosures, while discouraging modifications.

To address these and other problems, the FDIC recently adopted a new rule on securitizations. The new rule requires that the issue of servicer incentives be addressed in order to obtain safe-harbor status. Servicing agreements must provide servicers with the authority to act to mitigate losses in a timely manner and modify loans in order to address reasonably foreseeable defaults. The agreements must require the servicer to act for the benefit of all investors, not for any particular class of investors.

The rule also addresses a recurring problem in servicing: the obligation for servicers to continue funding payments missed by borrowers. Under most current servicing agreements, this obligation has the effect of accelerating foreclosures as servicers seek to recover these payments by selling the home. Our new rule strictly limits advances to just three payments unless there is a way to repay the servicer that does not rely on foreclosure.

While the FDIC’s new rule will help create positive incentives for servicing, it is, by the nature of our authority, limited to banks. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law now provides a chance to improve incentives across the market, whether the securitization is issued by a bank or not. Dodd-Frank requires regulations governing the risk retained by a securitizer. Those regulations may reduce the standard 5 percent risk-retention where the loan poses a reduced risk of default.

Given the important role that quality servicing plays in mitigating the incidence of default, I believe that the new regulations should address the need for reform of the servicing process. We want the securitization market to come back, but in a sustainable manner.

Its return should be characterized by strong disclosure requirements, high-quality loans, accurate documentation, better oversight of servicers, and incentives to assure that servicers act to maximize value for all investors.

The Government’s Footprint in the Mortgage Market

Looking down the road, the big question on everyone’s mind is what to do about federal government involvement in mortgage lending. For now, federal involvement is needed to keep credit flowing on reasonable terms to the housing market as the economy and the financial system recover. But going forward, there needs to be a broader debate about the future role of government in mortgage finance and the housing sector.

In hindsight, the implicit government backing enjoyed by the mortgage GSEs, where profits were privatized and the risks were socialized, was an accident waiting to happen. The time has come to take a hard look at the full range of housing policies and programs, including the size and nature of tax breaks and other subsidies to owner-occupied and rental real estate. As a nation, we must shift our focus away from narrow, short-term political interests and toward policies that create long-term sustainable improvement in the living standards of all Americans.

Commercial Real Estate Lending

We also face significant challenges in commercial real estate. Average CRE prices are down by 30 to 40 percent or more from their peak levels of 2007, and rents continue to drop for most property types and in most geographic markets.

Credit availability has also been limited as lenders have tightened standards, issuers have virtually stopped offering commercial mortgage-backed securities, and the credit standing of many borrowers has declined. FDIC-insured institutions hold about half of the $3.5 trillion in CRE loans outstanding, which means we’ve been focused on commercial real estate for a very long time. Lenders will continue to face some tough choices when loans come up for renewal with collateral values that have declined significantly from peak levels.

The federal regulatory agencies issued guidance last Fall designed to provide more clarity to banks on how to report those cases where they had restructured problem loans. This was an important step to reduce uncertainty as to how restructuring efforts would be viewed and reported for regulatory purposes.

Some have criticized these loan workouts as a policy of “extend and pretend.” But, as on the residential side, the restructuring of commercial real estate loans around today’s cash flows and today’s low interest rates may be preferable to the alternative of foreclosure and the forced sale of a distressed property. And going forward, as is the case with residential mortgage lending, we need better risk management and stronger lending standards for bank and nonbank originators to help prevent a recurrence of problems in commercial real estate finance.

Conclusion

Obviously, these remain very challenging times for the real estate industry, and for our economy at large. Recovery of the U.S. real estate sector will take time. Problem loans will need to be worked out or written off, and credit channels will have to be re-established around a sounder set of market practices.

As this is taking place, the FDIC and other regulators will be doing our part to promptly and carefully implement the various elements of Dodd-Frank. We are committed to transparency and openness in this process, and have established an open-door policy to make it easier for the public to give input and track the rulemaking process.

I know there is a lot of concern out there right now that Washington and the business community are at cross purposes, and that financial regulatory reform could become an impediment to the economic recovery. I understand these concerns.

