via: Leagle

 PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

 Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson, v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

 No. 2100490.

 Decided January 20, 2012.

 PER CURIAM.¹

Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson appeal from a judgment in favor of GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC Mortgage”). We vacate the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the appeal.

On September 4, 2007, GMAC Mortgage brought an ejectment action against the Pattersons. GMAC Mortgage alleged that the Pattersons had mortgaged their house located on Southcrest Trail in Bessemer (“the house”) to Option One Mortgage Corporation (“Option One”), that Option One had transferred the mortgage to GMAC Mortgage, that GMAC Mortgage had foreclosed the mortgage on August 7, 2007, and that GMAC Mortgage was the owner of the house by virtue of the foreclosure sale. GMAC Mortgage further alleged that it had made a written demand for possession of the house in accordance with § 6-5-251(a), Ala. Code 1975,² and that the Pattersons had not vacated the house. As relief, GMAC Mortgage sought possession of the house, damages for wrongful detention of the house, and a determination that the Pattersons had forfeited their right to redeem the house by failing to vacate it within 10 days after GMAC Mortgage demanded possession.³ Answering, the Pattersons asserted, among other things, that the foreclosure was unlawful. They also asserted a counterclaim seeking a determination that the foreclosure was unlawful.

GMAC Mortgage moved for a summary judgment and later supplemented its summary-judgment motion with additional evidence. The Pattersons submitted evidence in opposition to the summary-judgment motion.

The evidence submitted by GMAC Mortgage in support of its summary-judgment motion included the foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to the house to GMAC Mortgage. The foreclosure deed recites that GMAC Mortgage accelerated the debt secured by the mortgage.⁴ The foreclosure deed also recites that GMAC Mortgage gave notice of the foreclosure of the mortgage in a newspaper of general circulation in Jefferson County on May 19, May 26, and June 2, 2007, and that GMAC Mortgage foreclosed the mortgage on August 7, 2007. The evidence submitted by GMAC Mortgage also included a written assignment executed by Option One on August 6, 2007, in which Option One assigned the mortgage to GMAC Mortgage.

Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting GMAC Mortgage’s summary-judgment motion insofar as it sought a determination that the foreclosure was valid but denied the motion in all other respects on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the Pattersons had received notice of GMAC Mortgage’s demand for possession of the house after the foreclosure.

Following a bench trial regarding the issue whether the Pattersons had received notice of GMAC Mortgage’s demand for possession, the trial court entered a judgment (1) finding that GMAC Mortgage had given the Pattersons notice of its demand for possession, (2) ordering the Pattersons to deliver possession of the property to GMAC Mortgage, and (3) ruling that the Pattersons had forfeited their right to redeem the property; however, the trial court did not award any damages for wrongful detention of the property. The Pattersons timely appealed to the supreme court, which transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.

On appeal, the Pattersons assert, among other things, that the trial court erred in determining that the foreclosure was valid. While the Pattersons’ appeal was pending, this court delivered its decision in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC. BAC then held a foreclosure sale at which it purchased Sturdivant’s house, and the auctioneer executed a foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC. BAC was assigned the mortgage the same day as the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, BAC brought an ejectment action against Sturdivant, claiming that it owned title to her house by virtue of the foreclosure deed. After the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, Sturdivant appealed to the supreme court, which transferred her appeal to this court. We held that BAC lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings and that, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid. We further held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house through the foreclosure deed and thus BAC did not own an interest in the house when it commenced its ejectment action. We further held that, because BAC did not own any interest in Sturdivant’s house when it commenced its ejectment action, BAC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Because BAC did not have standing to bring its ejectment action and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment action, we held that the judgment of the trial court was void, and we vacated that judgment. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismissed the appeal.

In the case now before us, GMAC Mortgage, like BAC in Sturdivant, had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings. Consequently, under our holding in Sturdivant, GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings, and, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed upon which GMAC based it ejectment claim are invalid. Moreover, under our holding in Sturdivant, because GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house, it lacked standing to bring its ejectment action against the Pattersons. Because GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is void and is hereby vacated. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismiss this appeal. Id.

JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur.

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, with writing.

Bryan, J., dissents, with writing.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result.

Reginald A. Patterson and Diane V. Patterson executed a mortgage, secured by their house, to Option One Mortgage Corporation on January 25, 2006, and they later defaulted on the mortgage. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, initiated foreclosure proceedings, and, in May 2007, GMAC began publishing notice of its intent to conduct a foreclosure sale. On August 6, 2007, Option One assigned the mortgage to GMAC, and the next day, August 7, 2007, GMAC conducted the foreclosure sale and purchased the property at that sale. Also on August 7, 2007, GMAC sent the Pattersons a letter demanding possession of the property.

In their brief on appeal, the Pattersons argue, among other things, that GMAC failed to demonstrate proof of a valid foreclosure. Specifically, the Pattersons argue, as they did before the trial court, that GMAC, which first obtained an interest in the property the day before it conducted its foreclosure sale, did not have an interest in the property at the time it initiated the foreclosure process and that one without an interest in a mortgage may not institute foreclosure proceedings. In support of those arguments, the Pattersons cite § 6-6-280, Ala. Code 1975; Steele v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 69 So.3d 89, 93 (Ala. 2010) (“[Section 6-6-280(b)] unambiguously states that a complaint seeking ejectment `is sufficient if it alleges that the plaintiff was possessed of the premises or has the legal title thereto, properly designating or describing them, and that the defendant entered thereupon and unlawfully withholds and detains the same.'”); MacMillan Bloedell, Inc. v. Ezell, 475 So.2d 493 (Ala. 1985); Kelly v. Carmichael, 217 Ala. 534, 117 So.2d 67 (1928); and Berry v. Deutche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 57 So.3d 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

