marshall watson

Archive | marshall watson

EXPOSED | “Foreclosure Mill’ DAVID J. STERNS (DJSP) $15 MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE

EXPOSED | “Foreclosure Mill’ DAVID J. STERNS (DJSP) $15 MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE

David J. Stern, whose law firm helps banks foreclose on homeowners, owns three boats and lives in this $15 million, 16,500-square-foot Fort Lauderdale home with a tennis court.

Continue reading the full story on this “Foreclosure Mill” here….TampaBay.com

RELATED STORIES:

Full Deposition of David J. Stern’s Notary | Para Legal Shannon Smith

EXPOSED | “Foreclosure Mill” David J. Sterns’ (DJSP) OTHER MEGA ESTATE

Florida FORECLOSURE Lawyer David J. Stern (DJSP) ‘Su Casa es Mi Casa,’ Your House Is My House, Exclusive See His Photos

Stern Image Source: AmericansUnitedForJustice.org,
Home Source: Broward County Property Appraisers Office


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



Posted in CONTROL FRAUD, djsp enterprises, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, marshall watson, notary fraud, securitization, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

ARE FORECLOSURE MILLS Coercing Buyers for BANK OWNED homes? ARE ALL THE MILLS?

ARE FORECLOSURE MILLS Coercing Buyers for BANK OWNED homes? ARE ALL THE MILLS?

MASTER_OFFER_PACKET_03-10-2010[1][1]

In the Master Packet above go to Page 7

Below is from an ad in Trulia

fannie mae owned.bank property. property is vacant.all offers requiring financing must have preapproval letter.all cash offer require proof of fund(see attachement).this property is eligible for home path renovation mortgage-as little as 3% down.buyer must close with seller closing agent(david j. stern law offices,p.a).investors not eligible for first 15days.*for showing instr please read broker remarks* note:offers must be submitted using attachment.close by 30 june and receive extra 3.5% in closing cost

Looking further into this I noticed the following:

  • Still in the name of the owner
  • NOT named under any REO
  • Home last sold for 245K
  • Now listed at 120K

Here is the BIGGEST:

I found a Bank-owned packet for this “SPECIALLY SELECTED” Agent/BROKER in many other REO’s and in this package it states the following: (SEE ABOVE LINK PACKET)

9) Which title companies are the sellers and who do I make out the earnest money deposit to once offer is verbally accepted?

a. PLEASE LOOK ON MLX REMARKS FOR TITLE COMPANY. MLX WILL HAVE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
i. David Stern, P.A.
ii. Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
iii. Smith, Hiatt, & Diaz, P.A.
iv. Butler & Hosch, P.A.
v. Shapiro & Fishman, P.A.
vi. Spear & Hoffman, P.A.
vii. Adorno & Yoss, P.A.
viii. Watson Title

ix. New House Title (This is registered with FDLG address 9119 CORPORATE LAKE DRIVE, SUITE 300 TAMPA FL 33634)

10) Can the buyer use their own title company or must they use the title company selected by seller?

a. The buyer MUST HOLD ESCROW with Fannie Mae Title Company as stated on MLX.

NOW are we unleashing another dimension to this never ending SAGA?

We recently found out about WTF!!! DJSP Enterprises, Inc. Announces Agreement to Acquire Timios, Inc., Expand Presence Into 38 States , so is this a way for the Mills to Monopolize on the sales of these properties??

HERE IS same Agent/Broker for a FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP property:

THIS IS FANNIE MAE HOMEPATH PROPERTY.BANK OWNED.ALL OFFERS REQUIRING FINANCING MUST HAVE PREAPPROVAL LETTER. ALL CASH OFFERS REQUIRE PROOF OF FUNDS. THIS PROPERTY IS APPROVED FOR HOMEPATH AND HOMEPATH RENOVATION MORTGAGE FINANCING-AS LITTLE AS 3% DOWN,NO APPRAISAL OR MORTGAGE INSURANCE REQUIRED! ** FOR SHOWING INST PLEASE READ BROKER REMARKS** YOU MUST SUBMIT OFFER USING ATTACHMENT! INVESTORS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FIRST 15DAYS.CLOSE BY JUNE 30 TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXTRA 3.5% SC. EMD: FL DEFAULT LAW GROUP.

