Law Office Of Steven J. Baum

Archive | Law Office Of Steven J. Baum

Buffalo Foreclosure Law Firm Faces Suit

Buffalo Foreclosure Law Firm Faces Suit

“This is the biggest fraud in history, and it’s being done by the attorneys. The banks wouldn’t be able to do it without the attorneys,” said attorney Susan Chana Lask. “These attorneys are not acting like attorneys.”

By Jonathan D. Epstein, The Buffalo News, N.Y.

Updated: October 17, 2010, 6:57 AM

As a national crisis builds over allegations of foreclosure fraud, and New York joins other states in a multistate investigation and in calls for a freeze on home seizures, Buffalo’s biggest foreclosure law firm is drawing complaints for its own practices.

A New York City attorney representing two downstate homeowners has filed a lawsuit against Steven J. Baum PC, calling the law firm a “foreclosure mill” that engages in “sloppy, irresponsible” work as part of a mortgage industry conspiracy to bilk homeowners.

The suit accuses Baum of knowingly and fraudulently filing foreclosures, paperwork and false notarizations statewide on behalf of lenders that don’t hold the actual mortgages, including HSBC Bank USA and its mortgage subsidiary.

Instead, the lawsuit says, the firm faked foreclosure and other documents when necessary, in order to preserve about $200 million a year in “reliable” income. And it accuses the firm of racketeering, fraud, deceit, unjust enrichment and violations of federal mortgage and debt collection laws.

Finally, the suit, which is filing for class-action status, seeks restitution for tens of thousands of former homeowners and punitive damages worth hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as a restraining order. The case is still pending, and has not been granted class-action status.

“This is the biggest fraud in history, and it’s being done by the attorneys. The banks wouldn’t be able to do it without the attorneys,” said attorney Susan Chana Lask. “These attorneys are not acting like attorneys.”

The Baum firm issued a brief comment.

“Because of confidentiality reasons, we cannot comment on this specific matter,” the firm said in a statement. “However, we follow the rules and regulations regarding the various pro-cesses involved in a foreclosure proceeding and take the utmost care in doing so.”

Continue reading…BUFFALO NEWS

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, Susan Chana Lask2 Comments

NY BANKRUPTCY COURT In Re: Fagan DECISION GRANTING SANCTIONS FOR MOTION TO LIFT STAY BASED ON FALSE CERTIFICATION

NY BANKRUPTCY COURT In Re: Fagan DECISION GRANTING SANCTIONS FOR MOTION TO LIFT STAY BASED ON FALSE CERTIFICATION

Please read this case and the words this Judge uses ….It appears that Steven J. Baum P.C. has been up to this for quite some time.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR PUBLICATION

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

In re: :

Chapter 13

EILEEN FAGAN, :
Case No. 04 B 23460 (ASH)
Debtor. :
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x
A P P E A R A N C E S :
LAW OFFICE OF SHMUEL KLEIN, P.C.
Attorneys for Debtor
By: Shmuel Klein, Esq.
268 Route 59
Spring Valley, NY 10977

STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.
Attorneys for Secured Creditor
By: Dennis Jose, Esq.
220 Northpointe Parkway, Suite G
Amherst, NY 14228

ADLAI S. HARDIN, JR.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

DECISION GRANTING SANCTIONS FOR MOTION TO LIFT STAY BASED ON FALSE CERTIFICATION

In In re Gorshstein, 285 B.R. 118 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) I granted sanctions against secured creditors in three separate cases where the secured creditors moved to vacate the automatic stay on the basis of false certifications of post-petition defaults. The Gorshstein decision was “provoked by an apparently increasing number of motions in this Court to vacate the automatic stay filed by secured creditors often based on attorney affidavits certifying material post-petition defaults where, in fact, there were no material defaults by the debtors.” 285 B.R. at 120.

The Secured Creditor’s motion to lift the stay in this case is, in the vernacular, a “poster child” for the type of abuse condemned in the Gorshstein decision. It is one of several such motions to come before me in recent months. This decision granting substantial sanctions in favor of the debtor and her attorney is published to reiterate and reinforce my strongly-held view that debtors must not be subjected to the risk of foreclosure and loss of their homes on the basis of false certifications of post-petition defaults.

Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this contested matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(a) and the standing order of reference in this District dated July 10, 1984 (Acting Chief Judge Ward).

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

The Facts

By Notice of Motion and Application both dated June 1, 2007 Deutsche Bank Trust Company of America’s f/k/a Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee c/o Homecomings Financial, LLC (the “Secured Creditor”) moved to terminate the automatic stay with respect to the debtor’s residential real property in Stony Point, New York (the “Property”). The Secured Creditor holds by assignment a note dated October 9, 2001 in the amount of $284,750.00 secured by a mortgage on the Property. The Application recited that as of May 30, 2007 there was an unpaid principal balance on the loan of $278,043.61 with interest thereon in the amount of $20,553.51 plus late charges in the amount of $946.28, aggregating $299,543.40.

The debtor filed her petition under Chapter 13 on September 21, 2004. Thus, the debtor’s first post-petition mortgage payment was due for October 2004. Paragraph 3 of the Application states as follows:

As of the 30th day of May, 2007, the Debtor has failed to make 4 post-petition payments in the amount of $4,020.03 which represents the payments due the 1st day of February, 2007 through May, 2007 and has not cured said default.

As amplified below, this statement was false.

Annexed to the Application was an affidavit sworn to by John Cody, an Assistant Vice President of Homecomings Financial Network, sworn to April 3, 2006 in which Mr. Cody swore in paragraph 5:

As of the 31st day of March, 2006, the Debtor has failed to make 2 post-petition payments in the amount of $3,709.17 which represents the payments due the 1st day of February, 2006 through March, 2006 and has not cured said default.

The Cody affidavit was submitted in support of a motion filed by the Secured Creditor in 2006 and was erroneously annexed to the instant motion. The quoted statement from the Cody affidavit was false when made in 2006. Belatedly recognizing that the Cody affidavit applied to the Secured Creditor’s baseless 2006 motion to lift the stay, on June 8, 2007 counsel for the Secured Creditor filed an affidavit sworn to by Dory Goebel, a Bankruptcy Representative of Homecomings Financial, LLC, sworn to June 1, 2007.

In paragraph 5 of his affidavit, Mr. Goebel swore as follows:

As of the 30th day of May, 2007, the Debtor has failed to make 4 post-petition payments in the amount of $4,020.03 which represents the payments due the 1st day of February, 2007 through May, 2007 and has not cured said default.

Mr. Goebel’s sworn statement quoted above was false.

The instant motion was noticed for presentment on June 14 with a hearing date of June 20, 2007 if objections were timely served and filed. On June 6 counsel for the debtor filed the debtor’s affirmation in opposition noting that since the filing of her case she had made all post-petition payments required under the mortgage, and all such payments were cashed by the Secured Creditor.

Copies of the debtor’s payment checks were attached to the opposing affirmation. The debtor sought punitive sanctions for the “frivolous motion,” the Secured Creditor’s second such motion. The Secured
Creditor’s attorney responded with a “Reply Affirtmation [sic] in Support of Secured Creditor’s Motion
to Terminate the Automatic Stay” dated June 13, 2007 (the “Reply Affirmation”). The Reply Affirmation
noted that the initial Application incorrectly annexed the 2006 Cody affidavit and substituted the June 1, 2007 Goebel affidavit quoted above as Exhibit B. The Reply Affirmation also annexed as Exhibit C a document entitled “Post Petition Payment History for: Eileen Fagan BK Case No. 04-23460” with a notation at the bottom “ledger prepared on 06/13/07.” This “Post Petition Payment History” is one of several such documents submitted by the Secured Creditor, all of which are of central importance on this contested matter because, as explained below, they all demonstrate that the debtor was substantially current at all times post-petition. Despite Exhibit C, the Reply Affirmation concludes “that as of the Date of the Motion, the Debtor was due for the Months of February 2007 through May 2007 and the Month of June 2007 had become due.” As amplified below, Exhibit C demonstrates that this statement was false.

The debtor responded by submitting a July 10, 2007 “Sur-Reply Affirmation in Opposition and Request for Attorney Fees” signed by Linda Fagan, the debtor’s mother. The Sur-Reply Affirmation stated in relevant part as follows:

3. My daughter had a nervous breakdown aggravated by this bank about two years ago. Since then, I made each of the monthly mortgage payments to Homecomings which is the servicer for Deutsche Bank Trust Company and they have CASHED thy [sic] payments.

