STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Archive | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE RESULTS OF THE FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF HIS COURT AND LAND RECORDS!

OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE RESULTS OF THE FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF HIS COURT AND LAND RECORDS!

H/T Dave Krieger!

The Forensic Examination Report commissioned by Armando Ramirez, the Osceola County Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Osceola County, has been submitted to the Orange/Osceola State Attorney recently.

The first one hundred victimized families related to alleged fraudulent foreclosure
documents will begin to sign criminal complaints against the entities or individuals at the  Kissimmee Police Department very soon.

A press release will be issued by my office this week with additional information.

Sincerely,
Armando Ramirez

Clerk of the Circuit Court
Osceola County
© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Exclusive: Big mortgage investors take first step toward suing Ocwen

Exclusive: Big mortgage investors take first step toward suing Ocwen

REUTERS-

Major mortgage bond investors including BlackRock (BLK.N), MetLife (MET.N) and Pimco (ALVG.DE) on Friday took a first step toward suing Ocwen Financial Corp (OCN.N), accusing it of having failed to properly collect payments on $82 billion of home loans, according to a person familiar with the matter and to documents seen by Reuters.

The group sent a formal notice of non-performance to Ocwen and trustees for 119 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts, alleging improper loan modification practices, wrongfully recouped advances, and a failure to account for cash flows.

The notice said that Ocwen also steered work to affiliates such as Altisource Portfolio Solutions (ASPS.O) and Home Loan Servicing Solutions (HLSS.O) for allegedly unnecessary or overpriced mortgage servicing to the detriment of the trusts, investors and borrowers.

[REUTERS]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

The Foreclosure Hour’s Exclusive interview with Marie McDonnell, nationally renowned securitization expert 1/25/2015

The Foreclosure Hour’s Exclusive interview with Marie McDonnell, nationally renowned securitization expert 1/25/2015

Sunday January 25, 2015

You do not want to miss today’s show!

Tune in Sunday 1/25/15 for the live broadcast coming to you from the Dubin Law Offices in Honolulu, Hawaii:
3:00 p.m. Hawaii Time
5:00 p.m. Pacific Time
8:00 p.m. Eastern Time 
(Listen on the iHeart Internet App. right after the news at the top of the hour)
Will also be available for listening the following Monday on www.foreclosurehour.com (past shows)

Here are some of the topics that will be covered:

1. The Source, Nature, and Amount of Fraudulent Mortgage Loan Documents That Have Been and That Are Being Recorded Today.

2. The Manner in Which Fraudulent Mortgage Loan Documents as Breeder Documents Have Been Used and Are Now Being Used in Nonjudicial and in Judicial Foreclosure Proceedings Today.

3. What Is And What Is Not Being Done About Combatting the Use of Fraudulent Mortgage Loan Documents Today By Courts, State Legislatures, Congress, Recording Offices, Title Companies, and the Legal Profession Today.

4. What Marie is Doing To Assist Recording Offices To Purge and To Prevent in the Future the Recording of Fraudulent Mortgage Loan Documents in Their Jurisdictions.

5. How the National Homeowners SuperPAC Intends To Support Marie’s Efforts To Assist Recording Offices To Purge and To Prevent in the Future the Recording of Fraudulent Mortgage Loan Documents in Their Jurisdictions.

Tune in Below!

 

image: www.mcdonnellanalytics.com

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Ocwen Agrees to $2.5 Million Settlement with California Regulator for Failing to Provide Loan Information

Ocwen Agrees to $2.5 Million Settlement with California Regulator for Failing to Provide Loan Information

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS OVERSIGHT
Ensuring a Fair and Secure Financial Services Marketplace for all Californians

JAN LYNN OWEN
Commissioner of Business Oversight

For Immediate Release Contact: Tom Dresslar

January 23, 2015 (916) 327-0309

Ocwen Agrees to $2.5 Million Settlement for Failing to Provide Loan Information
Ocwen to also pay for auditor to ensure compliance with state laws

SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced a $2.5 million settlement today with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC over the firm’s failure for more than a year to provide loan information needed by the DBO to assess Ocwen’s compliance with state mortgage lending laws.

“The Department is committed to supporting a fair and secure financial services marketplace for all California consumers,” said DBO Commissioner Jan Lynn Owen. “This settlement allows us to move forward and ensure that Ocwen is meeting its obligations under the law.”

Under the consent order agreement, the DBO will select an independent, third-party auditor, paid for by Ocwen, whose duties will include ensuring Ocwen provides the DBO all the information it has requested from loan files. Ocwen also will pay $2.5 million in penalties and cover the DBO’s administrative costs associated with the case.

The settlement also prohibits Ocwen from taking on any new California customers until the DBO determines the firm can fully respond in a timely manner to future requests for information, and the DBO will drop its effort to suspend Ocwen’s license to operate in California. Filed Oct. 3, 2014, the formal accusation grew out of Ocwen’s conduct during a routine regulatory examination and will now be withdrawn.

The third-party auditor will review the loan-file information. Based on the review, the auditor will submit a report to the DBO on Ocwen’s compliance with the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act, the 2012 Homeowner Bill of Rights, and other state and federal laws and regulations.

Additionally, the auditor will submit a report to the Commissioner and Ocwen that assesses the firm’s loan servicing procedures, processes and staffing levels. Ocwen will have to adopt an action plan to correct any deficiencies identified by the auditor. The Commissioner must approve the action plan, and the auditor will oversee its implementation by Ocwen.

The DBO retains the ability to pursue an enforcement action against Ocwen should the examination of the loan files uncover substantive violations of laws designed to protect mortgage loan consumers.

# # #

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Foreclosure echo: Former homeowners face huge insurance claims

Foreclosure echo: Former homeowners face huge insurance claims

Features-

When Guillermo Galindo lost his two-family Revere home to foreclosure in 2009, the soft-spoken Colombian thought he had finally freed himself from the flood of threatening collection letters from his lender and a ballooning, untenable debt.

All his savings, scraped together over years delivering medicine for local pharmacies, were gone, along with the home he bought in 2005 for $410,000. Devastated, the 54-year-old immigrant, along with his wife and three-year-old daughter, packed their belongings and moved into a small apartment, hoping to rebuild.

But that hope evaporated in a matter of months, when Galindo received a letter from a lawyer claiming he owed $136,547 on the family home he’d left behind.

[FEATURES]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

CFPB Takes Action Against Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase for Illegal Mortgage Kickbacks

CFPB Takes Action Against Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase for Illegal Mortgage Kickbacks

Banks to Pay $35.7 Million After Loan Officers Illegally Traded Referrals for Cash and Marketing Services

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Maryland Attorney General took action against Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase for an illegal marketing-services-kickback scheme they participated in with Genuine Title, a now-defunct title company. The Bureau and Maryland also took action against former Wells Fargo employee Todd Cohen and his wife, Elaine Oliphant Cohen, for their involvement. Genuine Title gave the banks’ loan officers cash, marketing materials, and consumer information in exchange for business referrals. The proposed consent orders, filed in federal court, would require $24 million in civil penalties from Wells Fargo, $600,000 in civil penalties from JPMorgan Chase, and $11.1 million in redress to consumers whose loans were involved in this scheme. Cohen and Oliphant Cohen also will pay a $30,000 penalty.