While the Pattersons’ appeal was pending in this court, this court decided Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] So. 3d (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, supra, this court considered an appeal from a summary judgment proceeding in which the record demonstrated that in September 2009 BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, had initiated foreclosure proceedings with regard to a mortgage Bessie T. Sturdivant had executed and that was secured by Sturdivant’s house. BAC Home Loans conducted a foreclosure sale on December 1, 2009, and, also on December 1, 2009, it received an assignment from the holder of the mortgage on Sturdivant’s property. BAC Home Loans, relying on the deed it received as a result of the December 1, 2009, foreclosure sale, sought to eject Sturdivant from the property. This court noted that in order to demonstrate a prima facie case in support of its claim in ejectment, BAC Home Loans was required to show, among other things, that it had legal title to the property. Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, So. 3d at (citing § 6-6-280(b), Ala. Code 1975). In that case, BAC Home Loans claimed that it had legal title by virtue of the deed it had received after it had conducted the foreclosure sale. Article 1 of Title 35, Chapter 10, Ala. Code 1975, governs sales conducted to foreclose on a mortgage and, in pertinent part, requires that a power of sale may be executed by “any person … who, by assignment or otherwise, becomes entitled to the money” secured by the mortgage. § 35-10-1, Ala. Code 1975. In Sturdivant, this court, relying on several of the authorities cited in the Pattersons’ brief on appeal in this case, concluded that because BAC Home Loans had no interest in the property at the time it initiated its foreclosure proceedings, the foreclosure sale was invalid. So. 3d at (citing § 35-10-9, Ala. Code 1975). This court held that, because the foreclosure sale was invalid, BAC Home Loans had no legal title on which to base it claim in ejectment and, as a result, that BAC Home Loans lacked standing to assert its ejectment action. Sturdivant, So. 3d at.

In this case, GMAC initiated foreclosure proceedings at least four months before it obtained an interest in the mortgage.⁵ GMAC was first assigned an interest in the mortgage on August 6, 2007, the day before it conducted its already scheduled August 7, 2007, foreclosure sale. Given the Pattersons’ arguments on appeal, the authorities they cited in support of those arguments, and the holding of Sturdivant, supra, I agree with the Pattersons that GMAC failed to demonstrate that it had standing to prosecute its ejectment action and that the trial court erred in allowing GMAC to prosecute its action. I therefore concur in the result reached by the main opinion.

BRYAN, Judge, dissenting.

In Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”), brought an ejectment action against Bessie T. Sturdivant, seeking, among other things, possession of her house. BAC based its claim to title to Sturdivant’s house on a foreclosure deed that had resulted from the foreclosure of a mortgage encumbering Sturdivant’s house. BAC had foreclosed the mortgage as the assignee of the mortgagee. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, and Sturdivant appealed. The main opinion in Sturdivant held that the foreclosure conducted by BAC and the foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC were invalid because BAC had not been assigned or succeeded to the interest of the mortgagee in the mortgage when BAC commenced the foreclosure proceedings. Moreover, relying on the supreme court’s decision in Cadle v. Shabani, 950 So.2d 277 (Ala. 2006), the main opinion held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC lacked standing to prosecute its ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over that action, and, therefore, the judgment of the trial court was void.

I dissented from the main opinion in Sturdivant because, in my opinion, Cadle was distinguishable on its facts from Sturdivant; in Cadle, the ejectment plaintiff did not have paper title to the property that was the subject of the ejectment action when it commenced its ejectment action, whereas BAC, the ejectment plaintiff in Sturdivant, did have paper title to the property that was the subject of the ejectment action when it commenced its ejectment action. It was my opinion that Sturdivant was entitled to assert and prove that the paper title upon which BAC relied, i.e., the foreclosure deed, was invalid as an affirmative defense to BAC’s ejectment action but that Sturdivant’s successfully proving that BAC’s paper title was invalid did not deprive BAC of standing to bring the ejectment action and did not justify the conclusion that the trial court had never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Moreover, because, in my opinion, proof that BAC’s paper title was invalid did not deprive BAC of standing or deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action, I disagreed with the main opinion’s basing its decision on a ground that had not been argued to the trial court because of the well-established principle that an appellate court may not base a reversal of the trial court’s judgment on a ground that was not argued to the trial court. See Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 537 So.2d 463, 465 (Ala. 1988). As the supreme court explained in Smith:

“An appellee can defend the trial court’s ruling with an argument not raised below, for this Court `will affirm the judgment appealed from if supported on any valid legal ground.’ Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Ala. 1983). There is a rather obvious fundamental difference in upholding the trial court’s judgment and reversing it; this Court will not reverse the trial court’s judgment on a ground raised for the first time on appeal, Costarides v. Miller, 374 So.2d 1335 (Ala. 1979), even though it affirms judgments on bases not asserted in the trial court, Bank of the Southeast v. Koslin, 380 So.2d 826 (Ala. 1980). This difference is predicated on the `long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.’ Tucker v. Nichols, supra, at 1264.”

537 So. 2d at 465(emphasis on “affirms” in original; other emphasis added).

In my opinion, Cadle is distinguishable from the case now before us for the same reason it was distinguishable from Sturdivant — the ejectment plaintiff in Cadle did not have paper title to the property when it commenced its ejectment action, whereas GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC Mortgage”), the ejectment plaintiff in the case now before us, did have paper title to Reginald A. Patterson and Diane V. Patterson’s house when it commenced its ejectment action. Therefore, consistent with my dissent in Sturdivant, I believe that, although the Pattersons were entitled to prove that GMAC’s foreclosure and foreclosure deed were invalid as an affirmative defense to GMAC Mortgage’s ejectment claim, proof that the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid did not establish that GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to prosecute the ejectment action or that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Consequently, in my opinion, the Pattersons are subject to the long-standing principle that an appellate court may not base a reversal of the trial court’s judgment on a ground that was not argued to the trial court. See Smith. Although the Pattersons argued to the trial court that the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were not valid, they did not argue to the trial court that they were invalid on the ground that the mortgage had not been assigned to GMAC Mortgage when it commenced the foreclosure proceedings. Consequently, I dissent from the main opinion because it bases its decision on a ground that was not argued to the trial court. See Smith.

