CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO RULE 23 OF THE
OHIO RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, FAIR DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT,
SLANDER OF CREDIT, ABUSE OF
PROCESS AND MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION

continue to complaint…

[ipaper docId=46328230 access_key=key-1fd5zsqadjyv4681toq height=600 width=600 /]

For immediate release: Jan 03, 2011
Posted by: [Attorney General]
Contact: Molly Butters
Phone: 317-232-0168
Email: molly.butters@atg.in.gov

Best Practices sought to thwart foreclosure violations
Zoeller petitions Indiana Supreme Court to set new requirements for lenders

INDIANAPOLIS – As the 50-state investigation continues into improper “robo-signing” foreclosure practices, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller today filed a petition asking the Indiana Supreme Court to impose new procedures to ensure that borrowers’ legal rights are fully protected and mortgage lenders follow the law.

“When some mortgage lenders try to foreclose on distressed homeowners by filing foreclosure documents that are unverified, unauthenticated or riddled with errors, it not only violates the rights of the homeowners but it is also a fraud upon the court,” Zoeller said. “In Indiana, we are not going to wait for federal government action; we will forge ahead to craft our own solution.”

A foreclosure-prevention task force established by the Indiana Supreme Court developed a list of guidelines to provide assurances to lenders, servicers, courts and borrowers that state and federal laws are being followed for the protection of homeowners.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s task force included the Attorney General’s Office, judges, Supreme Court staff, legal services attorneys and private-practice attorneys for mortgage lenders. Zoeller’s office today filed in the Supreme Court a petition — called “Mortgage Foreclosure Best Practices” — that included all the task force proposed guidelines and added some wording to strengthen them.

The Supreme Court is likely to take the proposals under advisement and decide at a later date whether to adopt them as requirements that lenders and services would have to follow.

The proposed best practices developed by the task force would do the following:

·         Require a mortgage lender seeking to foreclose to produce the original signed mortgage note when asked by the court – or other legal proof if the original cannot be located — and the chain of title proving that the lender has the right to enforce the note.

·         Require that the court send a notice to the borrower of their legal right to a settlement conference with the lender; and require that the judge not take final action until the settlement-conference report has been filed with the court.

·         Prohibit the mortgage lender from asking the borrower to waive his or her legal right to a settlement conference.

·         Allow courts to impose monetary sanctions on lenders who fail to comply with the Best Practices. The petition notes that judges in Allen and St. Joseph counties have ordered sanctions of between $150 to $2,500 for similar violations.

Because of concerns that some distressed borrowers have not been given the full opportunity to pursue “loss mitigation” – alternatives to foreclosure, such as loan modification or a short sale – the Attorney General’s petition includes additional wording to strengthen the task force proposals. It would require the mortgage lender to show, by verified affidavit, that the lender complied with federal requirements concerning borrowers’ legal rights during foreclosure, including providing borrowers with reasons for a denial of modification or other loss mitigation. And it would prohibit a court from ordering a home foreclosed if the borrower is being evaluated for a loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program or similar programs.

If adopted by the Supreme Court, Zoeller’s petition also would make the task force proposals requirements rather than recommendations.

“By some estimates, a sizeable percentage of homeowners facing foreclosure are not represented by attorneys, so no one is looking out for the borrower’s interests except the court. We must ensure the process is fair,” Zoeller said.

“These proposed best practices would provide much-needed transparency to the foreclosure process, encourage appropriate investigation and disclosure by the servicer and lead to better enforcement of existing federal rules,” Zoeller added. “I hope the Supreme Court will adopt the recommendations and implement them in Indiana’s courts.”

Zoeller said he applauded the Indiana Supreme Court for its leadership on the problem and the members of the task force for their willingness to take the initiative in Indiana rather than waiting for federal action.

On October 13, Zoeller announced that Indiana and the other 49 states had launched an investigation into fraudulent and illegal practices in the mortgage-servicing industry. The multi-state investigation was sparked by admissions by some mortgage lenders’ employees that they signed foreclosure documents without reading or understanding them, and allowed those documents to be filed court without authenticating them. The practice is known as “robo-signing,” and the result of the lack of due diligence has been numerous mistakes and even complaints that potentially erroneous foreclosure actions were filed against homeowners, some of whom were not delinquent on their mortgage payments. The 50-state investigation, led by Iowa, is ongoing.