4. The latest submission is an outright lie, deceptive and deliberately out of order. . . .

5. Homecomings said they did not get the March 2007 payment and I immediately went to Western Union and sent them payment — which they accepted –- the day I found out about it.

6. Homecomings deliberately holds the mortgage payment checks for several weeks and then cashes them to create late fees and penalties. They also hold the checks for months, and then put two or three checks all in at once to create a bounce check situation.

7. I sent the May 2007 mortgage on or about May 14, 2007. When the check did not clear, I immediately called Homecomings when our May bank statement was received and inquired if they received the check. After being on hold for 45 minutes, they acknowledged that they received the check, but the account servicing agent did not know why it was not cashed. I called again two weeks later and they now said they never got the check. I called my attorney and he advised me to stop the check and then overnight another check on June 13, 2007. Even though they received it by OVERNIGHT courier on June 14, 2007, it was not cashed until June 27, 2007. See Exhibit “A”.

8. Incredulously [sic], they then tried to cash the May 2007 “lost check” which I stopped (they first said they received and then said they never received) and then sent me notice to me [sic] in July that the check was “returned unpaid”. See Exhibit “B”.

7. [sic] I AM CURRENT. I have not missed a payment and am paying more than I have to. . . .

It is significant that no affidavit contesting Linda Fagan’s statements was submitted by the Secured Creditor.

A hearing on the motion was held on July 17, 2007 attended by the attorneys for both sides. At the hearing the Secured Creditor submitted a revised but undated “Post Petition Payment 1 Paragraph 6 of the Supplemental Reply Affirmation states:

6. This Law Firm regrettably concedes that during the preparation of the Motion for Relief from Stay and the Bank Affidavit, it erroneously represented that the Debtor was due for the months of February through May of 2007 when in fact the Debtor was due for the months of April through May of 2007. (Emphasis in original)

History for: Eileen Fagan,” which I received in evidence as Court Exhibit 1. After hearing oral argument of counsel, I adjourned the hearing to August 22 in order to give the Secured Creditor an opportunity to make a further submission demonstrating, if it could, that the debtor was in arrears post-petition, which did not appear likely in view of the original “Post Petition Payment History” prepared on 06/13/07 and the amended “Post Petition Payment History” marked Court Exhibit 1. After oral argument at the August 22 hearing, I scheduled a final hearing for September 18.

The Secured Creditor’s attorney then submitted a “Supplimental [sic] Reply Affirtmation [sic] in Support of Secured Creditor’s Motion to Terminate the Automatic Stay” dated August 31, 2007 (“Supplemental Reply Affirmation”). The Supplemental Reply Affirmation annexes as Exhibit C a copy of the “Post Petition Payment History” which was marked as Court Exhibit 1 at the July 17 hearing. It also annexes as Exhibit B yet another “Post Petition Payment History” (undated) with numbers slightly different from the numbers contained on Exhibit C (Court Exhibit 1). The Supplemental Reply Affirmation acknowledged error in the original motion,1 but concluded that “when the Motion for Relief was filed on June 1, 2007, the Debtor was delinquent with her post-petition mortgage obligations and due for the months of April 2007 through May 2007.” Once again, as amplified below, all three versions of the Secured Creditor’s Post Petition Payment History demonstrate that the debtor has never been materially delinquent in her post-petition mortgage obligations.

Paragraph 15 of the Supplemental Reply Affirmation states that “As per the most recent information received from the Secured Creditor, the Debtor has paid monies subsequent to the filing of the Motion that would bring her post-petition current.” The Affirmation notes further that the debtor has commenced a 16-count adversary proceeding complaint against the Secured Creditor which raises, inter alia, certain of the allegations of bad faith asserted by the debtor against the Secured Creditor in opposing the motion to lift the stay. Consequently, in the “Wherefore” clause “Secured Creditor respectfully requests a finding that its Motion for Relief dated June 1, 2007 was filed in good faith and said Motion be marked withdrawn with the parties to litigate the issued [sic] raised by the Debtor in her opposition in detail within the confines of the now pending Adversary Proceeding.”