Footnotes

1. Because of the issues involved, this appeal was held in abeyance pending the adjudication of the appeal in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

Back to Reference

2. Section 6-5-251(a) provides:”The possession of the land must be delivered to the purchaser or purchaser’s transferees by the debtor or mortgagor if in their possession or in the possession of anyone holding under them by privity of title, within 10 days after written demand for the possession has been made by, or on behalf of, the purchaser or purchaser’s transferees.”

Back to Reference

3. Section 6-5-251(c), Ala. Code 1975, provides:”Failure of the debtor or mortgagor or anyone holding possession under him or her to comply with the provisions of this section forfeits the right of redemption of the debtor or one holding possession under the debtor.”

Back to Reference

4. The Pattersons deny that they received notice of the acceleration of the debt.

Back to Reference

5. The record indicates that notice of the foreclosure by publication was first made in May 2007 and completed in June 2007. The Pattersons contend that they were not provided notice of the acceleration of the mortgage indebtedness or of foreclosure, and the record does not contain evidence that they received those notices.

[ipaper docId=79237711 access_key=key-1t8pa6imo4tv3894wxb9 height=600 width=600 /]

S T A T E  O F  M I C H I G A N
C O U R T  O F  A P P E A L S

EUIHYUNG KIM and IN SOOK KIM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
Defendant-Appellee.

EXCERPT:

Therefore, pursuant to the plain language of MCL 600.3204(3), defendant was required
to record its mortgage interest before the sheriff’s sale. Because defendant failed to do so, it was
not statutorily authorized to proceed with the sale. See MCL 600.3204(3) (“If the party
foreclosing a mortgage by advertisement is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title
shall exist prior to the date of sale . . . .” [Emphasis added]); see also Davenport v HSBC Bank
USA, 275 Mich App 344, 347-348; 739 NW2d 383 (2007) (“Because defendant lacked the
statutory authority to foreclose, the foreclosure proceedings were void ab initio.”) Accordingly,
the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant and denying plaintiffs’
motion for summary disposition when they were entitled to set aside the sheriff’s deed. Given
our resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to address plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court
erred by prematurely disposing of their cause of action without permitting discovery.
[ipaper docId=78488254 access_key=key-230vn08yym7yezdbawli height=600 width=600 /]

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR BALDERAS and BELEN
BALDERAS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A., a
National Banking Association;
AAA FUNDING, INC., DBA
USA Funding, a California corporation;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME MMA-JMA
LOANS, INC., DBA America’s
Wholesale Lender, a New York
corporation; MOR CAZAKOV, an
individual; GALENA KOROL, an
individual; DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees. þ

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted

June 9, 2011—Pasadena, California

Filed December 29, 2011

EXCERPT:

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

The Balderases allege that they are immigrants who were
rooked by a bank that signed them up for loans it knew they
couldn’t afford, on terms they didn’t agree to. These are the
facts as recited in the complaint: Mor Cazakov, a mortgage
broker, cold-called the Balderases, representing that he could
refinance their home, switch them to a fixed rate mortgage
and let them cash out $50,000, all without a penalty. Subsequently,
Soraya Qassim, a “duly authorized agent” of Countrywide
Bank (Countrywide), filled out a uniform residential
loan application (URLA) for them and showed up unannounced
at their home, urging the Balderases to sign it. But
the form was in English, which they can’t read, and it overestimated
their income by over $40,000 per year. Qassim told
them it was an informal document the bank needed, so the
Balderases signed.

Three days later, on the evening of Monday, September 25,
2006, Cazakov showed up at their home with a notary public
and loan documents also written in English. He told them that
Countrywide “demanded” their signatures “that night” and he
couldn’t and wouldn’t leave without getting them. The
Balderases protested and asked to arrange the loan signing
when their English-literate daughter could attend. But Cazakov
said that Countrywide had instructed him to stay until he
got the signatures, and he “engaged in a series of actions
designed to intimidate, harass, and pressure [the Balderases]
into signing the loan documents.” After six hours of unrelenting
pressure by Cazakov and several unsuccessful attempts to
read the paperwork, the Balderases capitulated and signed the
documents just after midnight. On Wednesday, they called
Cazakov and asked him to rescind the loans. He refused. They
then called Countrywide a day later seeking the same relief.
Countrywide also refused, falsely representing it was too late.
In fact, the three-day statutory rescission period extended
through the next day, Friday, September 29.

The Balderases filed a complaint alleging, among other
things, a violation of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA). See
15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. Countrywide filed a 12(b)(6)
motion, which the district court granted. This timely appeal
followed.

* * *

[ipaper docId=76788689 access_key=key-4hh5yvqdgfzpfge3kza height=600 width=600 /]

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
No. 8

September Term, 2011

HOSEA ANDERSON, et ux.

v.

JOHN S. BURSON, et al.

Bell, C.J.,
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
*Murphy
Adkins
Barbera,
JJ.
Opinion by Harrell, J.

Filed: December 20, 2011

EXCERPT:

A nonholder in possession, however, cannot rely on possession of the instrument
alone as a basis to enforce it. The transferee’s right to enforce the instrument derives from
the transferor (because by the terms of the instrument, it is not payable to the transferee) and
therefore those rights must be proved. Com. Law § 3-203 cmt. 2; accord Leavings v. Mills
175 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004 ) (“A person not identified in a note who is seeking to
enforce it as the owner or holder must prove the transfer by which he acquired the note.”)
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. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40,
53 (Mass. 2011) (citing In re Parrish, 326 B.R. 708, 720 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005)). 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.” Lawrence, supra, § 3-203:15R. Thus, the Substitute Trustees here, who possess
an unindorsed note and wish to enforce it, had the burden of proving their status as nonholder
in possession.