On November 16, Zoeller organized and led a civil justice summit at the University of Notre Dame on the legal, economic and social impact of mortgage foreclosures in Indiana and efforts by all three branches of state government to stop mortgage fraud and assist borrowers in avoiding foreclosure.

Zoeller warns homeowners not to use illegal for-profit “foreclosure rescue” consultants when nonprofit organizations offers foreclosure-prevention advice for free. Contact the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network (IFPN) toll-free at 1(877)GET-HOPE or www.877gethope.org for advice at no charge.

[ipaper docId=46265177 access_key=key-7ivxrxjg1fpzsnvhmtb height=600 width=600 /]

Foreclosure Deals to Start With Big Lenders, Iowa Says

By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Prashant Gopal – Jan 3, 2011 6:08 PM ET

The 50 state attorneys general probing U.S. foreclosure practices will first settle with the five largest loan servicers, including Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said.

No settlements have been reached yet, Miller said in a telephone interview today. The other three are Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc., said Miller, the leader of the 50-state investigation. The five have 59 percent of the market, Miller said.

“What we’re looking at is five separate agreements with the five largest servicers,” Miller said. “We’re still a ways away” from reaching agreements, he said. “We’re working very hard to figure out what should be in the settlement.”

All 50 U.S. states are investigating whether banks and loan servicers used false documents and signatures to justify hundreds of thousands of foreclosures. The probe, announced Oct. 13, came after JPMorgan and Ally Financial’s GMAC mortgage unit said they would stop repossessions in 23 states where courts supervise home seizures, and Bank of America, the largest U.S. lender, froze foreclosures nationwide.

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 2, 2011

In the early 1990s, the biggest names in the mortgage industry hatched a plan for a new electronic clearinghouse that would transform the home loan business – and unlock billions of dollars of new investments and profits.

At the time, mortgage documents were moved almost exclusively by hand and mail, a throwback to an era in which people kept stock certificates, too. That made it hard for banks to bundle home loans and sell them to investors. By contrast, a central electronic clearinghouse would allow the companies to transfer thousands of mortgages instantaneously, greasing the wheels of a system in which loans could be bought and sold repeatedly and quickly.

“Assignments are creatures of 17th-century real property law; they do not coexist easily with high-volume, late 20th-century secondary mortgage market transactions,” Phyllis K. Slesinger, then senior director of investor relations for the Mortgage Bankers Association, wrote in paper explaining the system.

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

Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector

Deceased Woman’s Name Was Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits

• DECEMBER 31, 2010

By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG

Martha Kunkle has come back to life.

She died in 1995. Yet her signature later appeared on thousands of affidavits submitted by one of the nation’s largest debt collectors, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc., in lawsuits filed against borrowers.

Some regulators complain that the use of Ms. Kunkle’s name reflects an epidemic of mass-produced, sloppy and inaccurate documentation in the debt-collection industry. Lawsuits have surged as more borrowers fall behind on payments and collection firms turn to courts to get what they are owed.

After being sued for fraud, Portfolio Recovery Associates decided in early 2008 that any documents bearing Ms. Kunkle’s name had “defects” and shouldn’t be used when trying to collect debts, a company spokeswoman said.

Excerpt from letter:

On September 28, October 18, and October 29, 2010, I wrote to you and the other presiding and administrative judges of the Ohio Courts of Common Pleas, noting widespread questions about the accuracy of affidavits filed in foreclosure cases by GMAC Mortgage, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, PNC, Wells Fargo and others. I am writing to update you on developments in this area.

In my last letter, I asked you to send my office affidavits signed by robo-signers as well as any motions you received from foreclosure counsel to submit a new affidavit or ratify a foreclosure judgment. A number of you have done so, and I thank you for helping us keep track of the situation. Our office is deciding whether and how to take action in these individual cases.

Read full letter below:

[ipaper docId=46048055 access_key=key-7x9ncx1oue2hnvh1t1t height=600 width=600 /]

Alden Berner, Legal Process Specialist Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Signed verifications of complaints.