“Today we took action against two of the nation’s largest banks, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, for illegal mortgage kickbacks,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “These banks allowed their loan officers to focus on their own illegal financial gain rather than on treating consumers fairly. Our action today to address these practices should serve as a warning for all those in the mortgage market.”

“Homeowners were steered toward this title company, not because they were the best or most affordable, but because they were providing kickbacks to loan officers who referred consumers to them,” said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. “This type of quid pro quo arrangement is illegal, and it’s unfair to other businesses that play by the rules.”

Genuine Title was a Maryland-based title company that offered real-estate-closing services from 2005 until it went out of business in April 2014. As part of the marketing-services-kickback scheme, Genuine Title offered loan officers valuable services to increase the amount of loan business generated. Genuine Title conducted this scheme at several financial institutions. The services the company offered included purchasing, analyzing, and providing data on consumers and creating letters with the banks’ logos that the company had printed, folded, stuffed into envelopes, and mailed. In return, the banks’ loan officers would increase Genuine Title’s profits by referring homebuyers to the company for closing services. This scheme was especially profitable for the loan officers, who generally are paid by commission.

The marketing-services-kickback scheme violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), which prohibits giving a “fee, kickback, or thing of value” in exchange for a referral of business related to a real-estate-settlement service.

Wells Fargo

The Bureau’s investigation identified more than 100 Wells Fargo loan officers in at least 18 branches, largely in Maryland and Virginia, who participated in this scheme. The Bureau alleges that these loan officers referred thousands of loans to Genuine Title over the course of the scheme. The Bureau alleges that, despite the fact that Wells Fargo had multiple warnings of the illegal arrangements between its loan officers and Genuine Title – including a federal lawsuit explicitly alleging the existence of such agreements – the bank failed to take action to stop the practices and did not have an adequate system in place to identify these violations. Under the proposed consent order filed today, Wells Fargo would be required to pay $10.8 million in redress and $24 million in civil penalties. The Bureau also filed an administrative consent order against Wells Fargo prohibiting future violations.

Wells Fargo employed Todd Cohen as a loan officer from April 2009 through August 2010. The Bureau alleges that, while at Wells Fargo, Cohen not only received marketing materials, he also took substantial cash payments in exchange for referrals. Rather than pay Cohen directly, Genuine Title made payments to Cohen’s then-girlfriend, now-wife, Elaine Oliphant Cohen, in an effort to disguise the kickback nature of the payment. She received tens of thousands of dollars in payments for loans Cohen referred to Genuine Title. Under the proposed consent order filed today, Cohen and Oliphant Cohen would be required to pay a civil penalty of $30,000, and Cohen would be banned from participation in the mortgage industry for two years.

JPMorgan Chase

The CFPB also found that loan officers at JPMorgan Chase participated in the marketing-services-kickback scheme with Genuine Title. The Bureau alleges that at least six Chase loan officers in three different branches in Maryland, Virginia, and New York were involved. These officers referred settlement business to Genuine Title on almost 200 loans. The Bureau also alleges that Chase did not have an adequate system in place to ensure that its loan officers were following the law. Under the proposed consent order filed today, Chase would pay approximately $300,000 in redress and $600,000 in civil penalties. The Bureau also filed an administrative consent order against Chase prohibiting future violations.

In addition to the loan officers at Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, several loan officers at another financial institution also participated in the scheme with Genuine Title. While Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase did not identify or address the illegal conduct, that institution self-identified the problematic practices and terminated the loan officers involved. The institution also cooperated with the CFPB’s investigation and self-initiated a remediation plan. Based on the institution’s behavior, the CFPB has resolved that investigation without an enforcement action, consistent with the CFPB’s Bulletin on Responsible Business Conduct.

Today’s actions are the result of a joint investigation by the CFPB, the State of Maryland, and the Maryland Insurance Administration, which regulates title insurance providers such as Genuine Title.

A copy of the CFPB’s complaint is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201501_cfpb_complaint_wells-fargo-chase-cohen.pdf

Copies of the proposed consent orders filed in federal court and of the Bureau’s administrative consent orders will be available later today at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-wells-fargo-and-jpmorgan-chase-for-illegal-mortgage-kickbacks/

###
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov.

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

FULL DEPOSITION OF JPMORGAN CHASE VERMYRTIS JONES | VOIDING ENDORSEMENTS, CREATING ALLONGES AND ENDORSEMENTS, THE “SWIRL”

FULL DEPOSITION OF JPMORGAN CHASE VERMYRTIS JONES | VOIDING ENDORSEMENTS, CREATING ALLONGES AND ENDORSEMENTS, THE “SWIRL”

Via Liberty Road Media

The deposition took place in the offices of Duke Copeland Court Reporters in Monroe, Louisiana.

And what do we discover in this testimony?  Well, that Linda Tirelli was right—this is “business as usual for all the big banks”—at least as far as creating allonges, voiding existing endorsements, and/or creating new endorsements to take the place of existing ones (or to create endorsements that should have existed but didn’t).  Thanks to Jones’ sworn testimony, apparently we can now add JPMorgan Chase to the list of banks that appear to do this type of thing.

Read these quotes from the 93-page Jones deposition while keeping in mind the above information regarding Wells Fargo, Countrywide/BoA, et. al above.  Think of the quotes from this deposition in that context.  The “Q” in these quotes is questioner Reed Peterson, attorney for Defendant Donna B. Ray and “A” is the deponent, Vermyrtis Jones.

In an attempt to make this easier to navigate, blue-highlighted and numbered short summaries regarding what each of the quotes are referring to appear above each quote.  Number 7 was particularly intriguing.

1. REGARDING A COMPUTER SYSTEM CALLED “OPUS” AND CREATING NEEDED DOCUMENTS:

“A It’s a system that we use to create allonges, lost note affidavits, voids and extras. So basically, that’s just our main system that we use, and we go into there to verify what needs to be created. And during that particular time when I was working for asset sales, I was working all LNAs exceptions.” p. 15

“A No. I went from asset sales to chain of title, and that’s where I’m working at now, but our procedures was to create an allonge and also go over to custody to clear exceptions, which is voids and extras. Voids and extras is meaning you may have an endorsement on the allonge or–I mean–excuse me–on the note, or you may have an allonge already in the file that custody’s asking for, and if you see that already in the file, there’s no need to create an allonge or stamp the note from like Chase Bank USA, N.A. to blank.” pp. 16-17

2. IGNORANCE OF BASIC ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE TERMINOLOGY AND CONVEYOR-BELT, FILL-IN-THE-BLANK NATURE OF LOST-NOTE AFFIDAVITS:

“Q Explain the procedure for researching a lost note affidavit as far as exactly what blanks you’re looking to fill in the affidavit and where you looked to fill in those blanks.

A We look to see if it’s the deed of trust or the mortgage. They’re going to ask you that because there’s a blank spot there. You’re looking for the principal amount, the interest rate, the buyer’s name, the county, the book page, the instrument number, and that’s it.