[…]

[ipaper docId=76693545 access_key=key-5vg903o8qkya8gac4yp height=600 width=600 /]

The irony is that CitiMortgage & GMAC are both shareholders of MERS…Not to mention Freddie Mac is too.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2011

ROBERT McLEAN,
Appellant,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not individually but solely as Trustee for the holders of STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-ARS,
Appellee.

No. 4D10-3429

[ December 14, 2011 ]

 [ipaper docId=75725680 access_key=key-2mvyag3q7camwerbx1bc height=600 width=600 /]

Mortgage Fraud

Bank of America
Bank of New York Mellon
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
Law Offices of David Stern
Cheryl Samons

Action Date: December 10, 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, FL

In a very unusual move, the FL Supreme Court rejected the settlement in the PINO case last week and will issue a decision about fraudulent mortgage documents.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals had certified a procedural foreclosure question to the Supreme Court, stating: “This is a question of great public importance” since “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.”

At the trial court level, PINO’s attorneys had asked the court to sanction BNY Mellon by denying it the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. The district court observed that if this sanction were available after a voluntary dismissal, “it may dramatically affect the mortgage crisis in this state.”

The Fourth District Court of Appeals decision seemed to recognize that very frequently, bank lawyers used dismissals when homeowners raised a question regarding the legitimacy of the documents filed by the banks.

Advocates for homeowners were encouraged by the Supreme Court’s action denying the settlement as the final resolution.

So who exactly is NOT happy?

Perhaps the preparers and signers of the two mortgage assignments in the PINO case.

One of the Assignments was prepared by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, Esq. This is signed by Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons who signs as an Asst. Sect. of MERS.

This is dated September 19, 2008 – though not filed until February 18, 2009.

The Lis Pendens (beginning of the foreclosure in judicial states) was dated October 8, 2008.

This is an assignment of the Mortgage and the Note to:

The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OC8.

For anyone unfamiliar with Cheryl Samons many acts in the Law Offices of David Stern (a law firm that spent a lot of $$ entertaining officials from FANNIE), the sworn statements from paralegals and notaries from the investigation of then Asst. A.G.s June Clarkson & Theresa Edwards (those overly aggressive FORMER prosecutors) are available for review at StopForeclosureFraud.com.

According to these sworn statements, Samons signed thousands of documents each week, allowed other people to sign her name, did not read what she signed, signed other names, etc. She did these things because her boss, David Stern, was very generous (see the articles by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones for more details on this).

The second assignment was notarized July 14, 2009 and filed July 29, 2009.

It seems they forgot all about the first assignment because once again it is an assignment from MERS to the same trust. This Assignment was also prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern. (If the first assignment was effective, of course, MERS had nothing to convey).

The signer this time was Melissa Viveros in Tarrant County, TX.

While she signs as a MERS officer, Viveros in many other reported cases appears as an officer of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, N/K/A BAC Home Loans Servicing.

So, once again, Bank of America (then the parent of BAC Home Loans Servicing) and Bank of New York Mellon have the most to lose in the short run – and in the long run, investors in CWALT and CWABS trusts.

H/T Matt Weidner

As reflected above, the Fourth District certified this issue to be one of great public importance, and in doing so, noted that “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents” and that Pino’s requested remedy, if imposed, “may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State.” Pino, 57 So. 3d at 954-55.

Supreme Court of Florida

No. SC11-697

ROMAN PINO,
Petitioner,

vs.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al.,
Respondents.

[December 8, 2011]

PER CURIAM.

The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350 requires this Court to dismiss a case after we have accepted jurisdiction based on a question certified to be one of great public importance and after the petitioner has filed his initial brief on the merits.1 This narrow question arose after the parties to this action filed a joint Stipulated Dismissal, which advised that they had settled this matter and stipulated to the dismissal of the review proceeding pending before this Court. It cannot be questioned that our well-established precedent authorizes this Court to exercise its discretion to deny the requested dismissal of a review proceeding, even where both parties to the action agree to the dismissal in light of an agreed-upon settlement. The question certified to us by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this case transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Because we agree with the Fourth District that this issue is indeed one of great public importance and in need of resolution by this Court, we deny the parties’ request to dismiss this proceeding.

[…]

[ipaper docId=75141917 access_key=key-10ukvw841p3aqsqqo53z height=600 width=600 /]

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

In the Matter of the foreclosure
of a Deed of Trust executed by
Tonya R. Bass in the original
amount of $139,988.00 dated
October 12, 2005, recorded in Book
4982, Page 86, Durham County
Registry,

Substitute Trustee Services, Inc.,
as Substitute Trustee,

Appeal by Petitioner from order entered 14 September 2010
by Judge Abraham Penn Jones in Durham County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 October 2011.

K&L Gates, LLP, by A. Lee Hogewood, III and Brian C. Fork,
for Petitioner-appellant.

Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by E. Maccene Brown,
Gregory E. Pawlowski, John Christopher Lloyd, and Andre C.
Brown, for Respondent-appellee.

HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.

U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, c/o Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Petitioner”) appeals the trial court’s order
dismissing foreclosure proceedings against Respondent Tonya R.
Bass. Petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s
determination that Petitioner is not the legal holder of a
promissory note executed by Respondent and therefore lacks
authorization to foreclose on Respondent’s property securing the
note under a deed of trust. After careful review, we affirm.