At the September 18 third and final hearing on this motion to lift stay, I asked the Secured Creditor’s attorney to explain and confirm the significance of the several Post Petition Payment History computer printouts submitted by Secured Creditor in purported support of the motion. To that we now turn.

The Debtor’s Post-Petition Payment History For purposes of this analysis, I shall focus on the Post Petition Payment History which was submitted by the Secured Creditor at the July 17 hearing and marked as Court Exhibit 1, a copy of which was submitted as Exhibit C to the Secured Creditor’s Supplemental Reply Affirmation.

Since the debtor’s Chapter 13 case was filed on September 21, 2004, the first postpetition mortgage payment was due October 1, 2004, with a two-week grace period.

The following reproduces the Court Exhibit 1 version of the debtor’s Post Petition Payment History in material part:

2 The “Date” column apparently lists the dates when the Secured Creditor cashed and/or credited the debtor’s payments, not the dates when the payments were delivered to or received by the Secured Creditor. See paragraph 6 of the Linda Fagan affirmation, quoted above.

<SNIP>

Conclusion

Motions to lift the stay may be routine and inconsequential to secured creditors and their counsel. But to a debtor and his or her family, such a motion and the consequent loss of the family home may be devastating. Most creditors and counsel are conscientious. But some are callous by design or inadvertence, as exemplified by this motion and two others presented to the Court the same week. The danger here is that a debtor who does not have an attorney or the resources of intellect or spirit to defend against a baseless motion may lose his/her home despite being current on post-petition mortgage and plan payments.

I know of no way to protect against such an eventuality if no material consequence attaches to the filing of motions based upon false certifications of fact. Secured creditors and their counsel who know that filing a false motion to lift the stay will result in material sanctions if caught will undoubtedly be motivated to a higher standard of care.

Dated: White Plains, NY

September 24, 2007

/s/Adlai S. Hardin, Jr.

U.S.B.J.

[ipaper docId=38768934 access_key=key-i1u0ddloqptuqiwhuuu height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bankruptcy, bogus, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Fraud Factories, MERS, LPS, Forgeries: Rep. Alan Grayson Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis

Fraud Factories, MERS, LPS, Forgeries: Rep. Alan Grayson Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis

RepAlanGrayson | September 30, 2010
.

This is Rep. Alan Grayson explaining the crisis of foreclosure fraud and how it links to the entire securitization chain of Wall Street.

.

One of My First Videos 2/10/2010

This is what made plenty of noise!


.

This is the actual “BOGUS ASSIGNEE” that was found…then came many.


.


.
.
.
_________________________________________


_________________________________________

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bogus, chain in title, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dinsfla, DOCX, fannie mae, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, jeff carbiener, jeffrey stephan, Kristine Wilson, 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, LPS, mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, notary fraud, note, robo signers, securitization, shapiro & fishman pa, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, Supreme Court, trade secrets, Tywanna Thomas1 Comment

NY Judge Hammers “Foreclosure Mill” STEVEN J. BAUM For Failing To Comply

NY Judge Hammers “Foreclosure Mill” STEVEN J. BAUM For Failing To Comply

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

HON. MELVYN TANENBAUM
Justice

US BANK N.A.,
-against-
ORLANDO BORJA ET AL.,

ORDERED that this motion by plaintiff seeking an order granting summary judgment, amending the caption of the action and appointing a referee to compute the sums due and owing to plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action is granted.

The Court has repeatedly directed plaintiffs counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.c., to submit proposed orders of reference in proper form and counsel’s office has repeatedly failed to comply.


Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel is hereby directed to submit a proposed order for the appointment of a referee in the forn required by this Court. Any further failure to comply with this order shall be deemed wilful.

Dated: July 30, 2010

[ipaper docId=38403301 access_key=key-oxrh4ni75w4jougmy90 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in conflict of interest, foreclosure, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, mortgage, Steven J Baum, Supreme Court, us bank1 Comment

“TRO” ISSUED ON MERS, MERRILL & STEVEN J. BAUM

“TRO” ISSUED ON MERS, MERRILL & STEVEN J. BAUM

Supreme Court of the State of New York, held
in and for the County of Kings, at the
courthouse at 360 Adams Street

David Schmidt
Justice of the Supreme Court

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.,

v.