Courtesy of IceLegal.com

Excerpts:

8 Q. Did you do anything to attempt to
9 verify whether or not the original note and mortgage
10 were actually in the custody of the trustee by the
11 time the closing date for the trust occurred?
12 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
15 Q. Do you even get involved in that at
16 all?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you seen any documents that
19 establish what the relationship is between HSBC Bank
20 and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage?
21 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
24 Q. Do you know how it is that Wells Fargo
25 Home Mortgage came to be selected to do the
1 verification for HSBC Bank in this particular case,
2 the case?
3 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
6 Q. Do you know if there is some document
7 that designates you to be the person to verify on
8 behalf of HSBC Bank.
9 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
10 THE WITNESS: Me personally?
11 MR. FLANAGAN: Yes, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
14 Q. How about for Wells Fargo Bank, NA, is
15 there any document that you’re aware of that
16 designates you to have the authority to sign these
17 verifications on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA?
18 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
19 THE WITNESS: No, but I don’t need to,
20 because I’m an employee of Wells Fargo Home
21 Mortgage, which is owned by Wells Fargo Bank, N A.
22 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
23 Q. Are they a subsidiary, as far as you
24 know?
25 A. Yes.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=45818189 access_key=key-27d0mo8r5osojg9fqc85 height=600 width=600 /]

Another Super Tremendous Job! Listen to her carefully for those of you who may not be aware of the secrets behind the modification game. She tells exactly how it’s playing out.

“Moratorium Now”

SANDRA HINES the voice of foreclosed America! Sandra is a Detroit resident who lost her home that was in her family for 37 years to foreclosure.

Watch this in it’s entirety! It gets explosive and will leave you either in tears or leave you wanting more!

“I came to tell the

Story of The People”

PROVEST, LLC

The case file cited below relates to a civil — not a criminal — investigation. The existence of an investigation does not constitute proof of any violation of law.

GISSEN & ZAWYER PROCESS SERVICES, INC.

United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on: “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis” Pt 2

Witness List

JACKSONVILLE, Florida — Lender Processing Services is riding the waves of foreclosures sweeping the United States, but in late October its CEO, Jeff Carbiener, found himself needing to reassure investors in the $2.8 billion company.

Although profits were rolling in, LPS’s stock had taken a hit in the wake of revelations that mortgage companies across the country had filed fraudulent documents in foreclosures cases. Earlier in the year, the company, which handles more than half of the nation’s foreclosures, had disclosed that it was under federal criminal investigation and admitted that employees at a small subsidiary had falsely signed foreclosure documents.

Still, Carbiener told the Wall Street analysts in an October 29 conference call that LPS’s legal concerns were overblown, and the stock has jumped 13 percent since its close the day before the call.

But a Reuters investigation shows that LPS’s legal woes are more serious than he let on. Public records reveal that the company’s LPS Default Solutions unit produced documents of dubious authenticity in far larger quantities than it has disclosed, and over a much longer timespan.

Questionable signing and notarization practices weren’t limited to its subsidiary, called DocX, but occurred in at least one of LPS’s own offices, mortgage assignments filed in county recorders’ offices show. And rather than halt such practices after the federal investigation got underway, the company shifted the signing to firms with which it has close business ties. LPS provided personnel to work in the new signing operations, according to information from an LPS spokeswoman and court records including an October 21 ruling by a judge in Brooklyn, New York. Records in county recorders’ offices, and in the judge’s opinion, show that “robosigning” and preparation of apparently false documents went on at these sites on a large scale.

In one instance, it helped set up a massive signing operation at the nearby office of a major client, a spokeswoman for the client, American Home Mortgage Servicing, confirmed. LPS-hired notaries who worked there said in interviews that troves of documents were improperly handled. They said that about 200 affidavits per day were robosigned during the two months the two notaries remained there.

A spokeswoman for LPS confirmed to Reuters that it had helped other firms establish operations that performed the same function. LPS spokeswoman Michelle Kersch didn’t specify which firms. But beginning early in 2010, county recorders’ records show, signing shifted also to law firms under contract with LPS.

Interviews with key players and court records also show that pending investigations and lawsuits pose a bigger threat to the company than Carbiener let on.

The criminal investigation in Jacksonville by federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is intensifying. The same goes for a separate inquiry by the Florida attorney general’s office. Individuals with direct knowledge of the federal inquiry said that prosecutors have impaneled a grand jury, begun calling witnesses and subpoenaed records from LPS.

The company confirmed to Reuters that it has hired Paul McNulty, former deputy U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, to represent it in the investigation. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s office declined to comment on the probe.

The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency’s office, which is responsible for supervising national banks, also announced in November that it had teamed up with the Federal Reserve to conduct an on-site examination of LPS.