Excerpt:

Furthermore, Comment 1 to North Carolina General Statutes
§ 25-3-308 defines “presumed” to mean “that until some evidence
is introduced which would support a finding that the signature
is forged or unauthorized, the plaintiff is not required to
prove that it is valid.” Id. In contrast to the stamp at
issue, a handwritten signature accompanies each of the other
stamps on the Note introduced by Petitioner before the trial
court. The stamp purporting to transfer the Note from
Residential to Petitioner, for example, bears the apparent
handwritten signature of Judy Faber, identified as Residential’s
vice president. This signature provides at least some evidence
that this stamp was executed with the requisite intent and
authority. Whether a stamp bearing an apparent handwritten
signature is sufficient competent evidence of the purported
indorsement, however, is not before this Court as Respondent
challenges the only stamp without a handwritten signature. The
omission of a handwritten signature with respect to the
challenged stamp is competent evidence from which the trial
court could conclude that this particular stamp was not executed
by an authorized individual and is therefore facially invalid
indorsement. Thus, even if Respondent had failed to object to
the stamp, which it did not, the burden properly remained upon
Petitioner to prove its validity.

[ipaper docId=75081797 access_key=key-1zz3byrbex3zpcm5knnv height=600 width=600 /]

MUST READ:

FULL_DEPOSITION_OF_GMAC_JUDY_FABER

I disagree with the judge’s motion words below and see video below as to why even attorney’s have a difficult time.

“I have a lot of problems with saying that all that’s going, with all this evidence of [c]ourt process for over a year, to just rely on trying to negotiate something with the bank was like sticking your head in the sand.

This wasn’t going to go away and they
didn’t get any assurance from the bank that
they were succeeding in their negotiation
efforts or that an answer to the complaint
was not required. I mean they just focused
on one path. And they ignored the
negotiation path and they ignored the
litigation side of things. You can’t do
that.

And I have to say that . . . Mrs.
Guillaume was being so aggressive and so
persistent in trying to negotiate and going
to all these different places to get help,
but the one place she wasn’t going was a
member of the bar, a lawyer which is usually
what you do when you get [c]ourt papers.

Or if you absolutely can’t afford a
lawyer and that’s the case of many
foreclosures, a very heavy self-represented
area of the law to at least contact the
[c]ourt yourself and you send in some
rudimentary answer. And it doesn’t have to
be fancy. I mean you write a letter to the
foreclosure unit, they’ll stamp contested on
it.

Because I’ve seen so many of them long
hand. But nothing was done. And I don’t
regard that as excusable neglect. So that
prong is lacking.”  

(emphasis added).

Simply wrong, one does NOT understand how frustrating it is to even try to get anyone from the “bank” on the phone, attempting a modification as we have read time and time again were nothing but DISASTROUS and GOING ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE!

[Please watch Michigan Atty Vanessa Fluker and you’ll understand why].

Lets not forget, this reversal that goes to the heart of this from out of New Jersey: BANK OF NEW YORK vs. LAKS | NJ Appeals Court Reversal “A notice of intention is deficient…if it does not provide the name and address of the lender”

NJ.COM-

In the nearly five months since the state Supreme Court effectively allowed six of the country’s biggest banks to begin filing foreclosures again, attorneys and court officials have been expecting a flood of new filings to hit the courts.

Except it hasn’t happened. Foreclosure filings are down 83 percent as of October this year, compared with the same time period last year, according to court figures, and there are at least 100,000 cases either pending in the system or waiting to be submitted.

Attorneys involved in the work in New Jersey point to at least one reason for the significant delay: a court case that has reached the state Supreme Court, with oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case, US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, is important because the court …

[NJ.COM]

[ipaper docId=74692087 access_key=key-1xrvd0kemha1r7mycu2h height=600 width=600 /]

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2011
Opinion filed November 23, 2011.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D11-395
Lower Tribunal No. 08-59543
________________
Carlos Humberto Malagon a/k/a Carlos Malagon and Rosalba
Malagon,
Appellants,

vs.

Citimortgage, Inc. f/k/a Citifinancial Mortgage Company d/b/a
Citifinancial Mortgage Company (DE),
Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, David C. Miller, Judge.

Garry W. Johnson and Bruce K. Herman (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.

Burr & Forman and Reid S. Manley and Christine Irwin Parrish (Orlando),
for appellee.

Before SUAREZ and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SUAREZ, J.

Appellants, Carlos Humberto Malagon a/k/a Carlos Malagon and Rosalba
Malagon appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion to vacate final
judgment of foreclosure and to cancel and/or rescind sale. Appellee, Citimortgage,
Inc., concedes error on the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to vacate the
final judgment of foreclosure.1 Appellee consents to a reversal of the order and a
remand for further proceedings. Upon concession of error, this Court, therefore,
reverses the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to vacate the final judgment
of foreclosure and remands for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

1 This Court appreciates appellee’s candor in conceding error

[ipaper docId=73763162 access_key=key-w9kwx0lagy7rtdqki1j height=600 width=600 /]

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2011

RODGER and LINA DUKE,
Appellants,

v.

HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC,
Appellee.

No. 4D09-5183

[November 23, 2011]

POLEN, J.

Appellants, Rodger and Lina Duke (“the Dukes”), appeal the trial
court’s order granting final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of
appellee, HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (“HSBC”). We reverse the trial
court’s order and hold that the record reflected genuine issues of
material fact, making summary judgment improper.

In May 2009, appellee, HSBC, brought an action against appellants,
the Dukes, to foreclose on a mortgage on real property in Palm Beach
County, Florida. The mortgage, as attached to the complaint, showed
that the “borrower” was the Dukes and the “lender” was First NLC
Financial Services, LLC (“First NLC”). The mortgage further showed that
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) “is a separate
corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s
successors and assigns.” HSBC’s complaint indicated that the mortgage
was assigned to it, and that it was the rightful owner and holder of the
note and mortgage. The Dukes alleged that HSBC did not attach an
assignment of mortgage to their complaint; however, a notice of
assignment was filed with the court on August 26, 2009, with a copy of
the assignment dated June 1, 2009, attached. HSBC alleged that the
original note and mortgage had been lost and were not in HSBC’s
custody or control.