Bibi Roopen

To cancel the claim for the surplus monies on the above Index Number 1694 1/04 by the Claimant Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. Attorney Steven J. Baum. P.C. and to grant me, Bibi Roopan, the surplus monies on deposit in this matter. for the reasons that Neither Wilshire Credit Corporation, who owned the second mortgage to the premise commonly known as 14 Cypress Court Brooklyn, NY 11208, nor its parent company, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending. were present at the foreclosure and therefore did not claim their share of the foreclosure at that time (Notice of Appearance). En addition. Wilshire Credit Corporation transferred the mortgage loan to Strategic Recovery Group, LLC, db Aquara Loan Services, Its Successors and/or Assigns, P.O. Box 61026 Anaheim, CA 92803-6126 on October 29.2008 and on July 6,2010, Strategic Recovery Group sent me a letter to settle in full for $30,497.10.

Pending the hearing of this motion it is ordered that to cancel & stop the claim for the surplus monies on the above index Number 16941/04 by Claimant Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc, Attorney Steven J. Baum, PC and for the surplus monies to stay at the courts until judgement by the judge and also that Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending

DO NOT GET ME SURPLUS MONIES.

[ipaper docId=38400746 access_key=key-lbmrzg8avt9qtqcyhmp height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, conflict of interest, conspiracy, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, injunction, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Merrill Lynch, MERS, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Steven J Baum, Supreme Court, TRO2 Comments

Judge Schack “Every Case Is Unique,” Wants Every Assignment and Mortgage To Be Recorded!

Judge Schack “Every Case Is Unique,” Wants Every Assignment and Mortgage To Be Recorded!

See where Judge Schack takes this and even if not mentioned he makes reference to MERS. Every judge must follow his example and read and research each case because it the end “each case is unique”. If we can only make a rubber stamp weigh 2 tons?? Hmm

Mortgage mayhem

B’klyn judge tosses bad foreclosure filings

By GREGORY BRESIGER
Last Updated: 1:29 AM, September 26, 2010
Posted: 1:07 AM, September 26, 2010

With foreclosure filings growing by the month, some judges are holding banks and loan servicers’ feet to the fire to prove they “own” the mortgage and that they know what information is in the filing.

Recently, JPMorgan Chase, a mortgage servicer, was charged by a Florida judge with submitting fraudulent foreclosure paperwork on a home it did not own.

Ally Bank, formerly GMAC, the credit arm of the troubled automaker General Motors, suspended foreclosure proceedings in 23 states including New York last week, while it reviews its foreclosure procedures.

Ally, which has a $349.1 billion mortgage portfolio, according to industry records, and was also the beneficiary of more than $17 billion in US bailout funds, said this week it has amended its foreclosure procedure to make sure the documents contain truthful information and that there is a notary present when documents are signed.

Closer to home, in New York State Supreme Court no foreclosure hearing is routine in Judge Arthur Schack’s courtroom in Brooklyn. That’s where dozens of bank attorneys are learning that every detail must be right or else.

Judge Schack — the scourge of numerous banks and poorly prepared attorneys — has thrown out dozens of foreclosure applications for just the same reasons cited in Florida.

Judge Schack examines every filing in detail. That’s because “every case is unique,” said the 64-year-old judge, a former high-school social-studies teacher.

Why the large number of foreclosure dismissals for a procedure that is often routinely granted?

Continue Reading…NEW YORK POST

.

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, chain in title, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, jpmorgan chase, judge arthur schack, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., robo signers, securitization, Wall Street0 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

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

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

‘NO PROOF’ MERS assigned BOTH Mortgage and NOTE to HSBC

‘NO PROOF’ MERS assigned BOTH Mortgage and NOTE to HSBC

The “Assignment of Mortgage,” which is attached as exhibit E to the opposition papers, makes no reference to the note, and only makes reference to the mortgage being assigned. The Assignment has a vague reference to note wherein it states that “the said assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the said assignee, the assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage, “but this is the only language in the Assignment which could possibly be found to refer to the note.

