This part of the article doesn’t settle well for me:
The hearing in a state traditionally friendly to banks and home to U.S. industry leader Bank of America comes as paperwork problems have gummed up foreclosures nationwide.
Boston Herald-
RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina’s Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that could decide whether mortgage lenders can foreclose on a home without producing original documents that prove they’re owed the money.
The hearing in a state traditionally friendly to banks and home to U.S. industry leader Bank of America comes as paperwork problems have gummed up foreclosures nationwide.
Those problems include missing documents validating a mortgage transaction and unqualified employees “robo-signing” affidavits improperly swearing to the accuracy of overdue mortgage debts. The problem of suspect documents could create legal trouble for homeowners and mortgage lenders for years.
SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., Substitute Trustee and WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, N.A. as Trustee for Equivantage Home Equity Loan Trust, 1996-4, Note Holder, EQUVANTAGE, INC., and AMERICA‘S SERVICING COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
**************************** PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER, NORTH CAROLINA ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING, MAINE ATTORNEYS SAVING HOMES, THE FINANCIAL PROTECTION LAW CENTER, AARP, AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT *****************************
Mortgage/ Securitization forensic auditors especially, may want to pay close attention to this case.
WSJ-
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to clarify the circumstances in which home buyers can sue mortgage lenders for allegedly charging them unearned fees during the closing process.
The case centers on a group of lawsuits from Louisiana in which borrowers alleged Detroit-based Quicken Loans Inc. charged them loan-discount fees but did not provide reduced interest rates in return.
Quicken Loans said the fees were legal and denied allegations that the fees were unearned.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Indenture :
Trustee for the Registered Noteholders :
of Renaissance Home Equity Loan :
Trust 2007-1 :
:
v.
: JAMIE W. THOMPSON, et al.
EXCERPTS:
{¶ 67} In contrast to Watson, no evidence was presented in the case before us to indicate that the allonges were ever attached or affixed to the promissory note. Instead, the allonges have been presented as separate, loose sheets of paper, with no explanation as to how they may have been attached. Compare In re Weisband, (Bkrtcy. D. Ariz., 2010), 427 B.R. 13, 19 (concluding that GMAC was not a “holder” and did not have ability to enforce a note, where GMAC failed to demonstrate that an allonge endorsement to GMAC was affixed to a note. The bankruptcy court noted that the endorsement in question “is on a separate sheet of paper; there was no evidence that it was stapled or otherwise attached to the rest of the Note.”)
{¶ 86} We need not decide which approach is correct, because the alleged assignment of mortgage is attached to Neil’s rejected affidavits. Since the trial court’s disregard of the affidavits was not an abuse of discretion, there is currently no evidence of a mortgage “assignment” to consider. Moreover, we would reject HSBC’s position even if we considered the alleged assignment, because HSBC failed to establish that it was the holder of the note. Therefore, no “equitable assignment” of the mortgage would have arisen. All that HSBC might have established is that the mortgage was assigned to it after the action was filed. However, as we noted, the matters pertaining to that fact were submitted with an
affidavit that the trial court rejected, within its discretion.
Ohio AG Cordray Asks Court to Consider GMAC Fraud in Cleveland Foreclosure Case
“Judges rely upon the accuracy of affidavits to grant judgments and ensure that the integrity of the judicial system can be trusted,” said Attorney General Cordray. “False affidavits throw the entire system into question. Foreclosures should not move forward when the basis of evidence is perjured statements.”
Recent Comments