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

Scribd

BELOW ARE EXAMPLES OF THE WORK COMING

FROM FANNIE/FREDDIE/MERS/LPS

FORECLOSURE MILL BARON’S

THERE IS MORE OF THESE

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.
-

Scribd

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

GMAC v. JOSEPH A. REMKUS

The note itself reflects that it was executed and delivered by the mortgagor to E*Trade. MERS is not mentioned in the note and is given no rights therein. Accordingly, the court is unable to discern from the submissions a factual or legal basis for MERS’ purported assignment of‘the underlying note to plaintiff. Moreover, even if the purported assignment were valid in all respects, plaintiffs submissions establish that at the time of the commencement of this action plaintiff was not the owner of the mortgage and note sued upon.

The Court notes that the questionable validity of the purported assignment is further reflected by the fact that it appears to have been executed on behalf of MERS by the same person, Jeffrey Stephan, who executed the “affidavit of merit” on behalf of the plaintiff in this action.

In light of the foregoing, the motion to appoint a referee is denied.

Proposed ex-parte order marked “not signed.”

Dated: July 28, 2008
-

Contiune reading the NY Case below…I have others similar

Scribd

I can tell you there is MAJOR, MAJOR panic happening “behind the scenes” since I have started this site I have not seen this kind of activity! All I can say is don’t stop what ever you are doing GMAC or not…

Foreclosure Mess

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE COMMITTEE

WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER: ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE

HON. SAMUEL L. BUFFORD
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

(FORMERLY HON.) R. GLEN AYERS
LANGLEY & BANACK
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTUTUTE
APRIL 3, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C.

WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER

INTRODUCTION

In an era where a very large portion of mortgage obligations have been securitized, by assignment to a trust indenture trustee, with the resulting pool of assets being then sold as mortgage backed securities, foreclosure becomes an interesting exercise, particularly where judicial process is involved.  We are all familiar with the securitization process.  The steps, if not the process, is simple.  A borrower goes to a mortgage lender.  The lender finances the purchase of real estate.  The borrower signs a note and mortgage or deed of trust.  The original lender sells the note and assigns the mortgage to an entity that securitizes the note by combining the note with hundreds or thousands of similar obligation to create a package of mortgage backed securities, which are then sold to investors.

Unfortunately, unless you represent borrowers, the vast flow of notes into the maw of the securitization industry meant that a lot of mistakes were made.  When the borrower defaults, the party seeking to enforce the obligation and foreclose on the underlying collateral sometimes cannot find the note.  A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes “securitized” have been lost or destroyed.  The cases we are going to look at reflect the stark fact that the unnamed source’s speculation may be well-founded.

UCC SECTION 3-309

If the issue were as simple as a missing note, UCC §3-309 would provide a simple solution.  A person entitled to enforce an instrument which has been lost, destroyed or stolen may enforce the instrument. If the court is concerned that some third party may show up and attempt to enforce the instrument against the payee, it may order adequate protection.  But, and however, a person seeking to enforce a missing instrument must be a person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person must prove the instrument’s terms and that person’s right to enforce the instrument.  §3-309 (a)(1) & (b).

WHO’S THE HOLDER

Enforcement of a note always requires that the person seeking to collect show that it is the holder.  A holder is an entity that has acquired the note either as the original payor or transfer by endorsement of order paper or physical possession of bearer paper.  These requirements are set out in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in every state, including Louisiana, and in the District of Columbia.  Even in bankruptcy proceedings, State substantive law controls the rights of note and lien holders, as the Supreme Court pointed out almost forty (40) years ago in United States v. Butner, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55 (1979).

However, as Judge Bufford has recently illustrated, in one of the cases discussed below, in the bankruptcy and other federal courts, procedure is governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Civil Procedure.  And, procedure may just have an impact on the issue of “who,” because, if the holder is unknown, pleading and standing issues arise.