United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on: “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis”

Written Testimony of
Christopher L. Peterson
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law
University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law
Salt Lake City, Utah
December 2, 2010
10:00 a.m.

It is an honor to appear today before this Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts on our national foreclosure crisis. My name is Christopher Peterson and I am the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and a Professor of Law at the University of Utah where I teach contract and commercial law classes. I commend you, Chairman Conyers, Representative Smith, and other members of the Committee for organizing these hearings and for providing an opportunity to discuss this important and timely national issue.

The foreclosure crisis is an extremely complex problem. With so many fundamental changes, opportunities for moral hazard, agency cost problems, consumer abuses, and impending lawsuits, it is easy to lose track of some of the basic legal and business practice problems that departed from past traditions and helped bring us to our present situation. In particular, it is somewhat perplexing that relatively little attention has been paid to the one company that has been a party in more problematic mortgage loans than any other institution. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., commonly known as MERS, is a corporation registered in Delaware and headquartered in Reston, Virginia.1 MERS operates a computer database that includes some information on servicing and ownership rights of mortgage loans.2 Originators, servicers, and other financial institutions pay membership dues and per?transaction fees to MERS in exchange for the right to use and access MERS records.3 In addition to operating its computer database, MERS also pretends to own mortgage loans in order to help its members avoid paying fees to county governments.

My testimony is largely derived from two scholarly articles I have written on this topic which I invite the committee to review for further information.4 My prepared statement today will: (1) discuss the Origin and Business Practices of MERS; (2) explore the problematic legal foundation of MERS; (3) suggest that MERS is a deceptive and anti?democratic institution designed to deprive county governments of revenue; (4) explain how MERS is undermining mortgage loan and land title record keeping; (5) argue that MERS was a contributing factor in the foreclosure crisis and has made resolving foreclosures more difficult; and (6) propose some solutions for the committee to consider.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=44593708 access_key=key-dv4sxki208xgndowe5a height=600 width=600 /]

F. DANA WINSLOW
NYS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
Before the House of Representatives
DECEMBER 2,2010
ON
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
FORECLOSED JUSTICE:
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
Hon. F. Dana Winslow
December 2, 2010

Excerpts:

3.2.4 Robo·signing. Questionable validity of signatures on assignments and affidavits
attesting to ownership of the Note and Mortgage. Examples:

3.2.4.1 Signed by: “Duly Authorized Officer,” “Authorized Signer,” “Attomey·in·
Fact” or “Authorized Agent.” What do these titles mean? What is the function
afthe person signing the documents, and what is the basis of their personal
knowledge?

3.2.4.2 Same person signs several documents, in several different capacities: e.g.,
“Vice President of [Assignor Mortgagee)” is also the “Assistant Secretary of
the Servicer” for the Plaintiff Mortgagee, and an employee of the law firm
bringing the foreclosure action.

3.2.5 Validity of notary stamps on assignments.

3.2.5.1 Assignment documents notarized several months after the assignment was
purportedly effected.

3.2.5.2 Notarized in blank – name of the person whose signature was purportedly
witnessed is omitted.

Continue Below…

[ipaper docId=44593776 access_key=key-22jxp4fylf9hwpn3g9yu height=600 width=600 /]

Written Testimony of
James A. Kowalski, Jr., Esquire
Law Offices of James A. Kowalski, Jr., PL
Jacksonville, FL

Before the
Committee On The Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
“Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis“

Excerpt:

The focus on speed is part of the business model for the servicers. As those of us
who have litigated these cases for years now, and as all of us now know as a result of the
robo-signing scandals, most of the servicers use “Signing Officers” – rows of individuals
who sit before reams of documents prepared by others, with not even a modest wink at
the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and who sign the documents only to
have the document transported across the business campus to rows of notaries, who attest
to the signatures without ever complying with the basics of their state’s notary laws.

Some of the mill firms now employ their own “Signing OffIcers” – individuals
who will sign Assignments of Mortgage on behalf of the owners of the pool, supposedly
authorized by the servicer pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which
applies to the particular securitized trust. The documents are prepared entirely by the
servicer.