Q Okay. What is the book page?

A I don’t know.

Q All right.

A Yeah.

Q And when you say you don’t know, what you know is that there was a place that you would have to go into JPMorgan’s computer system to look for a specific bit of information, and then that information you would enter into the lost note affidavit. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q But as far as what it was, you have no idea, or what it meant, you have no idea?

A Correct.

Q Okay. You had mentioned another piece of information that you look for that I didn’t–and maybe you can help me out after the–whatever we were just talking about. I can’t remember–

A The instrument number?

Q The instrument number. What is that?

A I don’t know.

Q Okay. Same thing, you go into the system, find a bit of information, and transpose that into the lost note affidavit. Correct?

A Yes.

Q Was that information on recorded mortgages?

A Yes.” pp. 23-24

3. JONES SAYS SHE HAS SIGNING AUTHORITY FOR MULTIPLE ENTITIES:

“Q You mentioned, I think, four or five entities that you have signing authority for when we first started this deposition. Do you have signing authority for more entities than the ones you initially named?

A Yes.

Q Do you have any idea how many entities you have signing authority for?

A No.

Q Let me try to narrow that a little bit.

A Okay.

Q Okay. More than ten?

A Yes.

Q More than a hundred?

A No.

Q More than fifty?

A I don’t know.

Q More than twenty-five?

A I don’t know.

Q Are there certain entities that you normally sign

for?

A Yes.

Q Which are those?

A Chase Bank USA, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Home Finance, Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, EMC, Wells Fargo.

Q Any others?

A State Street.

Q So in your work, there are certain entities that you know you have signing authority for, and you don’t need to go into POTS to check to make sure you have signing authority. Is that fair to say?

MR. RIPLEY: Object to form. You can answer.

A Well, I’m not going to say that. I always go and check my work, check my systems to make sure if I can sign for that particular lender.

Q But if you had an allonge you had to sign and you were signing for Chase Bank USA, N.A., would you go into POTS to make sure that you had authority to sign for Chase Bank USA, N.A. on that particular day?

A Yes.

Q Every time?

A Every time.”  pp. 37-39

4. JONES PRINTS OUT AND SIGNS ALLONGES WITH A PEN IN BLACK INK:

“Q Well, let me take a step back because we just talked about allonges where signatures are placed on there–on the allonge electronically. Correct?

A Yes.

MR. RIPLEY: Object to form.

Q That allonge is created using an electronic image of your signature. Correct?

MR. RIPLEY: Object to the form.

A No. I guess the misunderstanding was electronic signature. I actually sign the allonge with the pen myself. There’s no electronic. If the image is imaged in iVault, I see my signature out there, but there’s no passing–like no other step as far as the image being signed with my signature. I sign the allonge with my own signature with the pen. No electronic signature for me. Like a system that has a system out there for my signature, no, I do it myself. I print out the allonge that I created, I get a pen, and I sign it myself.

Q So every allonge that bears your signature and is the original allonge is going to have a signature created by you using a pen. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q JPMorgan then does not create allonges by placing a scanned image of your signature into the allonge. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Are you aware of a process used by JPMorgan to create allonges by inserting a scanned image of a signature into the allonge?

A No.

Q Are you aware of documents called signature tables?

A No.

Q Are you aware of any process to manage scans of JPMorgan’s employees’ signatures?

A No.” pp. 42-43

[later in the proceedings, Peterson asks what color ink Jones signs with]

“Q And I don’t have the original allonge here, but if I had the original allonge, it would have your original signature on it. Correct?

A Yes.

Q Would the original signature be signed in a particular ink color?

A Yes.

Q What color?

A Black.

Q Do you sign all allonges in black?

A Yes.

Q Is that part of JPMorgan’s policies and procedures?

A Yes.” pp. 80-81

5. JONES DISCUSSES CREATING ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS ALLONGES, EXPLANATION OF “VOIDS AND EXTRAS”:

“Q No. Let me ask that a different way. Every exception that comes to you is a request to determine whether an endorsement or an allonge is needed. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And that’s sent by custody. Correct?

A Yes.

Q Custody has custody of the collateral file. Correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you go to custody for every exception that you receive?

A No.

Q So why would you go to custody to see if the documents had an endorsement or an allonge already in the physical file when custody is telling you that that’s needed?

A Well, we have a procedure that we do as far as endorsements or allonges that we create–it’s called voids and extras, and it’s meaning that it’s an endorsement out there or there’s an allonge already out there. I’m not saying that every exception that we do we go over there to custody to verify that, but it’s just a procedure that custody opened up, and we rely on custody to see if there’s an endorsement or allonge already out there. And if it is, who to say somebody might go over there and void it out. Then that’s when we take upon ourself to go ahead and create the allonge because if it’s voided, it’s no good. Now they need a current allonge or endorsement that needs to be placed in a file.

Q This sounds really confusing. Is it confusing on your end?

MR. RIPLEY: Object to the form.

A No.” pp. 46-47

6. 25-50 “VOIDS AND EXTRAS” PROCESSED EVERY DAY:

Q How many voids and extras would you receive on average in a given day?

A Twenty-five to fifty.

Q Twenty-five to fifty.

A Right.

Q So in a given day, on average, you would receive approximately fifty allonge exceptions and twenty-five to fifty void and extras exceptions. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q On average, when you went to custody, how many files were you pulling?

A I wasn’t pulling–pulling the files. Custody would already have the files pulled for me, and they would place those files on a gondola.

Q Okay. So they’d be prepped and ready for you to look at when you got there?

A Correct.

Q You said you went to custody on average every other day. When you say you went there every other day, on average, was your work assignment to go there every other day?

A Yes.

Q So it really wasn’t on average? I mean, that was your routine was every  other day you would go to custody?

A Yes. Myself and another employee.

Q How long would you spend at custody on that day you went?

A It just depends on how many files I have. Just say if I have twenty-files that’s pulled for me, about an hour and a half a day.

Q Okay. Would twenty-five files be normal?

A Yes.

Q So of the voids and extras that you would receive in a two-day period, anywhere from fifty–twenty-five to fifty percent would require you to go to custody to review the files. Is that about right?

A Yes.” pp, 48-50

7. JONES DISCUSSES “VOIDING” EXISTING ENDORSEMENTS TO REPLACE THEM WITH NEW ONES:

“Q Okay. So we’ve talked about two instances where nothing really needs to be done, the file–the collateral file is correct. Right?

A Yes.

Q But the collateral file is not always correct.  Right?

A Yes.

MR. RIPLEY: Object to the form.

Q Which is why you have to go to custody and do the extra research. Right?

A Yes.

Q So what happens if the endorsement on the note is not correct? What do you do?

A If the endorsement’s not correct, sometimes we may void that endorsement and create an allonge to take place of that endorsement, if we have signing authority for it.

Q For the allonge?

A For the endorsement, the original lender or whoever gave it to that particular company.”  p. 58

8. INTERESTING—A “SWIRL” ON A NOTE PURPORTEDLY MARKS IT AS THE ORIGINAL:

Q Near the top right corner of “Exhibit 1? there is what appears to be a snail. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Are you familiar with that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Internally, you call that a snail, don’t

you?