Here is another same Agent/Broker for MARSHALL C. WATSON property:

FANNIE MAE OWNED.BANK PROPERTY. PROPERTY IS VACANT.ALL OFFERS REQUIRING FINANCING MUST HAVE PREAPPROVAL LETTER.ALL CASH OFFERS REQUIRE PROOF OF FUNDS(SEE ATTACHEMENT).THIS PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR HOME PATH RENOVATION MORTGAGE-AS LITTLE AS 3% DOWN.BUYER MUST CLOSE WITH SELLER CLOSING AGENT (LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL C. WATSON).INVESTOR NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FIRST 15DAYS.*FOR SHOWING INSTR PLEASE READ BROKER REMARK* NOTE:OFFERS MUST BE SUBMITTED USING ATTACHMENT.CLOSE BY JUNE 30 TO GET 3.5% EXTRA IN CLOSING COST

Does the JUNE 30th Closing Day have any significance??

MAYBE it’s because of this? MERS May NOT Foreclose for Fannie Mae effective 5/1/2010I am just trying to make sense of this…Is there a grace period that followed?

  • What “if” the BUYER selects their own Title company? Does this eliminate their chances of ever even being considered as a buyer?
  • Why even bother to state this?
  • Is this a way for the selected Agent/ Broker to find the buyer and discourage other agents or buyers from viewing?
  • Was this at all even necessary to state?
  • Is this verbiage to coerce agents to get a higher commission rather than pass down the incentive of 3.5% towards closing cost “if” under contract by 6/30?
  • Why do investors have to refrain from buying for the first 15 days?

Coercion (pronounced /ko???r??n/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.

RELATED STORY:

LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) BUYING UP HOMES AT AUCTIONS? Take a look to see if this address is on your documents!

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



Posted in butler & hosch pa, conspiracy, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, FDLG, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, hiatt & diaz PA, insider, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, marshall watson, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, new house title llc, Real Estate, REO, securitization, shapiro & fishman pa, short sale, spear & hoffman4 Comments

*REVERSED* Patricia A. Arango of the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee-Aurora Loan Services, LLC., MERS "FINAL JUDGMENT REVERSED"!!

*REVERSED* Patricia A. Arango of the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee-Aurora Loan Services, LLC., MERS "FINAL JUDGMENT REVERSED"!!

PIERRE ELLIOTT and LISA ELLIOTT, Appellants,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as nominee and STONEBROOK ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellees.

No. 4D08-4362.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 7, 2010.

Nathaniel E. Green of Nathaniel E. Green, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Patricia A. Arango of the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee-Aurora Loan Services, LLC.

TAYLOR, J.

Pierre and Lisa Elliott appeal a final judgment of foreclosure entered for Aurora Loan Services, LLC (Aurora). Because the trial court erred in denying the Elliotts’ verified motion to vacate default and, consequently, erred in entering the final judgment of foreclosure, we reverse.

On March 7, 2008, Aurora filed a complaint against the Elliotts to foreclose on their mortgage. The Elliotts received the summons and complaint on March 11, 2008. According to their verified motion, on March 11, 2008, Lisa Elliott contacted Aurora’s attorney, as directed in a letter attached to the complaint. The attorney instructed they call Aurora directly. The Elliotts did so and they then began a workout agreement. Lisa Elliott, in the verified motion, stated that they reached a proposed “Special Forbearance Agreement” with Aurora, dated June 27, 2008.

Due to the Elliotts’ failure to file any papers, Aurora moved for an entry of default against the Elliotts, which was entered on May 21, 2008. Further, on May 21, 2008, Aurora filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Attorneys Fee’s and Memorandum (along with supporting affidavits).

Lisa Elliott stated in the verified motion that they discovered the entry of default for the first time on August 27, 2008. They filed their Verified Motion to Vacate Default with Proposed Answer and Affirmative Defenses on September 3, 2008.

At the hearing on September 24, 2008, the trial court denied the Elliotts’ verified motion to vacate default and granted Aurora’s motion for summary judgment. The court then entered the final judgment of foreclosure.[1]

The Elliotts argue the court erred by denying their verified motion to vacate default. “`An order denying a motion to vacate a default is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.'” Jeyanandarajan v. Freedman, 863 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Lloyd’s Underwriter’s at London v. Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(a) (2008) provides that a clerk may enter a default against a party who fails to file any papers or pleadings. The court may set aside this default, however, under Rule 1.540(b). Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(d). “`Florida public policy favors the setting aside of defaults so that controversies may be decided on the merits.'” Jeyanandarajan, 863 So. 2d at 433 (quoting Lloyd’s Underwriter’s, 801 So. 2d at 139).