Contrary to the affirmation of Ms. Szeliga in which she represented, in paragraph 17, that there was language in the assignment which specifically referred to the note, the assignment in this case does not contain °a specific reference to the Note.

In light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that there is insufficient proof to establish that both the note and the mortgage have been assigned to the Plaintiff, and therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff has no standing to maintain the foreclosure action; and it is further ORDERED that the application of Defendant, Jeffrey F. Miller, to dismiss is granted, without prejudice, to renew upon proof of a valid assignment of the note.

[ipaper docId=36473031 access_key=key-2ez40g5eslqqde2maemt height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED ARTICLE:

___________________________

HSBC BANK and STEVEN J. BAUM LAW FIRM both SANCTIONED for filing a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit

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



Posted in chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, HSBC, investigation, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, lawsuit, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note1 Comment

HSBC BANK and STEVEN J. BAUM LAW FIRM both SANCTIONED for filing a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit

HSBC BANK and STEVEN J. BAUM LAW FIRM both SANCTIONED for filing a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit

Hat tip to Jeffrey Miller…

Attached are the three decisions in my case.  It has taken a close to two years of fighting.
Although it is a small monetary win, HSBC BANK and the STEVEN J. BAUM LAW FIRM were both
SANCTIONED for filing a FRIVOLOUS law suit.
Hope this may help others, especially in NY.  You can post as much as you like.

Jeffrey Miller

[ipaper docId=36469458 access_key=key-2e2icvg8d7j0zqqgp9i5 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dismissed, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, HSBC, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, lawsuit, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, sanctioned, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

NY Law Offices of Steven J. Baum P.C. may get sanctions for False Representations

NY Law Offices of Steven J. Baum P.C. may get sanctions for False Representations

The court held that it “will hold a hearing to determine what sanctions if any, that may be imposed upon Steven J. Baum, P.C. for the false representations made in the petition,” as counsel for Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

[ipaper docId=34903383 access_key=key-1i7b0x5rpogtxf2smo2e height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Steven J Baum, wells fargo1 Comment

US TRUSTEE keeping CLOSE WATCH on NY FORECLOSURE MILL

US TRUSTEE keeping CLOSE WATCH on NY FORECLOSURE MILL

Liening on NY homeowners

Chase and law firm draw scrutiny over tactics in foreclosure cases

By RICHARD WILNER

Last Updated: 12:01 PM, February 28, 2010
Posted: 12:54 AM, February 28, 2010

As the mortgage melt down paralyzed the economy across the US and throughout New York State, one company in the center of the storm had all the business it could handle.The little-known law firm of Steven J. Baum PC, which is based in suburban Buffalo, NY, and represents dozens of banks in matters of failed mortgages, last year filed a staggering 12,551 foreclosure lawsuits in New York City and the suburbs, which works out to about 48 a day.

The foreclosure mill is one of a handful of super-regional law firms used by the country’s banks — and its lawyers appear to have practiced in every county courthouse and bankruptcy court from Staten Island to Plattsburgh and from Montauk to Niagara Falls.

But as the volume of its workload increased, so did complaints from opposing lawyers and judges that some of the thousands of lawsuits contained questionable legal work.

One bank caught in the crosshairs is JPMorgan Chase Bank, one of the largest mortgage lenders in the city.

Last month, Diana Adams, the US Trustee in Manhattan, filed papers in court supporting punitive financial sanctions against the bank for a string of bad behavior, including seeking to foreclose on homes after they rejected the attempts to make on-time payments and for failing to prove they own the mortgage on a home even as they move to seize it.

Chase filed documents that appear to be patently false or misleading, Adams said in the filing.

Although Chase has recently taken steps to address concerns expressed by courts in connection with other cases, based on Chase’s past and current conduct it needs to be sanctioned, Adams wrote.

A spokesperson for Chase had no comment on the US Trustee’s action.

The complaints against Baum — on the record during hearings, in legal pleadings and, eventually, borne out in judges’ decisions — include:

* Not divulging mortgage payments: In the White Plains bankruptcy of Blanca Garcia, Baum’s firm filed papers claiming Garcia was in arrears — when she actually made payments and showed the court her receipts, but they were not credited to her account. When Garcia’s lawyer complained, Baum’s firm answered the claim but, the lawyer said in court papers, ignored the receipts and continued to claim the mortgage was in arrears.