A Well, they change it. Back in the day it was a swirl or something like that, so–

Q Swirl?

A Yeah.

Q Now what’s it called?

A I’m not for sure.

Q Okay.

A Yeah.

Q Is there any meaning to the swirl that you know of?

A Yes.

Q What meaning is assigned to that swirl?

A That this is the original note.

Q What company places that swirl on the note?

A I know the department is custody.

Q Okay. And that’s custody at JPMorgan. Correct?

A Yes.

Q So this is a marking specific to JPMorgan.

Correct?

A Yes.

Q That swirl is JPMorgan’s way of indicating a document is an original. Correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you know who is authorized to place that swirl on notes?

A No.

Q When you review the collateral files as part of your work process at custody, do all the original notes that you look at have that swirl on them?

A No.

Q Have you ever placed a swirl on a note?

A No.

Q Have you ever observed a swirl being placed on a note?

A No.

Q Are the swirls placed on notes only for specific lenders?

A I don’t know.

Q So it sounds as if a swirl is placed on what is believed to be the original note and sometimes it’s not. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q As far as whether an employee of JPMorgan attended the closing for a loan in which the named lender is Chase Bank USA, N.A., you have no knowledge whether that happened, do you?

A No.

Q So do you know if the swirl is always on the first page?

A Yes. For the ones I reviewed and seen, it’s always on the first page.” pp. 73-75

There are many other interesting exchanges in this deposition, but these are some highlights.  You can downloaded the deposition here: Jones, Vermyrtis 04-30-14-JPMC

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Four National Banks to Pay $2.7 Million to Massachusetts Over Unlawful Foreclosures

Four National Banks to Pay $2.7 Million to Massachusetts Over Unlawful Foreclosures

Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citi and Wells Fargo Bank to Assist Consumers in Curing Foreclosure-Related Title Defects

BOSTON – Four national banks agreed to pay a total of $2.7 million and undertake obligations to facilitate the repair of defective property titles, resolving claims that they unlawfully foreclosed on properties in Massachusetts when they did not hold the mortgages, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today.

The consent judgment, entered today in Suffolk Superior Court, resolves the AG’s allegations that Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Citi, and Wells Fargo Bank violated Massachusetts foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents’ homes when the banks lacked the legal authority to do so.

“Our continued work to address illegal foreclosures in Massachusetts plays an important role in ensuring liquidity in our housing market and providing relief to homeowners who purchased properties with defective titles,” AG Coakley said. “This settlement holds these four national banks accountable for violating state law and cutting corners in the foreclosure process.”

According to the amended complaint, the AG’s Office alleged that the defendants’ unlawful conduct resulted in void foreclosures affecting the marketability and insurability of property titles throughout the Commonwealth. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the Ibanez decision that mortgagees seeking to foreclose must strictly comply with Massachusetts foreclosure laws. Under the statutory power of sale and Massachusetts law, a foreclosure is void unless a bank or other foreclosing party is the mortgagee of record or holds the mortgage through a valid assignment before publishing the notice of foreclosure sale.

The amended complaint alleged that the banks ignored this fundamental legal mandate and foreclosed on homeowners when they had no legal authority to conduct the foreclosures. The banks’ failure to obtain a valid assignment of the mortgage prior to foreclosure has adversely impacted titles to numerous properties in the Commonwealth. The AG’s Office is continuing to negotiate a resolution of these claims also alleged against GMAC Mortgage, LLC, one of the named defendants, which filed bankruptcy in May 2012.

Under the terms of the settlement, the banks are obligated to assist a consumer who makes a claim that the title to his or her residence is void from an unlawful foreclosure by conducting a thorough title review, providing curative documents, releasing junior liens held by the banks, and, in cases where consumers do not have title insurance, paying reasonable costs associated with the title cure. In addition, the banks will pay $2.7 million, $700,000 of which will be allocated to the Attorney General’s Local Consumer Aid Fund to provide consumer assistance. The remaining $2 million of the settlement will be paid to the Commonwealth’s General Fund.

The complaint initially contained allegations against the banks relating to widespread mortgage servicing abuses and allegations against Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”) and the banks for violation of Massachusetts law relating to registered land. The allegations relating to registered land were dismissed in November 2012, while the servicing allegations against the banks were resolved in the National Mortgage Settlement, a landmark agreement announced in February 2012. So far, the settlement has provided more than $63 billion in relief to distressed homeowners nationwide, and created significant new servicing standards which the banks must follow. The settlement brought more than $300 million in relief to Massachusetts borrowers, including a direct payment of more than $44.5 million to the Commonwealth, used in part to establish the AG’s HomeCorps program and offer grants aimed at helping to mitigate the impact of the foreclosure crisis.

In February 2014, Ocwen, the nation’s fourth largest mortgage servicer, entered into a $2.1 billion national settlement with the federal government, and 49 states, including Massachusetts, resulting in an estimated $80 million in principal reduction and cash payments to Massachusetts homeowners over claims of loan servicing misconduct and so-called “robo-signing.” Massachusetts homeowners also received approximately $1.5 million in cash payments from that multistate settlement. In addition, in June 2014, Massachusetts filed a separate assurance of discontinuance with Ocwen, paying Massachusetts $3.7 million to resolve claims that it failed to provide certain notices to homeowners and unlawfully foreclosed on certain properties in violation of state law.

More information about AG Coakley’s work during the lending crisis can be found on the AG’s website.

This matter was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Justin J. Lowe, Lisa R. Dyen and Division Chief Stephanie Kahn, with assistance from Assistant Attorneys General Amber Villa and Sara Cable, of Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Consumer Protection Division.

#############

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Murray v. HSBC | FL 4DCA – In this foreclosure puzzle, one of the pieces is missing (PSA)…Put simply, HSBC failed to prove standing

Murray v. HSBC | FL 4DCA – In this foreclosure puzzle, one of the pieces is missing (PSA)…Put simply, HSBC failed to prove standing

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

DONNA MURRAY and MARC MURRAY,
Appellants,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR ACE SECURITIES CORP HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-OP1 ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
Appellee.

No. 4D13-4316

[January 21, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard Harrison, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA005458XX.
Kunal A. Mirchandani and Joann M. Hennessey of Civil Justice Advocates, PL, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Khari E. Taustin, Jeremy W. Harris, Masimba M. Mutamba, and Angela Barbosa Wilborn of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy CHTD., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

In this foreclosure puzzle, one of the pieces is missing. The borrowers appeal a final judgment of foreclosure following a non-jury trial. They argue the bank failed to prove standing. We agree and reverse.

The borrowers and Option One Mortgage Corporation, a California corporation (“Option One California”), executed a mortgage and note. When the borrowers missed their monthly payment, HSBC filed a two-count complaint seeking to foreclose the mortgage and reestablish the lost note. The original complaint, filed February 13, 2009, alleged that HSBC “owns and holds said note and mortgage.” The borrowers then filed their answer and affirmative defenses.

On April 3, 2009, Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation (“Sand Canyon”) executed an assignment of the mortgage to HSBC. The assignment included an effective date of January 24, 2009. On April 6, 2010, HSBC voluntarily dismissed the lost note count and filed the original note and mortgage. The note was made payable to Option One California, but did not have an indorsement or allonge.