Rule 1.540(b) provides that if the terms are just, the court may relieve a party from a final order for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. To set aside the default pursuant to this rule, the court must determine: “(1) whether the defendant has demonstrated excusable neglect in failing to respond[;] (2) whether the defendant has demonstrated a meritorious defense; and (3) whether the defendant, subsequent to learning of the default, had demonstrated due diligence in seeking relief.” Halpern v. Houser, 949 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Schwartz v. Bus. Cards Tomorrow, Inc., 644 So. 2d 611, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). Because the Elliotts demonstrated these elements, the court abused its discretion in denying their motion to vacate the default.

Excusable neglect is found “where inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.” Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Although ignorance of the law and failure to understand consequences are not viable excuses, “a reasonable misunderstanding between attorneys regarding settlement negotiations does constitute excusable neglect sufficient to vacate a default.” Gables Club Marina, LLC v. Gables Condo. & Club Ass’n, Inc., 948 So. 2d 21, 23-24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). In Gables Club, the parties’ attorneys were engaged in settlement talks, and the court found it reasonable that the defendant believed it need not file an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at 24.

“`Excusable neglect must be proven by sworn statements or affidavits.'” Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting DiSarrio v. Mills, 711 So. 2d 1355, 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Here, the Elliotts filed a verified motion containing properly sworn statements, as follows:

2. Defendants were served with summons and complaint on or about March 11, 2008.

3. On or about March 11, 2008 I, Lisa Elliott, contacted the attorney for AURORA at XXX-XXX-XXXX to discuss resolution of the complaint. I was instructed to contact the lender.

4. I contacted AURORA and began a workout agreement which lead to a proposed “Special Forbearance Agreement” dated June 27, 2008. See attached letter from Aurora Loan Services marked Exhibit “A”.

Aurora filed no refuting affidavits or other evidence to rebut the Elliotts’ claims that the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations.[2]

In Gibson Trust, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General, 883 So. 2d 379, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), we vacated the default entered by the trial court, stating that “[b]ecause the defendants’ affidavits were uncontradicted and established that there was a `misunderstanding’ regarding whether an extension had been agreed upon, we conclude that excusable neglect was shown.” Similarly, here, the Elliotts’ verified motion indicates they began a workout agreement with Aurora, which led to a proposed “Special Forbearance Agreement.” Aurora failed to file any affidavits refuting this. Therefore, the Elliotts’ uncontradicted verified motion established excusable neglect.

A meritorious defense is established where a “proposed answer [is] attached to its motion to vacate, which answer sets out in detail a number of affirmative defenses.” Fortune Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 490 So. 2d 249, 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). We similarly held that where a party “immediately filed a proposed answer with affirmative defenses upon receipt of the plaintiffs’ motion to set the cause for trial on damages,” the meritorious-defense and due-diligence elements were met. Broward County v. Perdue, 432 So. 2d 742, 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The Elliotts’ verified motion to vacate default contained a proposed answer and affirmative defenses, which met the meritorious-defense element.

Finally, due diligence, which is a test of reasonableness, must be evaluated based on the facts of the particular case. Franklin v. Franklin, 573 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Due diligence must be established with evidence, which includes a sworn affidavit. Cedar Mountain Estates, LLC v. Loan One, LLC, 4 So. 3d 15, 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Here, although the default was entered on May 21, 2008, Lisa Elliott, in the verified motion, stated that they discovered the default for the first time on August 27, 2008. Again, this sworn allegation was not refuted by Aurora. Upon discovering the default, the Elliotts filed the verified motion to vacate the default, along with the proposed answer and affirmative defenses; it was dated August 28, 2008, but not rendered with the clerk of court until September 3, 2008. Only six days elapsed between the time the default was discovered and the time the motion to vacate was filed. It has been held that six-day, sevenday, and fifteen-day time lapses between the discovery of a default and the filing of a motion to vacate that default showed due diligence. See Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So. 2d 300, 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Goodwin v. Goodwin, 559 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (six-day delay)); Coquina Beach Club Condo. Ass’n v. Wagner, 813 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (seven-day delay); Marshall Davis, Inc. v. Incapco, Inc., 558 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (fifteen-day delay)). Thus, the Elliotts exercised due diligence by filing the motion to vacate the default within six days of discovery of the default.

Because the Elliotts demonstrated the elements necessary to set aside the default, the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion and subsequently entering the final judgment of foreclosure.

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and order denying the Elliotts’ motion to vacate the default.

Reversed and Remanded.

FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

[1] The foreclosure sale was set for November 26, 2008, but the parties agreed to stay the case and cancel the sale pending this appeal.

[2] Although the Gables Club court states that there must have been a “reasonable misunderstanding between attorneys,” this is met because the Elliotts were proceeding pro se.