On July 10, 2009, and July 17, 2009, the Dukes were served by
publication in the Palm Beach Daily Business Review. When the Dukes
failed to respond to the service by publication, HSBC moved for default.
On the same date as the motion for default, HSBC also moved for
summary judgment as to “the existence of a valid mortgage and
promissory note and [HSBC’s] right to a Judgment of Foreclosure.” On
September 11, 2009, the Dukes filed a motion for additional time to file a
response to the foreclosure complaint. Shortly thereafter, on September
30, 2009, default was entered against the Dukes. In November of 2009,
a n agreed order on motion for additional time to file response was
entered, allowing the Dukes to file their response to the foreclosure
complaint on or before November 12, 2009.

On November 18, 2009, a hearing was held on HSBC’s motion for
summary judgment. At the hearing, the original note was unable to be
located. The Dukes argued that the original note did not contain any
endorsements proving that the note and mortgage were assigned to
HSBC, thus summary judgment should not be granted because of an
issue of material fact precluding such a determination. However, the
trial court entered final summary judgment of foreclosure on November
18, 2009, and set a sale date of December 21, 2009. This appeal
followed.

The standard of review on an order “granting summary judgment is de
novo.” McLeod v. Bankier, 63 So. 3d 858, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Summary judgment is granted only when no genuine issues of material
fact exist and the party moving for summary judgment is, as a matter of
law, entitled to judgment. Id. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c)
governs summary judgment motions and proceedings. The rule states,
in relevant part:

The motion shall state with particularity the grounds upon
which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be
argued and shall specifically identify any affidavits, answers
to interrogatories, admissions, depositions, a n d other
materials as would be admissible in evidence (“summary
judgment evidence”) on which the movant relies. The movant
shall serve the motion at least 20 days before the time fixed
for the hearing, and shall also serve at that time a copy of
any summary judgment evidence on which the movant relies
that has not already been filed with the court. . . . The
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings
and summary judgment evidence on file show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c).

The Dukes argued that at the time the foreclosure complaint was
filed, the mortgage was held by First NLC, not appellee, HSBC. In its
complaint, HSBC alleged it owned and held the note and mortgage at the
time the complaint was filed. “When exhibits are attached to a
complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the
complaint.” BAC Funding Consortium Inc. v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d
936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Here, HSBC alleged in its complaint that it
“now owns and holds the Note and Mortgage,” but an assignment was
not attached to the complaint, supporting HSBC’s position. Instead, the
mortgage attached to the complaint showed First NLC as the lender,
creating discrepancies between the complaint and the attached exhibit.
Thus, at the time of the argument on the summary judgment motion,
genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether HSBC was the
proper owner and holder of the note and mortgage where First NLC was
named on the mortgage and evidence of an assignment was not included.

We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting summary
judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute
regarding the owner and holder of the note and mortgage at the time the
complaint was filed.

Reversed.

GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Meenu T. Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA018957
XXXXMB.

Elsa M. Figueras of E. Figueras & Associates, P.A., Davie, and Peter J.
Snyder of Peter J. Snyder, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants.
Enrico G. Gonzalez, Temple Terrace, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

[ipaper docId=73762369 access_key=key-1x8tbk3ivm52gphti7kw height=600 width=600 /]

I think we all can agree with this post… but those who benefit from real estate.

Where is Bill Hultman these days?

MLive-

A ruling this week by the Michigan Supreme Court put an end to some uncertainty in the real estate market, but it was a disappointment to local housing advocates.

The high court reversed an April state Court of Appeals decision that prevented the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, from bringing foreclosures against Michigan homeowners.

The system was widely used by the lending industry to streamline the packaging and selling of mortgages as securities without recording the deeds at county offices. In that role, it also started countless foreclosure proceedings.

The appeals court ruled that MERS did not own legal title to the properties and could not be the foreclosing party. That decision called into question the validity of thousands of foreclosures across the state, wreaking havoc in the housing market. Closings were canceled and homeowners who had purchased foreclosed houses wondered whether they had clear title to the property.

[MLIVE]

Credit Slips –

Decided on November 15, 2011

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
RANDALL T. ENG
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2010-06292
(Index No. 3007/08)

.

[*1]Citimortgage, Inc., respondent,

v

Usher Stosel, appellant, et al., defendants. Sanford Solny, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Katz & Rychik, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Bennett R. Katz of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Usher Stosel appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated April 12, 2010, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him and for an order of reference, and, in effect, denied that branch of his cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Usher Stosel and for an order of reference are denied, and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Usher Stosel which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing is granted.

Where, as here, a plaintiff’s standing to commence a foreclosure action is placed in issue by the defendant, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove its standing to be entitled to relief (see US Bank N.A. v Madero, 80 AD3d 751, 752; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753). A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note, “either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action” (Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 108). Moreover, “an assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280).

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to commence this foreclosure action, since it failed to establish how or when it became the lawful holder of the note either by delivery or valid assignment of the note to it (see e.g. Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 280-283; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d at 109; US Bank N.A. v Madero, 80 AD3d at 752-753; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Usher Stosel and for an order of reference should have been denied, and that branch of the [*2]cross motion of the defendant Usher Stosel which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing should have been granted.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the remaining contentions of the defendant Usher Stosel.
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, ENG and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

[ipaper docId=73083932 access_key=key-14fpvbqx0gaos1jqo5l2 height=600 width=600 /]

“The Michigan Supreme Court decision on Mers is an embarrassment, to those of us who care about the property records of this state, and more importantly the citizens who are affected by these foreclosures. Mers created a shadow registry system that makes it impossible for individual citizens and their government officials to track who owns a mortgage. At the Michigan Chambers request, they now have the right to masquerade as a bank and take a citizen’s home . It is unfortunate that Justices Young, Markman, Zahra and Mary Beth Kelly decided to side with special interest groups instead of Michigan citizens.“

– Curtis Hertel Jr.