But I want to emphasize to you, as I said at the outset of my remarks, that I firmly believe that we share the same basic goals: to restore the vitality of real estate finance and the stability of our financial system. The American people have paid a high price for the mistakes, excesses and abuses of the past. And there is plenty of blame to go around.

I think they are looking for us, as leaders in government and business, to work together and come up with common sense approaches that will put our financial system on a sounder and steadier path for the future. I have outlined some of my thoughts on what needs to be done, and I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts as well in the Q&A session.

We have many challenges before us. But we are Americans. And that means that when the challenges are the greatest, we work together to resolve differences, find solutions and fix the problem. That knowledge, of who we are and what we’re capable of, should give all of us confidence that the future remains bright despite the challenges of the present. Thank you.

Last Updated 10/13/2010 communications@fdic.gov

October 14, 2010

Robert S. Mueller III
Director Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20535

Robert O’Neill
US Attorney
Central District of Florida
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear US Attorney Robert O’Neill and Director Mueller,

When it comes to foreclosures, there is mounting evidence of a state of rampant lawlessness in Central Florida. There are increasing signs that big banks routinely evade laws meant to protect homeowners, in many well-documented cases of ‘foreclosure fraud’. Despite the demonstrated existence, for instance, of ‘robosigners’ signing affidavits attesting to documents that they have never seen, the parties engaging in such misconduct are not being brought to justice. Big banks are mischaracterizing this as mere “technical problems,” and apologizing only where there is clear and very public evidence of harm.

It is not enough for big banks only to apologize for fraud, perjury, and even breaking and entering – when they are caught. It is time for handcuffs. Fraud does not become legal just because a big bank does it.

On September 20, 2010, after my office found evidence of systemic foreclosure fraud perpetrated by big banks and foreclosure mills, I called for a halt to illegal foreclosures.

Since then, big banks such as Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, GMAC, PNC and others have suspended foreclosures or foreclosure sales. These banks are still claiming that the massive fraud they have perpetrated amounts to nothing more than a series of technical mistakes. This is absurd. This is deliberate, systemic fraud, and it is a crime.

To give but two of the many available examples, attached is a deposition from an ex-employee of one of the largest ‘foreclosure mills’ in the state, the Law Offices of David Stern. In it, this employee testifies under oath that it was routine for that office to falsify documents regarding military records, in order to move foreclosure cases along more quickly.

The local media has reported on the case of Nancy Jacobini; a contractor for JP Morgan Chase broke into her home after the bank mistakenly foreclosed on it. JP Morgan Chase ‘apologized’ for terrifying her. But we do not have an apology-based legal system; we have a system of laws. I am writing to ask you to enforce them.

The organized and systematic manufacturing of falsified documents to deprive people of their homes is not only a threat to the integrity of the legal system. It also aggravates and extends the weakness in the housing market. Who is going to feel comfortable buying a home if a big bank can simply take it, whether or not that bank has a right to it? Given the securitization of mortgage-backed securities, this misconduct is a threat to our securities markets as well. But fundamentally, this is a question of protecting basic property rights – if you don’t own it, then you shouldn’t try to take it. Without clear property rights, and a legal system that insists on clear proof of those rights before transferring ownership by force, the economy will fall apart.

If perpetrators of perjured affidavits and other systematic criminal activity can get off simply with civil liability — or even less, an insincere bureaucratic apology — the freedom that Americans enjoy will erode quickly in the face of lawless seizures of property. I appreciate your work on the joint Middle District of Florida’s Mortgage Fraud Initiative, and respectfully request that the efforts of your offices turn towards reining in this rampant criminality.

Regards,
Alan Grayson
Member of Congress

Foreclosure Fraud: “Burger King Kids” Signed Foreclosure Papers

Exactly 2 years ago to this day you held a rally in Toledo, Ohio. In your speech you spoke about our economy and the path it would travel if we did not propose “Change”.

In this speech in Ohio you proposed a 90 day Moratorium on Foreclosures.