On October 5, 2010, Sand Canyon executed another assignment in favor of HSBC, with a stated effective date of April 23, 2007. On February 6, 2013, HSBC filed a second amended complaint alleging that HSBC was “a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder and is entitled to enforce the terms of the Note and Mortgage, pursuant to Florida Statute 673.3011.” The case proceeded to a non-jury trial.

At trial, HSBC offered the testimony of a loan analyst with Ocwen Loan Servicing (“Ocwen”). HSBC also offered the pooling and servicing agreement (“PSA”), note, mortgage, demand letter, and payment history. HSBC did not admit the assignments into evidence.

The main issue at trial concerned HSBC’s allegation that it was a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.1 The PSA and attached mortgage loan schedule both referenced the borrowers’ loan. The PSA had ACE Securities Corp. (“ACE”) as the Depositor, Option One Mortgage Corporation as the Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) as the Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and HSBC as the Trustee. The effective date of the PSA was May 1, 2006; it does not reference Option One California.

The loan analyst testified that Option One Mortgage Corporation was a predecessor to American Home Mortgage Servicing (“AHMS”), which was rebranded as Homeward Residential, and subsequently purchased by Ocwen. Those companies serviced the loan from its inception and Ocwen was currently servicing the loan for HSBC. He also testified that AHMS acquired servicing rights from Option One Mortgage Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Option One Delaware”).

After the trial, the court took the matter under advisement and had the parties submit memoranda. On November 4, 2013, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of HSBC, from which the borrowers now appeal.

The borrowers argue the trial court erred in granting a final judgment of foreclosure because Option One California never transferred its rights to HSBC, directly or through ACE. They argue that HSBC failed to connect the dots between ACE and the last identifiable holder of the note, Option One California. HSBC responds that it proved its right to enforce the note as a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.

The dotted line represents the missing piece in the chain of transfers.

We have de novo review. Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). “A crucial element in any mortgage foreclosure proceeding is that the party seeking foreclosure must demonstrate that it has standing to foreclose” when the complaint is filed. McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “[S]tanding may be established from the plaintiff’s status as the note holder, regardless of any recorded assignments.” Id. “If the note does not name the plaintiff as the payee, the note must bear a special [i]ndorsement in favor of the plaintiff or a blank [i]ndorsement.” Id.

The plaintiff may also show “evidence of an assignment from the payee to the plaintiff or an affidavit of ownership to prove its status as the holder of the note.” Id. “Because a promissory note is a negotiable instrument and because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note, the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be . . . a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder.” Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

A “person entitled to enforce” an instrument is: “(1) [t]he holder of the instrument; (2) [a] nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (3) [a] person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s[ection] 673.3091 or s[ection] 673.4181(4).” § 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2013). A “holder” is defined as “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.” § 671.201(21)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). Thus, to be a holder, the instrument must be payable to the person in possession or indorsed in blank. See § 671.201(5), Fla. Stat. (2013).

HSBC did not qualify under section 673.3011(1) or (3). It was not a holder of the note because the note is payable to Option One California, and there is no blank indorsement. HSBC failed to produce any evidence to prove its status as the holder of the note at trial. Indeed, HSBC admitted it was not a holder of the note. HSBC was thus left to enforce the note under section 673.3011(2) as a nonholder in possession of the instrument with the rights of a holder. The issue then is whether HSBC is a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.

Anderson v. Burson, 35 A.3d 452 (Md. 2011), is instructive. There, the court held that the plaintiff was a nonholder in possession and analyzed whether it had rights of enforcement pursuant to a Maryland statute that employs the same language as section 673.3011, Florida Statutes. Anderson, 35 A.3d at 462. “A transfer vests in the transferee only the rights enjoyed by the transferor, which may include the right to enforce[ment],” through the “shelter rule.” Id. at 461–62.

A nonholder in possession, however, cannot rely on possession of the instrument alone as a basis to enforce it. . . . The transferee does not enjoy the statutorily provided assumption of the right to enforce the instrument that accompanies a negotiated instrument, and so the transferee “must account for possession of the unindorsed instrument by proving the transaction through which the transferee acquired it.” Com. Law § 3–203 cmt. 2. If there are multiple prior transfers, the transferee must prove each prior transfer. Once the transferee establishes a successful transfer from a holder, he or she acquires the enforcement rights of that holder. See Com. Law § 3–203 cmt. 2. A transferee’s rights, however, can be no greater than his or her transferor’s because those rights are “purely derivative.”
Id. (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).

HSBC had to prove the chain of transfers starting with Option One California as the first holder of the note. The only document admitted that purported to transfer the note was the PSA. Although the note was included in the PSA, the parties to the PSA were ACE, Option One Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo, and HSBC; not Option One California.
The loan analyst testified that Option One California was acquired by AHMS, which rebranded to Homeward Residential, which was ultimately acquired by Ocwen. HSBC argues that since “Option One” is defined under the PSA as “Option One Mortgage Corporation or any successor thereto,” and Option One transferred its interest to HSBC through the PSA, HSBC had the rights of a holder. We disagree.

Even if Option One California, Option One Delaware, Option One Mortgage Corporation, and Option One Mortgage Corporation, a Maryland corporation, were all the same corporation, HSBC’s argument fails. Although Option One Mortgage Corporation was a party to the PSA, it was the Servicer. “Servicing” is defined in the PSA as “the act of servicing and administering the Mortgage Loans.” Nothing in the PSA established that the Servicer conveyed rights in mortgage loans to any party. Also, even though the loan analyst testified that through a chain of transfers Ocwen was the current servicer of the loan, it does not prove that HSBC had standing as a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.

The chain of transfers starts with Option One California as the original holder of the note. ACE, as the Depositor, transferred its rights in the note to HSBC through the PSA. However, there was no evidence that Option One California transferred its rights in the note to ACE. This is the missing piece of the puzzle. See Appendix. As HSBC cannot prove that ACE had any right to enforce the note, it cannot derive any right from ACE and is not a nonholder in possession of the instrument with the rights of a holder to enforce. §§ 673.2031, .3011, Fla. Stat. (2013). Put simply, HSBC failed to prove standing. We therefore reverse the final judgment of foreclosure.

Reversed and Remanded for entry of judgment in favor of appellants.

WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

footnote: 1 The trial court stated:
To me, that’s the only issue in the case; can this Court enter a judgment on what you say is that possession is enough without the [i]ndorsement.
In every other respect they have it. They got the mortgage. They got the records. They got the servicing. They got the whole thing. They just don’t have the [i]ndorsement, and is that fatal?
In other words do you have to go and get, and then start over again? That’s the question. I don’t know the answer.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Susan Chana Lask Beats NY Foreclosure Based on Bank’s Defective Documents and Assignment Delays

Susan Chana Lask Beats NY Foreclosure Based on Bank’s Defective Documents and Assignment Delays

In BLB Trading, Inc. v. Ledgister, Westchester County Supreme Court, Index 15407/11, Susan Chana Lask, Esq. won her argument for a NY homeowner that a bank cannot foreclose based on defective documents.  The decision holds that a one and half year gap in the transfer of the mortgage and note are reasons to deny summary judgment to the Bank. Also, the court accepted Ms. Lask’s argument that UCC §3-804 mandates that a lost note affidavit must be factually specific regarding the events surrounding the loss, including when the note was lost.   Finally, Ms. Lask brought forth other issues regarding whether employees executing affidavits were actually employees of the bank or other entities that raised suspicion as to the authenticity of the Bank’s  alonge alleged to be attached to the note to even support a foreclosure.  The court refused to grant a foreclosure by summary judgment to the bank.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

PRESENT: HON. SAM 0. WALKER, J.s.c.