Posted in case, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, marshall watson, MERS, mortgage electronic registration system, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., reversed court decision0 Comments

What can be done about the backlog of foreclosure cases in Palm Beach County (and other Florida counties)? By Lynn Szymoniak ESQ.

What can be done about the backlog of foreclosure cases in Palm Beach County (and other Florida counties)? By Lynn Szymoniak ESQ.

BACKLOG

1. Dismiss all cases filed after February 11, 2010, that do not include a verification in accordance with the Florida Supreme Court revised  rules of Civil Procedure.   The big foreclosure firms, particularly the Law Offices of David Stern, are choosing to ignore the rule requiring verifications.  All parties should be required to follow the rules.

2. Dismiss all of the cases where the plaintiff is a bank “as Trustee” but the name of the trust is not disclosed.  Failure to identify the actual trust is one of the newest strategies of the foreclosure mills.  The trust, not the trustee, is the real party in interest.

3. Dismiss all of the cases where the complaint is not signed by the attorney whose name appears on the pleading.  The big foreclosure firms in thousands of cases have someone other than the attorney on the pleading sign “for” the attorney who drafted the pleading.  This is done so that both attorneys can deny responsibility.

4. Dismiss all of the cases that include these boilerplate allegations by the bank or trust: “We own the note. We had possession of the note. We lost the note.”  These allegations appear in over 20,000 cases.  By now it is apparent this is a ruse – no one actually lost 20,000 mortgages and notes. Frauds upon the courts should not be tolerated.

5. Dismiss all of the cases that include a Mortgage Assignment that was signed by an employee of the foreclosure mill law firm signing as a MERS officer.  This would include thousands of cases where Cheryl Samons and Beth Cerni, administrative employees for David Stern, signed as a representative of the GRANTOR when the firm was actually working for the GRANTEE.  This would also include cases where Patricia Arango and Caryn Graham, two associates working for The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, signed as MERS officers.  This would also include all cases where Christopher Bossman, an administrative employee in the Daniel Consuegra fiirm, signed as a MERS officer.  This would also include all cases where officers of Florida Default Law Group signed as MERS officers. In all of these cases, no disclosure was made to the Court or to the homeowner/defendants that the Assignments were prepared by law firm employees with no knowledge of the truth of the matters asserted therein.

6. Dismiss all of the cases where a Mortgage Assignment was signed by Jeffrey Stephan of GMAC (notarized in Montgomery County, PA).  Stephan has already admitted in sworn testimony that a notary was NOT present when he signed mortgage assignments, even though the Assignments contained a contrary statement.

7. Dismiss all of the cases where the documents were prepared by employees of Lender Processing Services since this company has already admitted in its Annual Statement with the SEC that investigations, internal and otherwise, revealed problems with the documents that were so significant that the company implemented a “remediation” program (and in January, 2010, laid off most of its employees in Alpharetta, GA. Until this company discloses which documents were determined to be defective, and what corrective actions were taken, no documents from LPS submitted to establish ownership and standing (notarized in Fulton County, GA; Duval County, FL and Dakota County, MN) should be relied upon by the Courts.

8. Dismiss all cases where a Mortgage Assignment has been made by American Brokers Conduit, American Home Mortgage Acceptance or American Home Mortgage Company, or nominees or mortgage servicing companies working for these American Home companies, after August 6, 2007, the day these companies filed for bankruptcy.  The bankruptcy court did not authorizing these actions.

If Palm Beach County judges looked critically at the documents submitted by the foreclosure mills,  they would reach the same conclusion as judges in other Florida Circuits – that the documents submitted by the foreclosure mills are worthless and the attorneys submitting these documents deserve strict sanctions.

LYNN E. SZYMONIAK ESQ.

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



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, fraud digest, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, marshall watson, MERS, mortgage electronic registration system, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, note, robo signer, robo signers, stop foreclosure fraud0 Comments

TOPAKO LOVE; LAURA HESCOTT; CHRISTINA ALLEN; ERIC TATE …Officers of way, way too many banks Part Deux “The Twilight Zone”

TOPAKO LOVE; LAURA HESCOTT; CHRISTINA ALLEN; ERIC TATE …Officers of way, way too many banks Part Deux “The Twilight Zone”

First, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ. presented “Compare these Titles & Signatures” & “Too Many Jobs”…Now the next of many of compare these signatures & titles series. “Officers of Way, Way too many banks”…Part Deux “The Twilight Zone”.

How can you be an OFFICER of all these banks and Why is your signature never signed the same??? Minnesota? LPS? Bueller? …anyone?…Bueller?