You made this statement.

“We cannot allow homeowners and small towns to suffer because of the mess made by Wall Street and by Washington and for those Americans in danger of losing their homes today I’m also proposing a three month moratorium on foreclosures. If your a bank…if your a bank or a lender who’s getting money from the rescue plan that passed congress and your customers are making a good faith effort to make their mortgage payments and renegotiate their mortgage you will not be able to foreclose on their home for three months. We need to get to give the people the breathing room to get back on their feet”.

Today we come to the conclusion they not only are kicking us out of our homes but engaging in a “pattern of conduct” using fraudulent documents to do so. This is clear fraud upon the courts and this is unacceptable in AMERICA.

Yesterday I received an email informing me of a 74 year old woman will be evicted today. This is our sister, mother…grandmother. Can you imagine walking in her shoes and all she has struggled to maybe have a taste of being whole at 74? Do you understand the fear she has of not knowing where she will go, end up? Does anyone care what will happen to this human?

These are the emails that make me contribute to the cause.

I once had hope for change but now I am hopeless in what I witness being accepted.

Below is the actual video of the rally you held in Ohio. I hope you listen carefully to your own words and do the right thing for the American people today.

We are listening and demand a Foreclosure Freeze to this rampant Foreclosure Fraud.

Respectfully,

Damian-

DinSFLA

This is what we have been saying from day 1. By using MERS they have split the Note and Mortgage= “Bifurcate”.

By not assigning from the Originator to the Sponsor this is where lies the problem. Instead they transferred the notes to the Trusts in ___________________________ name? Which leaves this a Bearer instrument.

So by maintaining the notes in a bearer name, each step must have been documented and assigned according to the PSA. If these were securitized, question is did the true sale ever happen? Bottom Line.

Delivery & Acceptance Must Happen

Nearly all Pooling and Servicing Agreements require that On the Closing Date, the Purchaser will assign to the Trustee pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement all of its right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and its rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15), and the Trustee shall succeed to such right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and the Purchaser’s rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15). Also, an Assignment of Mortgage must accompany each note and this almost never happens.

We believe nearly every single loan transferred was transferred to the Trust in blank name. That is to say the actual loans were apparently not, as of either the cut-off or closing dates, assigned to the Trust as required by the PSA.

Quite the can of worms. Anyone who says that the banks will fix all this in a few months is seriously delusional.

I am not a pro, finance guru and that is why there is a comment section below. But I do have common sense and I smell scam.

Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry …each state is different. Eliminate Electronic Recordings PERIOD!

One of the best videos I have seen on this crisis.

RELATED LINKS:

SECURITIZATION 101

.

MERS 101

Mother Jones has dropped an exclusive today and reports Fannie, Freddie Ditch Foreclosure King David J. Stern’s firm.

Here is an excerpt by Andy Kroll:

Not only have Fannie and Freddie suspended foreclosure referrals to Stern’s firm, the Wall Street Journal reported, but two major banks—Citigroup and GMAC—have also stopped sending cases to the firm, which is under investigation by the Florida attorney general Bill McCollum. “Pending the outcome of the AG’s investigation, Citi is not referring new matters to this firm,” read a company statement.

Continue reading…Mother Jones

.

.

.

.

.

.

Christopher Lewis Peterson

University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Journal, Forthcoming

Abstract:

Hundreds of thousands of home foreclosure lawsuits have focused judicial scrutiny on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”). This Article updates and expands upon an earlier piece by exploring the implications of state Supreme Court decisions holding that MERS is not a mortgagee in security agreements that list it as such. In particular this Article looks at: (1) the consequences on land title records of recording mortgages in the name of a purported mortgagee that is not actually mortgagee as a matter of law; (2) whether a security agreement that fails to name an actual mortgagee can successfully convey a property interest; and (3) whether county governments may be entitled to reimbursement of recording fees avoided through the use of false statements associated with the MERS system. This Article concludes with a discussion of steps needed to rebuild trustworthy real property ownership records.

Scribd