BRIEF REVIEW OF UCC PROVISIONS

Article 3 governs negotiable instruments – it defines what a negotiable instrument is and defines how ownership of those pieces of paper is transferred.  For the precise definition, see § 3-104(a) (“an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest . . . .”)  The instrument may be either payable to order or bearer and payable on demand or at a definite time, with or without interest.

Ordinary negotiable instruments include notes and drafts (a check is a draft drawn on a bank).  See § 3-104(e).

Negotiable paper is transferred from the original payor by negotiation.  §3-301.  “Order paper” must be endorsed; bearer paper need only be delivered.  §3-305.  However, in either case, for the note to be enforced, the person who asserts the status of the holder must be in possession of the instrument.  See UCC § 1-201 (20) and comments.

The original and subsequent transferees are referred to as holders.  Holders who take with no notice of defect or default are called “holders in due course,” and take free of many defenses.  See §§ 3-305(b).

The UCC says that a payment to a party “entitled to enforce the instrument” is sufficient to extinguish the obligation of the person obligated on the instrument.  Clearly, then, only a holder – a person in possession of a note endorsed to it or a holder of bearer paper – may seek satisfaction or enforce rights in collateral such as real estate.

NOTE:  Those of us who went through the bank and savings and loan collapse of the 1980’s are familiar with these problems.  The FDIC/FSLIC/RTC sold millions of notes secured and unsecured, in bulk transactions.  Some notes could not be found and enforcement sometimes became a problem.  Of course, sometimes we are forced to repeat history.  For a recent FDIC case, see Liberty Savings Bank v. Redus, 2009 WL 41857 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), January 8, 2009.

THE RULES

Judge Bufford addressed the rules issue this past year.  See In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757  (Bankr. C. D. Cal. 2008).  First, there are the pleading problems that arise when the holder of the note is unknown.  Typically, the issue will arise in a motion for relief from stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.

According F.R.Civ. Pro. 17, “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”  This rule is incorporated into the rules governing bankruptcy procedure in several ways.  As Judge Bufford has pointed out, for example, in a motion for relief from stay, filed under F.R.Bankr.Pro. 4001 is a contested matter, governed by F. R. Bankr. P. 9014, which makes F.R. Bankr. Pro. 7017 applicable to such motions.  F.R. Bankr. P. 7017 is, of course, a restatement of F.R. Civ. P. 17.  In re Hwang, 396 B.R. at 766.  The real party in interest in a federal action to enforce a note, whether in bankruptcy court or federal district court, is the owner of a note.  (In securitization transactions, this would be the trustee for the “certificate holders.”) When the actual holder of the note is unknown, it is impossible – not difficult but impossible – to plead a cause of action in a federal court (unless the movant simply lies about the ownership of the note).  Unless the name of the actual note holder can be stated, the very pleadings are defective.

STANDING

Often, the servicing agent for the loan will appear to enforce the note.   Assume that the servicing agent states that it is the authorized agent of the note holder, which is “Trust Number 99.”   The servicing agent is certainly a party in interest, since a party in interest in a bankruptcy court is a very broad term or concept.  See, e.g., Greer v. O’Dell, 305 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (11^th Cir. 2002).  However, the servicing agent may not have standing: “Federal Courts have only the power authorized by Article III of the Constitutions and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. … [A] plaintiff must have Constitutional standing in order for a federal court to have jurisdiction.”  In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 3d 650, 653 (S.D. Ohio, 2007) (citations omitted).

But, the servicing agent does not have standing, for only a person who is the holder of the note has standing to enforce the note.  See, e.g., In re Hwang, 2008 WL 4899273 at 8.

The servicing agent may have standing if acting as an agent for the holder, assuming that the agent can both show agency status and that the principle is the holder.  See, e.g., In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) at 520.

A BRIEF ASIDE: WHO IS MERS?

