Archive | mistake



Please don’t get me wrong. I really like Gretchen Morgenson and Geraldine Fabrikant but I am somewhat disappointed in today’s article High-Speed Courts Try to Rush Through Foreclosures, in which they really missed some important “key components”.

A few weeks ago our friend at Chink in the Armor said it best in his post Gretchen Swoops for the Kill, and Feints … Twice. He states “Gretchen Moregenson of the New York Times is circling the MERS story. Every once in a while she will seem to make a pass at it but at the last moment she diverts to something else, plucking a nice little morsel but leaving the main dish of MERS behind. She refrains, like everyone else, from coming in for the kill. I know for a fact she knows – from two different sources – but I don’t know why she holds her powder.”

He continues… “She had two stories this past week just like that.”

Again, don’t get me wrong, but there are other players just as important as, if not more so, than the Foreclosure Mills, such as MERS, Lender Processing Services, mortgage-backed security trusts, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae (or GSEs??).

In today’s NYT’s article Gretchen and Geraldine did, however, manage to get in touch with David J. Stern. Of course, to no one’s surprise he “attributed any backdating to sloppiness on the part of paralegals“.

I am sure that statement will not sit well with any paralegals working there who are working hard, doing exactly what their supervisors are telling them to do.

I must say the most important statement from this article comes from the Florida Attorney General,… “Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of these law firms,” said Mr. McCollum in an interview. “We’ve had so many complaints that I am confident there is a great deal of fraud here.

My suggestion to any journalist that fine combs this site is to please do your research and, then, write a mind blowing article that will clear the smoke from the mirrors.

Gretchen, when will you finally swoop in for the kill?

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Posted in chain in title, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., LPS, MERS, MERSCORP, mistake, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, Notary, notary fraud, note, servicers, stock, Wall Street1 Comment



Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding as entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.

Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment or decree shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.


Snipes v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 885 So. 2d 899, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)

Suntrust Bank, Inc. v. Hodges, 12 So.3d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA July 22, 2009)

Challenger Investment Group, LC v. Jones, et. al., 34 Fla. L. Wkly. D1990 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30 2009)

Wells Fargo Bank v. Conaway, No. 09-000145 (Fla. 6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010)

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Posted in breach of contract, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, corruption, discovery, ex parte, foreclosure fraud, forensic loan audit, injunction, investigation, mail fraud, mistake, non disclosure, notary fraud, securitization, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, TRO, trustee sale1 Comment

Bank of America’s error cost Cape Coral woman a house

Bank of America’s error cost Cape Coral woman a house

Melanie Payne • Tellmel@news-press.com • July 22, 2010

1:10 A.M. — Nicole DePuy thought she was one of the lucky ones when she walked out of Harborside Event Center on Jan. 27 with a loan modification that would save her home from foreclosure.

After waiting hours to talk to her lender at the highly publicized event, the 40-year-old speech-language pathologist had been approved for a trial with the Home Affordable Modification Program.

Under the government-sponsored program called HAMP, DePuy’s mortgage payments were cut almost in half, dropping from $2,100 to $1,054.

And best of all, under the terms of the program, all foreclosure action would stop. The scheduled sale of DePuy’s Cape Coral home was prohibited under the terms of the agreement.

“I thought my problems were over,” DePuy said.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But DePuy didn’t know that until John Moffatt of Isla Blue Development LLC put a note on her door March 31 telling her to call about her property. Moffatt told DePuy the company he represented had purchased her home in a foreclosure sale at the courthouse.

DePuy called Bank of America to find out what happened and was told the bank had failed to notify the lawyer handling the foreclosure sale that DePuy was in the trial loan modification program.

Fort Myers attorney Robert D. Royston Jr. agreed to represent DePuy. He asked the court to set aside the sale “on the basis of the mistake by the plaintiff.”

Royston filed the contract showing the modification and the HAMP guidelines that read: “Foreclosure sales may not be conducted while the loan is being considered for a modification or during the trial period.”

The judge didn’t have an opportunity to read the pleadings.

“The judiciary is having difficulty given the volume to give the attention each case may require,” Royston said.

Because Isla Blue purchased the house fair and square, it belonged to it, the judge ruled.

Isla Blue could have kicked DePuy and her 11-year-old daughter out within days of the ruling, but she has been given until the end of the month to move.

Bank of America told me it would deal with this issue directly with DePuy. A customer advocate contacted her Tuesday, DePuy said, telling her she was looking into it.

DePuy’s story illustrates the pitfalls of homeowners going it alone when dealing with foreclosures. If DePuy had an attorney, the attorney would have seen the house was still on the foreclosure listings and taken action before the sale.

Martha Green, the executive assistant at the Home Ownership Resource Center, said that DePuy could have contacted the bank’s attorney herself and told the attorney she had worked out a modification. But going it alone, DePuy would not have known to do that.

The scary thing is that there are more than 1.2 million homeowners who have started a trial modification under the government’s “Making Home Affordable” plan. I hope it works better for them than it did for DePuy.

– For more columns and reader forums go to news-press.com/tellmel. Write to Tell Mel at 2442 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Fort Myers, 33901. Call her at 344-4772. E-mail her at tellmel@ news-press.com.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Posted in bank of america, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, hamp, mistake, mortgage, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud1 Comment

Groves woman claims Bank Of America mistake led to foreclosure

Groves woman claims Bank Of America mistake led to foreclosure

Starting to sound like a broken record with these bank “mistakes”!

6/28/2010 12:55 PM By Kelly Holleran

A Groves woman has filed suit against a bank that she says failed to automatically withdraw mortgage payments from her account, causing her to face foreclosure and eviction.

Charlenee Renee Hardee claims she first learned of the foreclosure on her house when she received an eviction notice posted on her door.

According to the complaint filed June 17 in Jefferson County District Court, Hardee had set up automatic withdrawals with defendant Bank of America in December that were supposed to go toward paying off her mortgage.

However, she alleges Bank of America had not been withdrawing payments as scheduled, which Hardee claims she was unaware of until she received the eviction notice, the suit states.

“At that time, Plaintiff checked her bank statement and discovered that no payments had been taken out of her account and that there was sufficient balance to pay the deficiency,” the complaint says. “Plaintiff went to Defendant, Bank of America National Association, and attempted to bring the note current but Defendant, Bank of America National Association, declined to accept her payment because the house had already been sold in foreclosure.”

On April 10, Bank of America executed an appointment of a substitute trustee, who then held a truste’s sale on May 4 and conveyed the property to defendant Estatepro, Hardee claims.

However, before the sale, Estatepro failed to supply Hardee with the required 30-day notice of default or with the notice of foreclosure sale, although it asserts that the required notices were sent, according to the complaint.

It was not until after the sale that Hardee received the notice of eviction, the suit state.s

Hardee alleges breach of contract against Bank of America for its failure to automatically transfer payments from her account. She also claims Estatepro’s deed of the property constitutes an impermissible cloud on Hardee’s premises.

In her complaint, Hardee is asking the court to declare the foreclosure, sale of her property and deed invalid. She is also asking the court to enter an order declaring her to be the rightful owner of the property. She is seeking actual damages, judgment for breach of contract, attorney’s fees, costs and other relief the court deems just.

Bruce Gregory of the Gregory Law Firm in Port Neches will be representing her.

The case has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court.

Jefferson County District Court case number: E187-098.

Source: SeTexasRecord.com

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Posted in bank of america, Eviction, foreclosure fraud, mistake0 Comments



Please Support Me!

Write your comment within 199 characters.

All Of These Are Troll Comments