[ipaper docId=72963398 access_key=key-2b58c6526telk0hyzu3p height=600 width=600 /]

“MERS, something of a phantom entity and ReconTrust, subsidiary of BAC and not an independent entity, acting in BAC/BANA/Countrywide’s interests, now are trying to come in and clean up the mess made by the fraudulent DOT and Note by BondCorp in a conspiracy with Countrywide, not because they are any real beneficiary and have or will experience any real loss, but rather to gain substantial fees from the SARM 2005-19XS Trust for foreclosing on Appellant’s property.

It is truly curious as to why the proper parties in this matter are not named and Appellant posits that other, unrelated legal actions are likely a reason. That said, Appellant has shown good cause why a trustee’s sale should not proceed so that the status quo is maintained while he presses his case in the District Court.”

No. 11-56421

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

________________________________________________________
MICHAEL M. CARNEY
Plaintiff

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees

EXCERPT:

III. Merits Of Case Are Compelling And Clear And Likely to Be Successful.
It is clear that MERS and ReconTrust act to usurp Appellant’s property
without lawful authority. MERS Cannot be and in fact is not the beneficiary of the
DOT. There is no named beneficiary in the SOT and ANY and ALL beneficiaries
must be named in the SOT. Therefore the SOT (and consequently the NTS) is
seriously defective and void as an instrument to be implemented to supplant
Appellant from his property.

Defendants act hurriedly and without authority not because they are
uninformed or have made an excusable mistake, but rather because they wish to
elude the central facts and claims against them, hold the wrongful trustee’s sale
and gain title and possession of Appellant’s property to gain a superior position.

The facts are that BondCorp, who has yet to respond to any complaint or
motion related to this case, was in fact named as “Grantee” when it never proffered
any funds and was used by Countrywide to both gain secret, concealed fees and
allow Countrywide to further gain based on intentional concealments, lies,
misrepresentations and related actions.

As has been stated, the core of this matter is the claims against BondCorp
acting at the behest of Countrywide. If BondCorp was found to have acted
fraudulently, as asserted and supported by facts, every other claim and defense is
affected accordingly.

What this court is presented with is a defendant in BondCorp who has
chosen to remain silent in the face of substantial allegations and facts against it,
and a foreclosing entity defendant (MERS) that is acting without authority and in
clear violation of the law.

Meanwhile, Appellant has had to defend and counter all such actions and to
drag out all the facts, all while in the face of losing his family home and efforts to
understand what options would be available to him to avert such a catastrophic
result.

Up until August/September of 2010, Appellant was resigned to the fact that
his misfortune would likely lead to the loss of his family home. It wasn’t until he
received and further researched the information regarding the assignment/transfer
of his DOT and Note to US BANK (June 2010) that was entirely first time news to
him, that he began to understand and realize the fraud, malfeasance and
misfeasance enacted upon him and then which drove him to seek relief and
damages for.

The facts of the case as pertains to BondCorp are clear and undisputed.
BondCorp was not the “lender”. It only acted as such to attain secret fees.
BondCorp utilized illegal, fraudulent means to sell and convince Appellant that the
loan BondCorp wished to engage him in was in his best interests, when it was not
and that all the facts represented to him regarding the alleged loan were true, when
they were not and the real facts were concealed from him and that he was
defrauded of tens of thousands of dollars in the process.

Countrywide was an active conspirator as it allowed BondCorp to utilize its
technological assets, its underwriting resources, account numbering system and
other aids and benefits to entrap Appellant into a loan that was damaging, stated
the wrong parties and took illegal and undisclosed fees.

MERS, something of a phantom entity and ReconTrust, subsidiary of BAC
and not an independent entity, acting in BAC/BANA/Countrywide’s interests, now
are trying to come in and clean up the mess made by the fraudulent DOT and Note
by BondCorp in a conspiracy with Countrywide, not because they are any real
beneficiary and have or will experience any real loss, but rather to gain substantial
fees from the SARM 2005-19XS Trust for foreclosing on Appellant’s property.
It is truly curious as to why the proper parties in this matter are not named
and Appellant posits that other, unrelated legal actions are likely a reason. That
said, Appellant has shown good cause why a trustee’s sale should not proceed so
that the status quo is maintained while he presses his case in the District Court

[Order Granting Stay Via 9Th Cir. PDF]

[ipaper docId=72868111 access_key=key-1iswjk5a9e5mkuu80ndm height=600 width=600 /]

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2011

FAYTHE P. WOODRUM, TIMOTHY P. WOODRUM and DAWN M.
WOODRUM,
Appellants,

v.

WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE BANK, N.A., as successor by merger to
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,
Appellee.

No. 4D10-3538

[November 9, 2011]

PER CURIAM.

The Appellants, the Woodrums, appeal the trial court’s entry of a final
summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Wells Fargo Mortgage Bank,
N.A. They argue that entry of summary judgment was error where the
record did not refute affirmative defenses raised by one of the Appellants
in an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. We
agree and reverse.

The bank filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint, to which the
Woodrums failed to file an answer. Instead of moving for entry of a
default, the bank filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, one
of the Appellants, Faythe P. Woodrum, filed an affidavit in opposition to
the motion, which raised numerous affirmative defenses.

The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de
novo. E. Qualcom Corp. v. Global Commerce Ctr. Ass’n, 59 So. 3d 347,
350 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). “[I]f a plaintiff moves for
summary judgment prior to the defendant’s filing an answer, she must
conclusively demonstrate that the defendant cannot assert a genuine
issue of material fact.” Miles v. Robinson ex. rel. Estate of Kight, 803 So.
2d 864, 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citation omitted).