For those of you who are not familiar with the entity known as MERS, a frequent participant in these foreclosure proceedings:

MERS is the “Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.  “MERS is a mortgage banking ‘utility’ that registers mortgage loans in a book entry system so that … real estate loans can be bought, sold and securitized, just like Wall Street’s book entry utility for stocks and bonds is the Depository Trust and Clearinghouse.” Bastian, “Foreclosure Forms”, State. Bar of Texas 17^th Annual Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, March 9-10, 2007, Dallas, Texas. MERS is enormous.  It originates thousands of loans daily and is the mortgagee of record for at least 40 million mortgages and other security documents. Id.

MERS acts as agent for the owner of the note.  Its authority to act should be shown by an agency agreement.  Of course, if the owner is unknown, MERS cannot show that it is an authorized agent of  the owner.

RULES OF EVIDENCE – A PRACTICAL PROBLEM

This structure also possesses practical evidentiary problems where the party asserting a right to foreclose must be able to show a default.  Once again, Judge Bufford has addressed this issue.   At In re Vargas, 396 B.R. at 517-19.  Judge Bufford made a finding that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was incompetent.  All the witness could testify was that he had looked at the MERS computerized records.  The witness was unable to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, as applied to computerized records in the Ninth Circuit.  See id. at 517-20.  The low level employee could really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed reflected a default.  That really is not much in the way of evidence, and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule.

FORECLOSURE OR RELIEF FROM STAY

In a foreclosure proceeding in a judicial foreclosure state, or a request for injunctive relief in a non-judicial foreclosure state, or in a motion for relief proceeding in a bankruptcy court, the courts are dealing with and writing about the problems very frequently.

In many if not almost all cases, the party seeking to exercise the rights of the creditor will be a servicing company.  Servicing companies will be asserting the rights of their alleged principal, the note holder, which is, again, often going to be a trustee for a securitization package.  The mortgage holder or beneficiary under the deed of trust will, again, very often be MERS.

Even before reaching the practical problem of debt and default, mentioned above, the moving party must show that it holds the note or (1) that it is an agent of the holder and that (2) the holder remains the holder.  In addition, the owner of the note, if different from the holder, must join in the motion.

Some states, like Texas, have passed statutes that allow servicing companies to act in foreclosure proceedings as a statutorily recognized agent of the noteholder.  See, e.g., Tex. Prop. Code §51.0001.  However, that statute refers to the servicer as the last entity to whom the debtor has been instructed to make payments.  This status is certainly open to challenge.  The statute certainly provides nothing more than prima facie evidence of the ability of the servicer to act.   If challenged, the servicing agent must show that the last entity to communicate instructions to the debtor is still the holder of the note.  See, e.g., HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Valentin, 2l N.Y.  Misc. 3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.), Nov. 3, 2008.  In addition, such a statute does not control in federal court where Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and 19 (and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7017 and 7019) apply.

SOME RECENT CASE LAW

These cases are arranged by state, for no particular reason.

Massachusetts

In re Schwartz, 366 B.R.265 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007)

Schwartz concerns a Motion for Relief to pursue an eviction. Movant asserted that the property had been foreclosed upon prior to the date of the bankruptcy petition.  The pro se debtor asserted that the Movant was required to show that it had authority to conduct the sale.  Movant, and “the party which appears to be the current mortgagee…” provided documents for the court to review, but did not ask for an evidentiary hearing.  Judge Rosenthal sifted through the documents and found that the Movant and the current mortgagee had failed to prove that the foreclosure was properly conducted.

Specifically, Judge Rosenthal found that there was no evidence of a proper assignment of the mortgage prior to foreclosure.  However, at footnote 5, Id. at 268, the Court also finds that there is no evidence that the note itself was assigned and no evidence as to who the current holder might be.

Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company (In re Nosek), 286 Br. 374 (Bankr D Mass. 2008).