On occasion, the law fIrm employees also sign the AffIdavits in support of
motions for summary judgment fIled by the law fIrms – here, the lawyer’s offIce staff
becomes the material witness for the lawyer’s client.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=44593724 access_key=key-r8depdmlv6a3blz9a5u height=600 width=600 /]

Testimony of Harold Lewis
Managing Director, CitiMortgage
Before the Committee on Financial Services
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
November 18, 2010

Excerpt:

As an additional quality control measure, Citi is currently reviewing approximately 10,000 affidavits that were executed in pending judicial foreclosures initiated prior to February 2010 to assure that these affidavits are substantively correct and properly executed. Citi expects that affidavits executed prior to the fall of 2009 will need to be re-filed.

Separately, Citi is also reviewing approximately 4,000 pending foreclosure affidavits in judicial states that were executed at our Dallas processing center and may not have been signed in the presence of a notary, to assure that these affidavits are substantively correct and properly executed. Citi expects that it will re-file these affidavits.

Lastly, as previously announced, Citi stopped referring new matters to the Florida law firm David Stern in September of 2010 and has since withdrawn all pending matters from that firm. As an added precaution and quality-control measure, Citi is transferring approximately 8,500 pending foreclosure files from the Stern law firm to new counsel. New affidavits for these cases will be prepared and re-filed by new counsel under Citi’s current procedures.

Continue reading…

[ipaper docId=43133403 access_key=key-1dw6rv14xg9w76xg6k83 height=600 width=600 /]

“Our company’s process for preparing foreclosure affidavits was flawed”

“There were affidavits signed outside the immediate physical presence of a notary and without direct personal knowledge of the information in the affidavit”

“These flaws are entirely unacceptable to me”

[ipaper docId=43009585 access_key=key-15r3zmuzvsk1rrbsdz6k height=600 width=600 /]

Last week Freddie and Fannie announced the termination of their relationship and removing files from the Law Offices of David J. Stern, now comes Wells Fargo following both Freddie and Fannie.

Freddie’s spokeswoman said an internal review raised “concerns about some of the practices at the Stern firm.”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Retired judges are rushing through complex cases to speed foreclosures in Florida

The following is an article from the November 11, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone. This issue is available Friday on newsstands, as well online in Rolling Stone’s digital archive. Click here to subscribe.

The foreclosure lawyers down in Jacksonville had warned me, but I was skeptical. They told me the state of Florida had created a special super-high-speed housing court with a specific mandate to rubber-stamp the legally dicey foreclosures by corporate mortgage pushers like Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase. This “rocket docket,” as it is called in town, is presided over by retired judges who seem to have no clue about the insanely complex financial instruments they are ruling on — securitized mortgages and laby­rinthine derivative deals of a type that didn’t even exist when most of them were active members of the bench. Their stated mission isn’t to decide right and wrong, but to clear cases and blast human beings out of their homes with ultimate velocity. They certainly have no incentive to penetrate the profound criminal mysteries of the great American mortgage bubble of the 2000s, perhaps the most complex Ponzi scheme in human history — an epic mountain range of corporate fraud in which Wall Street megabanks conspired first to collect huge numbers of subprime mortgages, then to unload them on unsuspecting third parties like pensions, trade unions and insurance companies (and, ultimately, you and me, as taxpayers) in the guise of AAA-rated investments. Selling lead as gold, shit as Chanel No. 5, was the essence of the booming international fraud scheme that created most all of these now-failing home mortgages.

RULING MAY COMPLICATE LOAN CRISIS

Ruling might further complicate loan crisis

( page of 4 )

At issue is the use of sworn affidavits that convinced circuit judges the borrower’s original promissory note had been lost in the shuffle but that the lender still had a right to foreclose. Experts likened it to a used car dealer selling a vehicle using a photocopy of the title.

Circuit court judges have been using such promises to issue summary judgments, which have sped cases along at a time when the courts have been inundated.

Observers say the rulings from the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee and the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach could become templates for more challenges.

It is unclear just how many cases could be affected — the chief judge in this region’s circuit says foreclosure paperwork is carefully scrutinized by teams of case managers — but the rulings come as the system already is dealing with disruptions from self-imposed bank moratoriums to deal with questionable paperwork.

“It is the culmination of the worst civil procedure nightmare we’ve ever imagined,” said Anne L. Weintraub, a real estate attorney at Sarasota’s Syprett Meshad law firm, referring to the recent appellate rulings.

What happens next could have widespread implications for the more than 200,000 Floridians who have lost their homes to foreclosure since January 2007, including the more than 12,000 in Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte counties.