The bank argues o n appeal that where a n answer is overdue,
affirmative defenses raised in a n affidavit opposing the motion for
summary judgment cannot be considered by the trial court. The bank
offers no case law supporting its position. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.510(c) allows the court to consider affidavits when determining whether
a genuine issue of material fact exists. Additionally, a party may plead or
defend at any time before a default is entered. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(c).
Because the bank failed to refute the affirmative defenses or show
they were legally insufficient, it was error for the trial court to grant
summary judgment. See Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So.3d 905 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2009).

Reversed and remanded.

TAYLOR, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * *
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Victor Tobin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-43276 CACE 18.

Philippe Symonovicz of Law Offices of Philippe Symonovicz, Fort
Lauderdale, for appellants.

Todd A. Armbruster of Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A.,
Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing

[ipaper docId=72347281 access_key=key-1p0xee2g3we4ypcu98qv height=600 width=600 /]

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

I think this is the case in every state and all will agree

North Jersey-

In a small Bergen County courtroom one recent Friday, a sheriff’s officer auctioned off two foreclosed properties in a matter of minutes, as a handful of investors kept their eyes open for bargains.

It was a far cry from the typical sheriff’s auction of mid-2010, when 15 or more properties were auctioned weekly and up to 100 investors crowded the courthouse’s large jury room.

[…]

The reason: an August appellate court decision, Bank of New York v. Laks, according to Kevin Wolfe, head of the state’s Office of Foreclosure. In that case, the court dismissed a foreclosure, finding the lender violated the state Fair Foreclosure Act because it didn’t properly identify itself in a notice sent to the troubled homeowners.

[NORTH JERSEY]

[ipaper docId=61908065 access_key=key-1zd2neascm8dxsn37rbr height=600 width=600 /]

Decided on November 1, 2011

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2010-09895
(Index No. 14370/08)

[*1]U.S. Bank, National Association, etc., respondent,

v

Mohamed Y. Sharif, appellant, et al., defendants.

Steven Alexander Biolsi, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.
Shapiro, DiCarlo & Barak, LLC, Rochester, N.Y. (Ellis M.
Oster of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mohamed Y. Sharif appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered August 20, 2010, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him and for an order of reference, and denied those branches of his cross motion, made jointly with the defendant Nazimah Sharif, which were for leave to serve and file an amended answer to assert a defense based on lack of standing and, thereupon, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him based on lack of standing.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Mohamed Y. Sharif and for an order of reference are denied, and those branches of the cross motion of the defendant Mohamed Y. Sharif, made jointly with the defendant Nazimah Sharif, which were for leave to serve and file an amended answer, and thereupon, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Mohamed Y. Sharif based on lack of standing are granted.

” Entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure may be established, as a matter of law, where a mortgagee produces both the mortgage and unpaid note, together with evidence of the mortgagor’s default, thereby shifting the burden to the mortgagor to demonstrate, through both competent and admissible evidence, any defense which could raise a question of fact'” (Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032, quoting HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900; see Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Winn, 19 AD3d 545, 546; Sears Mtge. Corp. v Yaghobi, 19 AD3d 402, 403; Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527, 527). However, “foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it” (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538). Where standing is raised as a defense by the defendant, the plaintiff is required to prove its standing before it may be determined whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242). [*2]

Here, the defendant Mohamed Y. Sharif (hereinafter Sharif) initially did not raise a defense based on lack of standing in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. “[A]n argument that a plaintiff lacks standing, if not asserted in the defendant’s answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, is waived pursuant to CPLR 3211(e)” (Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d at 242; see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Strands Hair Studio, LLC, 84 AD3d 1173, 1173). However, defenses waived under CPLR 3211(e) can nevertheless be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) so long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay (Complete Mgt., Inc. v Rubenstein, 74 AD3d 722, 723; see Nunez v Mousouras, 21 AD3d 355, 356; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Thomas, 70 AD3d 986, 987).

After the plaintiff moved for summary judgment, Sharif, with the defendant Nazimah Sharif, cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to serve and file an amended answer to assert a defense based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing, and, upon the assertion of that defense, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. “Motions for leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted, absent prejudice or surprise directly resulting from the delay in seeking leave, unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” (Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Thomas, 70 AD3d at 987; see CPLR 3025[b]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222). ” Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” (Public Adm’r of Kings County v Hossain Constr. Corp., 27 AD3d 714, 716, quoting Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959; see Abrahamian v Tak Chan, 33 AD3d 947, 949).

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of Sharif’s cross motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended answer to assert a defense based on lack of standing. In opposition to that branch of the cross motion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any prejudice or surprise that would result from the amendment, or that the proposed amended answer was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Thomas, 70 AD3d at 987).

Upon Sharif’s assertion of the defense of lack of standing, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate its standing to prosecute this action (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 753). In opposition to that branch of Sharif’s cross motion which, upon the amendment of the answer, was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, the plaintiff failed to make any showing that it had standing to maintain this action. The plaintiff did submit an assignment of the mortgage. However, “[w]here a mortgage is represented by a bond or other instrument, an assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY 44, 45; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d at 538). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754). In opposing the cross motion, the plaintiff did not submit a written assignment of the note. Moreover, the plaintiff submitted no evidence to establish physical delivery of the note. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate the existence of a written assignment of the note or physical delivery of the note, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Sharif’s cross motion which, upon the amendment of the answer, was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing (see CPLR 3211[a][3]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 109; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 753-754).

DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*3]

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court
[ipaper docId=71592450 access_key=key-2evymrlbjs7uanpwrmzg height=600 width=600 /]

 [ipaper docId=70313218 access_key=key-4zh4guv7i4lndu77hex height=600 width=600 /]