Almost a year to the day after Schwartz was signed, Judge Rosenthal issued a second opinion.  This is an opinion on an order to show cause.  Judge Rosenthal specifically found that, although the note and mortgage involved in the case had been transferred from the originator to another party within five days of closing, during the five years in which the chapter 13 proceeding was pending, the note and mortgage and associated claims had been prosecuted by Ameriquest which has represented itself to be the holder of the note and the mortgage.  Not until September of 2007 did Ameriquest notify the Court that it was merely the servicer.  In fact, only after the chapter 13 bankruptcy had been pending for about three years was there even an assignment of the servicing rights.  Id. at 378.

Because these misrepresentations were not simple mistakes:  as the Court has noted on more than one occasion, those parties who do not hold the note of mortgage do not service the mortgage do not have standing to pursue motions for leave or other actions arising form the mortgage obligation.  Id at 380.

As a result, the Court sanctioned the local law firm that had been prosecuting the claim $25,000.  It sanctioned a partner at that firm an additional $25,000.  Then the Court sanctioned the national law firm involved $100,000 and ultimately sanctioned Wells Fargo $250,000.  Id. at 382-386.

In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008).

Like Judge Rosenthal, Judge Feeney has attacked the problem of standing and authority head on.  She has also held that standing must be established before either a claim can be allowed or a motion for relief be granted.

Ohio

In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 2d (S.D. Ohio 2007).

Perhaps the District Court’s orders in the foreclosure cases in Ohio have received the most press of any of these opinions.  Relying almost exclusively on standing, the Judge Rose has determined that a foreclosing party must show standing.  “[I]n a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time that the complaint was filed.”  Id. at 653.

Judge Rose instructed the parties involved that the willful failure of the movants to comply with the general orders of the Court would in the future result in immediate dismissal of foreclosure actions.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Steele, 2008 WL 111227 (S.D. Ohio) January 8, 2008.

In Steele, Judge Abel followed the lead of Judge Rose and found that Deutsche Bank had filed evidence in support of its motion for default judgment indicating that MERS was the mortgage holder.  There was not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Deutsche Bank was the owner and holder of the note as of that date.  Following In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 456586, the Court held that summary judgment would be denied “until such time as Deutsche Bank was able to offer evidence showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed.”  2008 WL 111227 at 2.  Deutsche Bank was given twenty-one days to comply.  Id.

Illinois

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Cook, 2009 WL 35286 (N.D. Ill. January 6, 2009).

Not all federal district judges are as concerned with the issues surrounding the transfer of notes and mortgages.  CookId. at 3.  In fact, a review of the evidence submitted by U.S. Bank showed only that it was the alleged trustee of the securitization pool.  U.S. Bank relied exclusively on the “pooling and serving agreement” to show that it was the holder of the note.  Id. is a very pro lender case and, in an order granting a motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Cook had shown no “countervailing evidence to create a genuine issue of facts.”

Under UCC Article 3, the evidence presented in Cook was clearly insufficient.

New York

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin, 21 Misc. 3D 1124(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.) November 3, 2008.  In Valentin, the New York court found that, even though given an opportunity to, HSBC did not show the ownership of debt and mortgage.  The complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the “notice of pendency” against the property was cancelled.

Note that the Valentin case does not involve some sort of ambush. The Court gave every HSBC every opportunity to cure the defects the Court perceived in the pleadings.

California

In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)

and

In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)

These two opinions by Judge Bufford have been discussed above.  Judge Bufford carefully explores the related issues of standing and ownership under both federal and California law.

Texas

In re Parsley, 384 B.R. 138 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)

and

In re Gilbreath, 395 B.R. 356 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)

These two recent opinions by Judge Jeff Bohm are not really on point, but illustrate another thread of cases running through the issues of motions for relief from stay in bankruptcy court and the sloppiness of loan servicing agencies.  Both of these cases involve motions for relief that were not based upon fact but upon mistakes by servicing agencies.  Both opinions deal with the issue of sanctions and, put simply, both cases illustrate that Judge Bohm (and perhaps other members of the bankruptcy bench in the Southern District of Texas) are going to be very strict about motions for relief in consumer cases.