* Creating questionable assignments: A Suffolk County judge took it upon himself to investigate a filing by Baum’s firm when it attempted to foreclose on the home of Gloria E. Marsh. “A careful review,” the judge wrote in a four-page order, “reveals a number of glaring discrepancies and unexplained issues of substance.”

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



Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, reversed court decision, Steven J Baum1 Comment

GMAC, Steven Baum Law Firm Face FORECLOSURE FIGHT in NY COURT

GMAC, Steven Baum Law Firm Face FORECLOSURE FIGHT in NY COURT

DING DING DING…Let the fight begin!

GMAC faces New York foreclosure brawl

By RICHARD WILNER
Last Updated: 1:36 AM, July 6, 2010
Posted: 1:31 AM, July 6, 2010

A Bronx homeowner is scheduled for a courtroom battle royale later this month — facing off in Manhattan bankruptcy court against the largest foreclosure mill in the state to see if the firm’s client, GMAC Mortgage, has the right to toss her from her Pelham Gardens home.

Also at issue is whether the law firm, Steven J. Baum PC, may have a conflict of interest problem.

The lawyer for the homeowner, David Shaev, claims in recently filed court papers that a Baum lawyer allegedly represented GMAC without disclosing she worked for Baum.

The thorny issue is of growing interest to New York judges — who last year faced more than 50,350 foreclosure actions, according to RealtyTrac, many of which were brought by banks that have sold or securitized the loans. Such actions make proving which entity owns the loan difficult.

<caption><strong>DAVID  SHAEV</strong><br>Fighting foreclosure.</caption>

DAVID SHAEV Fighting foreclosure.

That issue is key — banks that can’t prove they own a loan can’t legally foreclose. At times, lenders and law firms have been chastised for taking short cuts to gloss over the ownership issue.

Complicating matters is that most delinquent homeowners battle foreclosure actions without a lawyer and get steamrolled.

But that may be changing.

On June 3, Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper denied a bank’s attempt to move against a homeowner because it couldn’t prove it owned a mortgage.

Five days later, Brooklyn state court Judge Wayne P. Saitta, citing a bank’s “egregious” misrepresentation, awarded a homeowner $10,000 in sanctions when the bank tried to evict knowing it didn’t own the mortgage.

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



Posted in conflict of interest, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, GMAC, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Steven J Baum0 Comments

Lasalle Bank N.A. v Smith 2010: NY Slip Judge Schack does it again! Slams BAUM Law Firm!

Lasalle Bank N.A. v Smith 2010: NY Slip Judge Schack does it again! Slams BAUM Law Firm!

Here it goes Lasalle Bank V Smith on March 22, 2010. We need Judges like this all over the US who understand the fraud behind these foreclosures! Why oh Why does the same Baum Law Firm go before this Judge when they know they are going up against one Wise Man?

Judge Schack is asking for valid proof MERS and Lasalle has the authority to be nominated as part of the Note/Mortgage via a Power Of Attorney before he can issue a Judgment. LOL We know this will be impossible. This is off MERS website:

Question:

Do we need to file a power of attorney and what do we do if we are asked to produce a power of attorney?

Being appointed as a MERS Certifying Officer means that the employee is an officer of MERS and can sign as a MERS officer. A power of attorney is not needed because that is not the capacity of how a certifying officer is signing. A power of attorney would be necessary if an employee is signing as an employee of the Lender on behalf of MERS. The Corporate Resolution does not need to be recorded and is appointing the employee as an officer of MERS. In essence, the employee is a dual officer of the lender and MERS.

He also asks for the “Servicing Pool Agreement” that even permits them into the equation. I BET THERE IS NONE! Why because MERS nominates itself to speak onbehalf of many banks. This is an issue that should be raised.

As in most foreclosure cases, Judge Schack is questioning Baum Law Firm how they are representing both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this case and seeks an explanation. I think this is the question for most of where [1] VP for [2] seperate “banks” sign multiple Assignment of Mortgages and Affidavits.

[ipaper docId=29001315 access_key=key-1ovdg3puqsfan53jqeu7 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, judge arthur schack, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.1 Comment


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

Archives