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



Posted in dennis kirkpatrick, DOCX, erica johnson seck, FIS, foreclosure fraud, Former Fidelity National Information Services, fraud digest, indymac, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, marshall watson, MERS, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, roger stotts, washington mutual12 Comments

Judges To Attorneys From Foreclosure Mills: Your License is on the Line!

Judges To Attorneys From Foreclosure Mills: Your License is on the Line!

One may have seen this coming, so what do they do…

Go NASDAQ BABY!

By: Matthew Weidner P.A.

For a brief period of time in the history of courts in Florida, lawyers engaged in a widespread and pervasive practice of submitting blatantly false evidence in courts.  This period of time began roughly when the foreclosure crisis moved from the mortgage and lending industries and into Florida courts.

Now that judges and courts have become aware of just how pervasive this practice was, individual efforts on the part of judges and systemic rule changes implemented by the Florida Supreme Court should signal the end of this era.  An article that appeared in the Sarasota Tribune and can be viewed here quotes a local judge, Robert Bennett from Sarasota who recently had one of his opinions reversed by the Second District Court of Appeals.  (Verizzo v. Bank of New York) Found here

In the article, the good judge admits that his initial ruling…in favor of the bank was incorrect.  The decision was a reflection of a judicial system that was totally overwhelmed by problems caused by the mortgage and lending institutions….they caused the problems then dumped their problems in the laps of absurdly understaffed courts and judges then said, “Here, you fix the mess we’ve created!”

It’s taken a while to identify the issues and to grasp the scope of the problem, but now that judges and court systems are aware that they were taken advantage of, the tide has shifted.  New rules and new cases, both from appellate courts and from sister courts, have made judges all over aware of the issues such that they are no longer willing to look the other way and sign off granting sale….when asked how he thinks Plaintiff’s attorneys will comply, Chief Judge Lee Hayworth (long a critic of sloppy Plaintiff practice) had this to say:

“I’m looking forward to see how they do comply,” Haworth said. “Their license could be on the line.”

Liberty and Justice Prevail When Good Judges Sit Firmly on The Bench!

Source: Matthew Weidner Blog

Posted in ben-ezra, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, foreclosure fraud, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., marshall watson, shapiro0 Comments

Foreclosure Case Law Update: Matthew Weidner Law

Foreclosure Case Law Update: Matthew Weidner Law

By: Matthew Weidner P.A.

For a short period of time in Florida, pretender lenders and their attorneys had a field day in Florida courts, obtaining foreclosure judgments and title to property based on the flimsiest of evidence.  Now courts are aware of many of the problems with these files and lenders can no longer count on a free ride to the foreclosure auction.  Below is a sampling of case headnotes from recent circuit court opinions that denied foreclosure.  Judges in circuits across the state are now standing up for consumers (or at least for the rule of law) and requiring lenders to prove their right to claim the relief they seek.  A sampling of the headnotes follows:

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Stay — Foreclosure action is stayed until mortgagor has been afforded mitigation and modification opportunities of home affordable modification program

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion for final judgment of foreclosure denied — Plaintiff that did not become holder of note until after suit was filed did not have standing to bring action — Even if assignment could confer standing retroactively, assignment is deficient where jurat does not indicate that it was signed in presence of notary, and assignor does not have documented authority to assign mortgage — Further, motion for summary judgment is deficient where supporting affidavit was signed by person whose only demonstrated authority is to assign and release liens, not by individual with corporate authority and demonstrated knowledge.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Complaint — Plaintiff has failed to state cause of action where partial terms sheet attached to foreclosure complaint omits details as to who gets paid, when and where payment is due, and amount of payment — Further, assignment that is dated after filing of suit is at variance with complaint — Complaint dismissed with leave to amend.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion to dismiss is granted with leave to file new or amended complaint to allege that plaintiff is owner and holder of note and mortgage and to allege additional facts that support that allegation.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Where note filed by plaintiff is endorsed but does not name entity to which it is made payable, plaintiff failed to plead in complaint that it is owner of note or mortgage, mortgage names entity other than plaintiff as mortgagee, plaintiff has filed assignment of mortgage executed and recorded after complaint was filed, and complaint does not demonstrate equitable assignment of mortgage to plaintiff before complaint was filed, plaintiff must amend complaint to allege that it is owner and holder of note and mortgage and identify documents upon which it relies to establish that it holds and owns note and mortgage

Siurce: Matthew Weidner Law Blog

Posted in ben-ezra, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, erica johnson seck, FIS, foreclosure fraud, Former Fidelity National Information Services, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., marshall watson, note, shapiro0 Comments


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

Archives