SUMMARY

The cases cited illustrate enormous problems in the loan servicing industry.  These problems arise in the context of securitization and illustrate the difficulty of determining the name of the holder, the assignee of the mortgage, and the parties with both the legal right under Article 3 and the standing under the Constitution to enforce notes, whether in state court or federal court.

Interestingly, with the exception of Judge Bufford and a few other judges, there has been less than adequate focus upon the UCC title issues.  The next round of cases may and should focus upon the title to debt instrument.  The person seeking to enforce the note must show that:

(1)               It is the holder of this note original by transfer, with all necessary rounds;

(2)               It had possession of the note before it was lost;

(3)               If it can show that title to the note runs to it, but the original is lost or destroyed, the holder must be          prepared to post a bond;

(4)               If the person seeking to enforce is an agent, it must show its agency status and that its principal is the holder of the note (and meets the above requirements).

Then, and only then, do the issues of evidence of debt and default and assignment of mortgage rights become relevant.

The yellow in the picture represents all the hard work and sweat Mr. Nguyen encountered for this victory.

Quiet Title, Rescission and Damages, and Unfair Business Practices

JUDGMENT

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over the Defendants.

2. Venue as to the Defendants in the Central District of California is proper.

3. Default judgment is hereby entered against Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC and in favor of Plaintiffs Paul Nguyen and Laura Nguyen on all claims in Plaintiffs’ SecondAmended Complaint.

4. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Deed of Trust recorded with Orange County Recorder as instrument No. 2007000731120 on 12/12/2007 is wholly voided as to plaintiff Laura Nguyen.

5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services record a DEED OF RECONVEYANCE to reconvey unto Plaintiffs thereto all right, title and interest which was heretofore acquired by First American Loanstar Trustee Services under deed of trust recorded with Orange County Recorder as instrument No. 2007000731120 on 12/12/2007.

6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all adverse claims against property known as 16141 Quartz Street, Westminster, CA 92683 are quieted.
The legal description of said property is:

LOT 44 TRACT NO. 8977, IN THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF  CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 369, PAGE(S) 46 AND 47 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Assessor’s Parcel No.: 107-903-44.

7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Promissory Note dated 12/12/2007 executed by Plaintiff Paul Nguyen in favor of Chase Bank USA, N.A. rescinded pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(i).

8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(b), Plaintiffs had made offer to tender the loan evidenced by promissory note dated 12/12/2007 and Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. did not take possession within 20 days after tender by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, ownership of the loan proceed is vested in the Plaintiffs without obligation on their part to pay for it.

9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. within 20 days after entry of judgment shall return to the Plaintiffs any money or property given as earnest money, down payment, or otherwise pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(b).

10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded their costs of suit, to be paid by Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC, in an amount to be determined by the Clerk of the Court.

DATED: September 15, 2010
____________________________
The Honorable A. Howard Matz
JS-6 United States District Judge

Scribd

Again… look towards the “Common Thread” chances are MERS is involved if they’ve been securitized . Remember every loan needs a “MOM“

FBI crackdown on fraudulent mortgages may underestimate scope of problem

by CHRISTINE RICCIARDI
Tuesday, September 14th, 2010, 1:00 pm

When the Federal Bureau of Investigation began Operation Stolen Dreams in March 2010, the government’s largest mortgage fraud takedown, the FBI estimated about $2.3 billion of fraudulent mortgages were originated in 2009. However, recent estimates from a source monitoring the operation indicates that number is now closer to $14 billion.

The numbers were put together recently by an European investment bank in the run-up to a mortgage fraud conference in the U.K. next month. It found that mortgage fraud in the U.K. stood at $120 million in 2009.  “The phenomenon, though worrying and one that certainly requires strong intervention from authorities, is not of the same scale as in the U.S.,” said the source. “Securitization is therefore well protected from this issue.”