———————- ————– ———– ———————x
BLB TRADING, LLC,

-against-

Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER
Index No. 15407/2011 Motion Sequence 1

SUSAN LEDGISTER A/K/A SUZANNE LEDGISTER,

Defendants.
——–x

Excerpts:

Defendant contends that there is no explanation for the two year delay in the assignment of the mortgage and the note from MERS to Evestmac; that the lost note affidavit is invalid because it does not provide details of how and when the note was lost and whether the affiant ever reviewed the original note and compared it to the copy; that the March 9, 2011 allonge states that Mortgage Lenders ceased operations on June 9, 2009, but three months after, on September 25, 2009, Mortgage Lenders via MERS assigned the mortgage without the note, to Evestmac; that the Vice President, Keith Douglas who executed the mortgage assignment, is not an officer of Mortgage Lenders, but was an employee of Acqura Loan Services, the mortgage servicing company for the loan; that MERS did not have authority as nominee to assign anything and the purported 2010 assignment alleged in the complaint is void; that the allonge violates UCC 3-202 and UCC 3-104 by not being affixed to the note; that the affidavit of merit omits any proof of possession of the note; that an affidavit by a person with personal knowledge was not submitted; that there was no proof that plaintiff had possession of the note when this action was commenced; that the motion fails to provide evidence in admissible form; that the out of state notaries on the assignments are invalid; that discovery is needed and that dismissal of the affirmative defenses and counterclaims should be denied.


The mortgage was assigned on September 25, 2009 by MERS as nominee for Mortgage Lenders to Evestmac. However, as per the allonge, submitted to show transfer of the note, Mortgage Lenders ceased operations on June 9, 2009. This particular issue would be moot, since the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident,’! [U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d at 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578; HSBC Bank US'A v. Hernandez, 92 A.D.3d 843, 939i N.Y.S.2d 120], if not for the one and a half year gap in the transfer of the mortgage and the transfer of the note. The allonge states that the note was not transferred to Evestmac until March 9, 2011. This discrepancy creates a question of fact.

Further, Elonna Ashuroua, a managing member of BLB avers in the lost note affidavit that the original note was misplaced during a transfer of the collateral file from Mortgage Lenders to Evestmac. Due to the time lag between the transfer of the mortgage and the transfer of the note. the Court is unclear if this lost of the note occurred in 2009 or in 2011.

UCC § 3-804 states that, “the owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his ownership, the facts which prevent his I production of the instrument and its terms”. UCC § 3-804. To meet the requirements of the UCC, the lost note affidavit does not state enough facts pertaining to the loss, such as the approximate time period, especially in light of the gap between the transfer of the mortgage and the transfer of the note.

The Court is also unclear as to the role of Elonna Ashuroua. She signed the lost note affidavit as managing member of BLB, but also signed the allonge to the promissory note transferring the note from Evestmac to BLB. Is this person an employee of both BLB and Evestmac.

Another issue that creates a question of fact is the allonges submitted transferring the note. UCC § 3-202 states that “[a]n indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof”. Since the original note was lost, and the Court cannot determine exactly when it was lost, the attachment or lack thereof of the allonge to the note, is also a question of fact to be determined.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

RUMORS OF OCWEN BANKRUPTCY SURFACE AMID CALIFORNIA’S MOVE TO SUSPEND ITS LICENSE!

RUMORS OF OCWEN BANKRUPTCY SURFACE AMID CALIFORNIA’S MOVE TO SUSPEND ITS LICENSE!

Clouded Titles-

For those of you who have plans to get your pound of flesh out of Ocwen at any point in time in the near future may wish to heed the warning signs. Ocwen’s stock has plummeted over 36% in recent days … not a good sign considering the amount of business that Ocwen will have to sell off if California regulators go ahead with plans to suspend Ocwen’s operating license in that State.

The once-booming subprime loan servicer who is tied to Goldman-Sachs like an umbilical cord to a dead baby is rumored to be 6 to 12 months out from filing bankruptcy in order to avoid the onslaught of creditors and those coming to obtain money judgments against them for various alleged servicing violations.  Additionally, it is also known by this author that certain jurisdictions are examining records involving Ocwen for the possibility of the filing of criminal charges involving multiple counts of statutory criminal violations.  Aside from paying civil penalties, criminal fines and prison terms potentially loom on the horizon for dozens of employees and officers connected with this bottom feeder.

[CLOUDED TITLES]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Outgoing Bill Erbey not worried Ocwen’s California battle

Outgoing Bill Erbey not worried Ocwen’s California battle

NY POST-

Outgoing subprime mortgage scion Bill Erbey is playing chicken with California.

The CEO of an Erbey-chaired company has pooh-poohed the Golden State’s business regulator’s threat to pull Ocwen Financial’s license to do business, just days after the company’s stock had its biggest drop ever.

“Our understanding is that the likelihood of Ocwen losing its license is very low,” Bill Shepro, CEO of Altisource Portfolio Solutions, a major Ocwen client that’s helmed by Erbey, said during a conference call on Friday.

The California Department of Business Oversight has accused Ocwen of dragging its feet in cooperating with an investigation into whether the company is breaking state consumer laws. The company has said it’s fully cooperating.

[NEW YORK POST]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Maine supreme court justice reverses reprimand of Portland lawyer in connection with foreclosure ‘robo-signing’ scandal

Maine supreme court justice reverses reprimand of Portland lawyer in connection with foreclosure ‘robo-signing’ scandal

Bangor Daily News-

A Maine Supreme Judicial Court judge has reversed and dismissed the public reprimand of a Portland lawyer in connection with the foreclosure “robo-signing” scandal.

Justice Andrew Mead said in his 12-page decision dated Thursday, Jan. 15, that a three-member panel of the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar incorrectly found that Paul E. Peck of Portland had violated bar rules in 2010 because he did not “take immediate and effective action” to stop foreclosure proceedings that were based on faulty affidavits.

“[The] panel’s decision is founded upon a ‘should have known’ standard rather than actual knowledge,” Mead wrote. “The distinction is critical.”

[BANGOR DAILY NEWS]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Insult to Injury: Homeowners billed for houses lost in foreclosure

Insult to Injury: Homeowners billed for houses lost in foreclosure

Boston Globe-

When Guillermo Galindo lost his two-family Revere home to foreclosure in 2009, the soft-spoken Colombian thought he had finally freed himself from the flood of threatening collection letters from his lender and a ballooning, untenable debt.