ANOTHER FL WIN! FLORIDA 4th DCA APPEALS COURT SERVEDIO v. US BANK

[ipaper docId=41737977 access_key=key-virafbbku2781pl40gp height=600 width=600 /]

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF STATE OF LAW42U.S.C.1983

COUNT II
ABUSE OF PROCESS

COUNT III
UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES, FLA. STAT. 501.201 et. seq.

COUNT IV
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- UNCLEAN HANDS 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202

COUNT V
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- VOID AFFIDAVITS 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

[ipaper docId=41467074 access_key=key-26mabjuyq21vtvvdzrw0 height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpts:

4 Q. So all of the client files, all of your
5 clients have a file in that system, and you maintain
6 records relating to that client in these files?
7 A. No. Specific clients are in specific
8 systems. So you update only those clients that are in
9 that particular system.
10 Q. Okay. What system would MERS be in?
11 A. MERS isn’t in the system.
12 Q. They’re not? What about GMAC Mortgage, LLC?
13 A. They’re NewTrack.
14 Q. What other systems do you use for the — for
15 the clients, for your clients?
16 A. It depends upon the client.
17 Q. Can you give me some examples of the systems?
18 A. Um, we have Lendstar, we have Vendorscape,
19 those are the two that I have used.
20 Q. And you’ve also used NewTrack?
21 A. Yes, ma’am.
22 Q. What type of information do you keep in the
23 systems?
24 A. We have to update when hearings are
25 scheduled, when service is complete for the clients.

1 Q. Do you also keep in those systems,
2 information as to when the lawsuit is filed, when
3 assignments are executed, when affidavits are
4 executed?
5 A. When complaints are filed, yes.
6 Q. But not when assignments are executed or
7 affidavits are executed?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Is that information kept in another software
10 program?
11 A. Not to my knowledge.

<SNIP>

1 A. It’s a form. It’s the same form for every
2 assignment.
3 Q. So you do not read them?
4 A. They’re checked by an attorney before I sign.
5 Q. So you rely on the attorney?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Also, in this document it indicates
8 that “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
9 residing or located at care of GMAC Mortgage, LLC,”
10 what does that mean?
11 A. The address of the servicer.
12 Q. So Mortgage Electronic Registration System is
13 the servicer?
14 A. Mortgage Electronic Registrations is who
15 the — the mortgage apparently was sitting in the name
16 of for this file at the time.
17 Q. And GMAC is the servicer?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. What does that phrase residing or located at
20 care of mean?
21 A. That’s an address.
22 Q. So MERS is physically located at GMAC
23 Mortgage, LLC?
24 A. I don’t know.
25 Q. Don’t know. Do you have access to any of the

1 title work, or any other information before you
2 execute the assignments of mortgage?
3 A. It’s in the file that’s been reviewed by the
4 attorney.
5 Q. So you don’t review them yourself?
6 A. No. It’s been reviewed by the attorney.
7 Q. Are you — what provides you the
8 authorization to sign?
9 You notice on the assignment, that you’re
10 executing it as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage
11 Electronic Registration System; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. So before I asked you if you were employed by
14 any other corporations, you indicated that you were
15 not. What does it mean when you hold the position of
16 Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic
17 Registration Systems, Inc.?
18 A. We have power of attorney.
19 Q. And what does that mean?
20 A. That we had authorization to sign on behalf
21 of.
22 Q. And did you obtain that power of attorney?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Did you — do you know anything about the
25 negotiations leading up to the execution of that power

1 of attorney?
2 A. No.

<SNIP>

23 Q. If you’ll take a look at the first document
24 that I handed to you, the Lis Pendens and complaint.
25 If you look, there’s a document attached to that as

1 Exhibit A. And who is listed as the lender on that
2 document?
3 A. It says MERS.
4 Q. And does it, a little bit further down, also
5 say Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker Mortgage Corporation,
6 “lender —
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. — is organized and existing under the laws
9 of?”
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Do you have any documents — did you have any
12 documents in your file relating to Taylor, Bean and
13 Whitaker Mortgage Corporation at the time you executed
14 the assignment?
15 A. I don’t know.
16 Q. Would you have looked at the original
17 mortgage prior to executing the assignment?
18 (Brief telephonic interruption.)
19 THE WITNESS: No. Again, they were reviewed
20 by an attorney.

Continue to the depo below…

[ipaper docId=41044236 access_key=key-1s17qv7pitz1rmk5i19t height=600 width=600 /]