Continue to…House Wire

.

The Time To Act Is NOW!

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

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

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

Or Info at stopforeclosurefraud.com

LAW OFFICES OF MOSES S. HALL, APC
2651 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 110
Fullerton, California 92831
Telephone (714) 738-4830
Facsimile (714)992-7916

September 9, 2010

Attorney General’s Office
California Department of Justice
Attn:  Edmund G. Brown Jr.
1300 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Benjamin G. Diehl
Office of the California Attorney General
300 S. Spring Street,. Ste 1702
Los Angeles, CA  90013

Kathrin Sears
Office of the California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste 1702
San Francisco, CA  94102

Re: Civil Code §§ 2923.52 and 2923.53
The People of The State of California vs. Countrywide et. al. LC093076
Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Dear Colleagues and Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr:

As you are aware, my office represents homeowners caught up in the foreclosure crisis currently occurring in the California housing market.

You may recall that my office sought your assistance in the matter of Mabry vs. Aurora Loan Services. Wherein the 4^th Appellate District Division Three acknowledged a private right of action to prevent foreclosures on a citizen’s primary residence, when the bank and/or mortgage holder has not complied with Civil Code § 2923.5. However, your office opted not to participated in what I believe was a landmark decision for homeowners in the battle against foreclosure prevention here in California.

Notwithstanding the Stipulated Judgment and Injunction that your office had obtained against Countrywide/Bank of America in the above referenced case, Bank of America filed an Amicus Curia Brief in the Mabry action espousing no private right of action and no obligation to modify distressed loans.

I am fully aware, grateful and commend your office for its attempts to crackdown on loan modification schemes that have swindled millions of dollars out of frightened and frustrated homeowners. Some homeowners who were and still are willing to believe against all logic or reason that the companies, whom practiced such schemes, could actually get the mortgage holder to give them some sort of State or Federal assistance that could prevent the losing of their homes and becoming homeless.

I further commend your office for its 2008 lawsuit against then Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Spectrum Lending, Inc., who are now commonly referred to as Bank of America N.A. and BAC Home Loans (BAC).  An action which ultimately resulted in the successful acquiring of a Stipulated Judgment and Injunction against (BAC) on October 14, 2008.

The BAC lawsuit’s primary focus was on the predatory lending practices of the Defendants. The Stipulated Judgment and Injunction provides a remedy that creates yet another avenue for BAC borrowers to find relief and even the possibility of preventing the loss of their homes. The loss of a home is a threat that is ever too common, albeit avoidable with help from BAC, for numerous California BAC borrowers in this foreclosure crisis.

I wish this letter could end here or at least continue to praise your efforts and accomplishments as the present Attorney General of California. However, unfortunately, it must now turn to the present state of affairs and your lack of aggressiveness in the pursuit against the foe you identified and successfully prosecuted in the People vs. Countrywide, et.al. action.

I believe judgment obtained against BAC was merely the tip of the iceberg.  You may or may not be aware that IndyMac Bank, now OneWest Bank, has been sued by their investors for providing false and misleading appraisals along with committing many underwriting violations, which gave thousands of Californians their present unconscionable loans [a copy of the court’s opinion is attached for your edification].

There are presently hearings scheduled on September 21, 2010 and September 22, 2010, that involve issues that would substantially curtail the foreclosures in California:

• September 22, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 68 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Mabry vs. Preston Dufauchard, Commissioner For the California Dept of Corporations, Real Party in Interest Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No: BS 127903. Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
• • The issue: Whether possessing a HAMP program equates as compliance with California Civil Code § 2923.53.

• September 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the California 4^th Appellate Court Division Three Vuki vs. Superior Court of California, Orange County Case No: GO43533, Real Party in Interest HSBC. Oral Argument.
  • The issue: Whether a bad faith compliance with Civil Code § 2923.53 makes the foreclosing beneficiary (HSBC) a bona fide purchaser pursuant to Civil Code §2923.54.