All of his savings, scraped together over years delivering medicine for local pharmacies, were gone, along with the home he bought in 2005 for $410,000. Devastated, the 54-year-old immigrant, along with his wife and 3-year-old daughter, packed their belongings and moved into a small apartment, hoping to rebuild.

But that hope evaporated in a matter of months, when Galindo received a letter from a lawyer saying he owed $136,547 on the family home he’d left behind.

[BOSTON GLOBE]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

MERS GETS SLAMMED IN RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT DECISION!

MERS GETS SLAMMED IN RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT DECISION!

Clouded Titles-

The Rhode Island courts seem to have a propensity to give Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) credence to do whatever it wants in that State primarily because the Borrowers of MERS-originated Mortgages did not understand what they were signing when they let MERS into their contract. Since then, MERS and its attorneys have maintained (albeit successfully in most cases) that because the Borrowers let them in by contract, they are subject to the enforcement provisions of that contract, especially when MERS gets involved. A new ruling issued today appears to throw a monkey wrench into MERS’s contractual rights, as follows:

continue reading [CLOUDED TITLES]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

QUIET TITLE WORKSHOP ORLANDO, FLORIDA

QUIET TITLE WORKSHOP ORLANDO, FLORIDA

This 3-day seminar, hosted by Clouded Titles author Dave Krieger is NON-CLE and is recommended for attorneys, paralegals, COTA Preparers and those wishing to learn to write quiet title actions!

Workshop Dates: Friday, Feb. 6, 2015 through Sunday, Feb. 8, 2015 COTA Workshop Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (ALL 3 DAYS!)

Guest Lecturer: Al West, California Quiet Title Attorney

La Quinta Inn & Suites-Airport North
7160 N. Frontage Road, Orlando, Florida 32812
Call (407) 240-5000 for special hotel room workshop rates!

Early Bird Registration Deadline Ends January 26, 2015!
After 1/26/15, the fee is $1,095.00!

Download Registration Form
Download event flyer

or purchase directly at http://cloudedtitles.com/

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Is Ocwen Underwater?

Is Ocwen Underwater?

Capital and Main-

Last May, I wrote in Capital & Main about Ocwen, the non-bank mortgage servicing company that abused California homeowners by failing to honor signed agreements, illegally imposing fees and violating state regulations. In fact, when asked, a top-level Ocwen representative had never heard of the state’s groundbreaking consumer protection law, the Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR). The Ocwen rep said the company had no training for HBOR and no process established to conform to it.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Ocwen ignores its responsibilities to state regulators, the same way it ignores rules for dealing with homeowners. The California Department of Business Oversight alleges that Ocwen failed to deliver the agency documents showing Ocwen’s compliance with HBOR, despite 10 separate requests over 18 months, a subpoena and even a judicial order.

After imposing two comically low fines of $1,000 each, Commissioner of Business Oversight Jan Lynn Owen made a formal notice of intent to suspend Ocwen’s business license in California for one year. That would mean the company would have to immediately sell the servicing rights to more than 378,000 homes, with a principal balance of $95 billion. Nearly one in six loans Ocwen services are in California.

[CAPITAL AND MAIN]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

JPMorgan’s CEO Dimon: Amid the onslaught, the bank will “try to stop stepping in dog shit, which we do every now and then.”

JPMorgan’s CEO Dimon: Amid the onslaught, the bank will “try to stop stepping in dog shit, which we do every now and then.”

Buzz Feed-

Is JPMorgan too big? The question has been asked frequently by critics since the 2008 financial crisis lead to America’s largest bank getting even bigger — and paying out more than $20 billion in fines and penalties. And while being too big to fail attracts concern from one group of naysayers, doubts about its size have gained new credence after the bank announced today its profit fell by 6.6% in its most recent quarter compared to a year ago.

Earlier this month, a high-profile analyst report said the bank could be worth more broken up into pieces than it is today. That, plus worries about new regulatory requirements, has investors worried; JPMorgan stock fell 3.45% today to $56.81 today and is down 9.25% so far this year.

JPMorgan is unquestionably a behemoth: $2.6 trillion in assets, $757 billion worth of loans, $1.4 trillion in deposits, 241,000 employees all over the world, exposed to $65 trillion worth of derivatives trades. It has long argued that its size gives it unique advantages for its customers and shareholders, as well as healthily gushing revenue streams — $94.2 billion in 2014, $96.6 billion in 2013.

[BUZZ FEED]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Ocwen Financial (OCN) Issues Commentary on California DBO Administrative Action

Ocwen Financial (OCN) Issues Commentary on California DBO Administrative Action

H/T Street Insider

Ocwen Financial Corporation

 January 13, 2015

Ocwen Cooperating With California Dept. of Business Oversight

 

Anticipates Resolution Through Cooperation With Prescribed Administrative Process

Effective Controls in Place to Ensure Compliance With California Regulations

ATLANTA, Jan. 13, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSE:OCN), a leading financial services holding company, today commented that it is fully cooperating with the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) to resolve an administrative action dated October 3, 2014.

Ron Faris, President and CEO of Ocwen commented, “We are cooperating fully with the Department of Business Oversight. Since this notification, we have dedicated substantial resources towards satisfying the DBO’s requests. We believe we have provided the requested information in the format requested. We expect that we will receive follow up requests or clarifications and that further document and information exchanges may take place. We expect our ongoing cooperation will result in a satisfactory outcome for all parties.”

“Ocwen has a strong track record in California in helping struggling homeowners, and we are committed to working cooperatively with the DBO to further our common goal of assisting struggling families. In 2014, Ocwen completed more than 13,000 loan modifications and over 3,500 short sales in California. Over 35 percent of these loan modifications in California included some form of principal reduction relief for homeowners, totaling more than $460 million,” added Mr. Faris.

“Ocwen has been a strong partner in helping California families save their homes from foreclosure. Ocwen’s Shared Appreciation Modification and principal reduction products have and continue to provide sustainable resolutions for struggling families in California,” stated Todd Emerson, CEO of Springboard, a non-profit, HUD-approved housing counseling agency formed in 1974 and dedicated to helping homeowners find the best solutions when facing difficulty with their mortgages.

Ocwen believes it has effective controls in place to ensure compliance with the California Homeowners Bill of Rights and all single point of contact requirements under federal and state laws.

“As an industry leader in mortgage loan modifications, both under government programs and in our proprietary program, Ocwen remains committed to assisting distressed homeowners. Since the outset of the mortgage crisis, Ocwen has provided more than 500,000 loan modifications nationwide and more principal reduction relief than any other mortgage servicer. In 2014 alone, Ocwen wrote down over $1.8 billion in principal on underwater mortgages nationwide,” said Mr. Faris. “We did not originate the loans we service, but we have taken a leading role in helping to stabilize communities most affected by the financial crisis. We intend to continue to play a leading role in helping homeowners.”

As part of its mission to assist homeowners, Ocwen has long-standing partnerships with leading non-profit consumer advocacy groups across the country. Ocwen works with non-profit groups to expand its reach and improve the quality of the assistance it provides to its customers.