• September 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the California 4^th Appellate Court Division Three Sanchez vs. Superior Court of California, Orange County Case No: G043300, Real Party in Interest Litton Loan Servicing LLC.. Oral Argument.
• • The issue: Whether a fully executed and performed loan modification is terminated by the lender’s inadvertent sale of the subject real property in lieu of Civil Code § 2923.54.

These decisions are being sought by my office to help clarify citizens’ rights under the present Foreclosure Prevention Statutes.

My office has been very instrumental in not only the prosecution of these issues, on behalf of my clients, but all citizens of the State of California.

Unfortunately, the BAC Stipulated Judgment and Injunction does not provide a component for a private right of enforcement.  Thus, with respect to possible violations by BAC, such Stipulated Judgment and Injunction can only be enforced by your office.

My office would love to step into your shoes and be granted permission and the rights to enforcement under the Stipulated Judgment and Injunctions. That way we may stop all the Countrywide loan foreclosures presently scheduled and being conducted in California until each

prior Countrywide and/or BAC California borrower is offered the benefits under the Stipulated Judgment and Injunction your office obtained.

I do not believe that you could or are able to assign such a right, but I make it as a gesture of sincerity as to my conviction and belief of the wrongdoings of BAC.

I ask that you immediately seek Court intervention enjoining all Countrywide and/or BAC foreclosures proceedings that fall within the auspices of the Stipulated Judgment/Injunction.

Alternatively, you leave my office no choice but to seek a Writ of Mandamus asking the Court to instruct you and your office on your obligations as Attorney General of our great State.  I realize your business and acknowledge that this may not be your primary priority, but if I do not receive a response indicating your intent by September 17, 2010, I will deem you have no intent to respond, investigate this matter, or take other appropriate action and at that time will seek the Writ of Mandamus.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned paragraph, I wish you well on your campaign to return to the position of Governor of our great State.

Sincerely
Moses S. Hall;
Msh:
Attachments.

Scribd

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT NASSAU

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

Scribd

We can learn a thing or two about a simple game called Monopoly!

In the end .. it all goes back in the box …

Editing done by me.

“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” -Albert Pine

Speech is by John Ortberg

When Quantitative Easing Has Run Its Course and Fails

AFFIDAVIT FAIL!

Just like the Lis Pendens arriving before the Assignment from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. with 1st Vice President Mark Bishop (who also signs for CityWide Mortgage Corp and America’s Wholesale Lender,etc.). There is no Assignment “created” from MERS to BAC Home Loan Servicing LP.

In this Affidavit we have Suzanne M. Haumesser signing as SR. Vice President of BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP. For Owner and Holder of Mortgage and Note, Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWALT inc Alternative Loan Trust 2006-oa10 mortgage pass through certificates, series 2006-oa10

The Notary is Dolores V. Bald from Erie County, New York.

The day of service August 26. 2010

Date showing for the amount due “FEBRUARY 17, 2010″

Signed in California but notarized in New York!

Did Suzanne make a special trip just to sign this in NY?

NOW, Take a look at when this was NOTARIZED DECEMBER 30, 2009 (?08) months before the February 17, 2010 tally of the amounts due! It also looks like an 08 instead of a 09. Last the date of service was August 26, 2010. C’mon get real! Why does it take all these months?

If this was done in 2008 New York Notary Commissions are good for 4 years.

From Academy Award® nominated filmmaker, Charles Ferguson (“No End In Sight”), comes INSIDE JOB, the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis of 2008. The global financial meltdown, at a cost of over $20 trillion, resulted in millions of people losing their homes and jobs. Through extensive research and interviews with major financial insiders, politicians and journalists, INSIDE JOB traces the rise of a rogue industry and unveils the corrosive relationships which have corrupted politics, regulation and academia.

Narrated by Academy Award® winner Matt Damon, INSIDE JOB was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.