“Since the outset of the mortgage crisis, Ocwen has been the best mortgage servicer in assisting homeowners throughout the country, particularly in hard hit areas in California,” said Faith Bautista, President and CEO of the National Asian American Coalition, a HUD-approved nonprofit organization with a focus on homeownership, diversity and consumer protection for underserved minority communities.  ”No other bank or servicer has been as responsive as Ocwen in providing loan modifications, principal write downs and helping struggling families keep their homes.”

Ricardo Byrd, Executive Director of the National Association of Neighborhoods (NAN), one of America’s largest and oldest grassroots organizations in the United States, said, “NAN applauds Ocwen’s leadership in homeownership preservation, especially in communities of color. They are unsurpassed in finding sustainable loan modifications for distressed borrowers and providing principal reductions for families stuck with underwater mortgages.”

“We are committed to resolving the DBO’s concerns, and we expect that we will be able to do so. In addition to working with leading non-profit organizations to further improve our ability to help homeowners, we continue to build a world class risk and compliance management system at Ocwen,” stated Marcelo Cruz, Chief Risk Officer of Ocwen.

About Ocwen Financial Corporation

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the servicing and origination of mortgage loans. Ocwen is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and has additional offices and operations in California, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, the United States Virgin Islands, Washington, DC, India and the Philippines. Utilizing proprietary technology, global infrastructure and world-class training and processes, we provide solutions that help homeowners and make our clients’ loans worth more. Additional information is available at www.Ocwen.com.

Forward Looking Statements

This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are, to different degrees, uncertain. Forward-looking statements involve a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the following: uncertainty related to legislation, regulations, regulatory agency actions, government programs and policies, industry initiatives and evolving best servicing practices; uncertainty related to claims, litigation and investigations brought by government agencies and private parties regarding our servicing, foreclosure, modification and other practices; the characteristics of our servicing portfolio, including prepayment speeds along with delinquency and advance rates; our ability to grow and adapt our business, including the availability of new loan servicing and other accretive business opportunities; uncertainty related to acquisitions, including our ability to close acquisitions and to integrate the systems, procedures and personnel of acquired assets and businesses; our ability to effectively manage our regulatory and contractual compliance obligations; the adequacy of our financial resources, including our sources of liquidity and ability to fund and recover advances, repay borrowings and comply with debt covenants; uncertainty related to general economic and market conditions, delinquency rates, home prices and disposition timelines on foreclosed properties; as well as other risks detailed in Ocwen’s reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including its annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 (filed with the SEC on 08/18/14) and its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014 (filed with the SEC on 10/31/14). Anyone wishing to understand Ocwen’s business should review its SEC filings. Ocwen’s forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and, except for our ongoing obligations under the U.S. federal securities laws, we undertake no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Ocwen may post information that is important to investors on its website.

CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Investors: Stephen Swett T: (203) 614-0141 E: shareholderrelations@ocwen.com Media: Sard Verbinnen & Co. Margaret Popper/David Millar T: 212-687-8080

Copyright 2015 Ocwen Financial Corporation

Source: http://shareholders.ocwen.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=891150

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

CA Dept of Business Oversight | OCWEN || ACCUSATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE AN ORDER SUSPENDING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LENDER AND LOAN SERVICER LICENSE

CA Dept of Business Oversight | OCWEN || ACCUSATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE AN ORDER SUSPENDING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LENDER AND LOAN SERVICER LICENSE


Case Number: FSD License #413-0544

Date of Initial Action: 10/03/14

Defendants/Respondents: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
See also FSD Licensee Listing 413-0544

Documents:


 Lic. Status:  Active License  Lic. Date:  Jan 12, 2011
 Lic. Number:  4130544  Lic. Type:  Residential Mortgage Lender
 Name:  Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
  
 Address:  1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
West Palm Beach,  FL  33409

________________________

California Regulator In Process Of Suspending Ocwen Financial’s 

Forbes-Jan 13, 2015
Mortgage firm Ocwen Financial has found itself in hot water over … According to the L.A. Times, an administrative law judge will preside over …
Ocwen, California Regulators Lock Horns
In-Depth-Wall Street Journal-13 hours ago


Explore in depth (69 more articles)

Related:

03/14/2014
California Joins $2.1 Billion Settlement With Ocwen Mortgage Loan Servicing
The California share of relief to borrowers in the settlement between Ocwen and 49 states is $268 million. (PDF) (HTML)

________________________

Home About DBO

About Us

The Department of Business Oversight (DBO) provides protection to consumers and services to businesses engaged in financial transactions. The Department regulates a variety of financial services, products and professionals. The Department oversees the operations of state-licensed financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, money transmitters, issuers of payment instruments and travelers checks, and premium finance companies. Additionally, the Department licenses and regulates a variety of financial businesses, including securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers, deferred deposit (commonly known as payday loans) and certain fiduciaries and lenders. The Department regulates the offer and sale of securities, franchises and off-exchange commodities. For the complete list, see the Department’s Licensees page.

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Homeowners Win U.S. High Court Clash on Canceling Mortgages

Homeowners Win U.S. High Court Clash on Canceling Mortgages

You can read the ruling here: Jesinoski v. Countrywide | SCOTUS – A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s unequivocal terms—a borrower “shall have the right to rescind…


Bloomberg-

The U.S. Supreme Court gave homeowners more ability to cancel their mortgages if lenders don’t provide the required disclosures, in a setback for the banking industry.

The dispute centered on the three-year deadline for borrowers seeking to rescind their mortgages. The justices today said unanimously that borrowers don’t have to file suit within three years and instead can meet the deadline by sending a letter to lenders.

The issue is one that the banking industry says has arisen frequently in recent years with borrowers who are in default on their mortgages and are facing foreclosure.

The Supreme Court ruling is a victory for Larry and Cheryle Jesinoski, who in 2007 refinanced their Eagan, Minnesota, home for $611,000 with Countrywide Home Loans Inc., now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC)

[BLOOMBERG]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

California Regulator In Process Of Suspending Ocwen Financial’s Mortgage License

California Regulator In Process Of Suspending Ocwen Financial’s Mortgage License

FORBES-

California regulators are seeking to suspend the mortgage license of Ocwen Financial, after the servicing giant did not adequately respond to repeated information requests into its compliance with the state’s Homeowner Bill of Rights. Suspension proceedings began in October, Tom Dresslar, a spokesperson for the California Department of Business Oversight told Forbes on Tuesday.

“Since the early part of last year, we have been asking Ocwen to provide the information we need to determine their compliance with the Homeowners Bill of Rights. They have repeatedly failed to comply with those requests,” Dresslar said. “At this point, we are seeking a suspension of their license. This matter is before an administrative law judge.”

After a series of complaints tied to Ocwen’s servicing of mortgages in California, state regulators began investigating the company to ensure its compliance with the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, a set of laws to protect against abusive foreclosure practices, in addition to the state’s Residential Mortgage Lending Act. According to a report from The Los Angeles Times, California examiners asked Ocwen to provide information on 1,320 mortgage loans under investigation. However, Ocwen repeatedly failed to respond.

[FORBES]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro

Advertise with Us!

LATEST TOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD CASES OPINIONS
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments