Auction | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "auction"

Stand Up for The Bayless Family | America’s Servicing Company, Anita Antonelli, SASCO Trust 2005-RF4, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo

Stand Up for The Bayless Family | America’s Servicing Company, Anita Antonelli, SASCO Trust 2005-RF4, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo


Bank Fraud

America’s Servicing Company
Anita Antonelli
SASCO Trust 2005-RF4
U.S. Bank, N.A.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Action Date: January 3, 2012
Location: Delaware, OH

The Closing Date for SASCO Trust 2005-RF4 is August 31, 2005.

All of the mortgages in the SASCO 2005-RF4 Trust were required to have been deposited in that trust by August 31, 2005.

This is particularly significant right now because SASCO 2005-RF4 is the trust that is claiming to own the Bayless Family Mortgage in Delaware, Ohio, and trying to remove the Bayless family from their home this week.

SASCO is trust shorthand for Structured Asset Securities Corporation.

In almost every case, SASCO trusts CANNOT PRODUCE THE MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS required by the trust documents.

In almost every foreclosure case filed by U.S. Bank as Trustee for a SASCO trust, the mortgage assignment is dated several YEARS after the trust was supposed to have acquired the mortgage.

What mortgage document mill consistently supplies these “years late” Assignments? Consistently, that is America’s Servicing Company (ASC) in Ft. Mill, SC, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank.

Who are the signers of these “years late” Assignments? Anita Antonelli, China Brown, Natasha Clark, Nikli Cureton and Herman John Kennerty – the five most prolific robo-signers at ASC -have signed hundreds of these Assignments.

If the trust is a SASCO trust – STRIKE ONE;

If the Assignment is dated years after the trust closing date – STRIKE TWO; and

If the Assignment is signed by Antonelli, Brown, Clark, Cureton or Kennerty and notarized in York County, SC – STRIKE THREE.

Throw the bank out – not the Bayless Family.

As for Anita Antonelli, who signed the Mortgage Assignment in the Bayless case:

Many times Anita Antonelli is the Vice President of Loan Documentation for Wells Fargo Bank.

But then she is also often the Default Documents Manager for Wells Fargo Bank.

At the same time, Antonelli is often an Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

She is also an Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. acting as a Nominee for American Home Mortgage…

…and acting as a Nominee for Hilton Head Mortgage, LLC…

…and acting as a Nominee for DHI Mortgage Co., Ltd….

…and acting as a Nominee for Myers Park Mortgage, Inc…

…and acting as a Nominee for CTX Mortgage Co., LLC…

…and acting as a Nominee for Market Street Mortgage Corp…

…and acting as a Nominee for Loan City…

…and acting as a Nominee for Mortgage Network, Inc.

With this history, why would anyone trust the validity of a mortgage assignment signed by Anita Antonelli – and particularly, why would anyone rely on such a document when produced by a SASCO trust?

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Palm Beach County Home Prices After the Crash – Fraud Digest

Palm Beach County Home Prices After the Crash – Fraud Digest


By Lynn E. Szymoniak, Ed., Fraud Digest

The crash of the housing market has left families with an insurmountable debt problem. Palm Beach County, Florida, is one of the counties hardest hit by falling home prices.

In many cases, the Palm Beach County homes are now selling for less than 50% of the home prices in 2005-2006. Even when families are willing to forfeit their homes to their lenders, they still face significant deficiency judgments – the difference between the total amount owed and the amount “recovered” by the bank by a resale.

Bankruptcy is the only way to escape a deficiency judgment, but a bankruptcy will disqualify a family from eligibility for another mortgage. With fewer eligible borrowers, and an increasing number of homes being sold by the lenders, the price of homes continues to plummet and even more homeowners find themselves owing more than the current value of their home.

This cycle will only be ended by principal reductions by banks, for families willing to stay in their homes. More foreclosures will exacerbate this problem and prevent any real widespread economic recovery.

To prevent further deterioration of neighborhood home values, banks must demolish abandoned, moldy homes that have been gutted of plumbing, wiring and appliances. Banks must also limit their home sales in any one neighborhood so that prices may stabilize.

Fannie, Freddie, securitization, predatory lending, and extreme profiteering destroyed economic hope for the majority of Americans.

It is time for the banks to implement a policy of principal reductions to fair market value, with low-rate, fixed rate mortgages, and responsible home sales.

The following Palm Beach County homes were listed for sale in November, 2011. The price in 2005-2006 is listed after the current price.

12935 North 57th Road, The Acreage, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $150,000
Sold for $335,000 on 4/20/2005

312 Putnam Ranch Road, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $150,000
Sold for $360,000 on 4/22/2005

1135 Imperial Lake Road, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $99,900
Sold for $270,000 on 7/31/2006

142 Rowley Drive, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $99,000
Sold for $250,000 on 6/15/2006

4818 Poseidon Place, Hypoluxo West, Lake Worth
11/11 Sale Price: $150,000
Sold for $240,000 on 8/30/2005

5436 Gene Circle, Summit Run, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $95,000
Sold for $250,000 on 8/24/2005

5254 West Canal Circle, Lake Worth
11/11 Sale Price: $94,900
Sold for $252,000 on 6/2/2005

400 Superior Place, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $95,000
Sold for $205,000 on 2/14/2005

3706 Shoma Drive, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $95,000
Sold for $269,000 on 4/28/2006

952 32nd Street, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $95,000
Sold for $340,000 on 5/27/2005

6263 Blue Baneberry Lane, Buttonwood West, Greenacres
11/11 Sale Price: $99,999
Sold for $160,000 on 7/20/2004

10735 LaStrada, Ibis, Palm Beach Gardens
11/11 Sale Price: $299,900
Sold for $473,207 on 8/18/2006

6315 Bischoff Road, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $98,500
Sold for $235,000 on 11/17/2006

313 North Ware Drive, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $99,900
Sold for $209,000 on 6/21/2006

1005 SW 17th Street, Boynton Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $99,000
Sold for $172,500 on 6/30/2006

2859 Kentucky Street, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $99,000
Sold for $179,000 on 7/20/2005

1701 Village Blvd., West Palm Beach
9/11 Sale Price: $53,000
Sold for $188,900 on 3/28/2005

8679 Falcon Green Drive, Palm Beach Gardens
11/11 Sale Price: $299,000
Sold for $550,000 on 7/24/2006

2912 South Olive Avenue, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $299,000
Sold for $520,000 on 10/19/2005

10241 Orchard Reserve Drive, #1D, Ibis, Palm Beach Gardens
11/11 Sale Price: $299,000
Sold for $478,577 on 7/29/2005

616 Westwood Road, West Palm Beach
11/11 Sale Price: $299,000
Sold for $449,000 on 5/18/2005

There are many more examples of home with significantly reduced
value. Most of these homes have been on the market for over six
months. In November, 2011, there were 659 homes listed for sale in
Palm Beach County for less than $75,000, and nearly 2,000 homes for
sale for less than $500,000.

It is time to find ways to keep families in their homes.

[ipaper docId=73274531 access_key=key-1ie9piclczemun0s0mdb height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Protesters interrupt foreclosure auctions, Judge Schack says “They have a right to express themselves”

Protesters interrupt foreclosure auctions, Judge Schack says “They have a right to express themselves”


Judge Schack is pretty remarkable not only because he questions all the suspect documents that are in the files, but because he also understands the 1st Amendment.

via Brooklyn Eagle-

Reports Thursday afternoon said that nine people were arrested for disrupting the auction, led out in plastic zip-tie handcuffs by NYPD officers and Brooklyn court officers.

The judges at the Kings County Supreme Court Civil Term didn’t seem too ruffled by the protest outside their offices overlooking Court Street.

“They have a right to express themselves,” said Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur Schack when asked whether he thought the protesters were misguided. “I have no problem with the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.”

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Disabled Man Buys House With Cash, Bank of America Almost Forecloses

Disabled Man Buys House With Cash, Bank of America Almost Forecloses


Here we go…again


Sacramento Bee-

Kamal Sharma almost lost his house in a foreclosure auction the other day. The funny thing is: He doesn’t even owe any money on it.

Sharma’s story – an extreme case even in Sacramento’s chaotic real estate market – shows that lenders continue to make foreclosure mistakes despite extensive publicity and promises to fix problems, which include sloppy paperwork and communication breakdowns.

“There are a lot of people that have been wrongly foreclosed upon,” said Kevin Stein, associate director of the San Francisco-based California Reinvestment Coalition.

Continue reading [SACRAMENTO BEE]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Foreclosure Fraud Settlement divides state attorneys general

Foreclosure Fraud Settlement divides state attorneys general


Lets not act surprised in this as we always knew there was something cooking behind the scenes and not everyone agreed and probably disappointed with the approach Tom Miller from Iowa was heading.

WaPO-

As state attorneys general continue their months-long settlement negotiations with the nation’s largest banks over widespread problems in foreclosure practices, they have yet to resolve differences within their own group on key issues.

Even within the 14-member “executive committee” of attorneys general who are leading the 50-state coalition, some have very different visions of what exactly a settlement should look like.

[…]

A handful of crucial states, including California, Illinois and New York, have undertaken their own investigations into mortgage industry practices, subpoenaing information about business practices and seeking meetings with executives about such things as securitization to faulty court affidavits. Other officials, such as in Oklahoma, have threatened to pursue their own settlements with mortgage servicers.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Foreclosure Fraud Price Tag: $20 Billion

Foreclosure Fraud Price Tag: $20 Billion


HuffPO-

The nation’s largest mortgage companies are operating on the assumption that they will have to pay as much as $20 billion to resolve claims of widespread foreclosure abuse, an amount four times what they had originally proposed, the top federal official overseeing the discussions told state officials Monday, according to people who participated in the conversation.

Associate U.S. Attorney General Tom Perrelli told a bipartisan group of state attorneys general during a conference call that he believes the banks have accepted the realization that a wide-ranging settlement to the months-long probes will cost them much more than the $5 billion offer they floated last month, according to officials with direct knowledge of the call. Perrelli said he’s basing his belief on his recent conversations with representatives of the five targeted firms: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Banks Face $17 Billion in Suits Over Foreclosures

Banks Face $17 Billion in Suits Over Foreclosures


NOTE: We’ll take the $17 Billion over the AG’s “settlement”!

If settlement happens, they SHOULD prohibit any of them from coming at you with a deficiency!

WSJ-

State attorneys general told the nation’s five largest banks on Tuesday they face a potential liability of at least $17 billion in civil lawsuits if a settlement isn’t reached to address improper foreclosure practices, according to people familiar with the matter.

The figure doesn’t cover additional billions of dollars in potential claims from federal agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Justice Department. State and federal officials haven’t proposed a specific comprehensive settlement figure, but Tuesday’s …

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

ADAM LEVITIN | The Servicing Fraud Settlement: the Real Game

ADAM LEVITIN | The Servicing Fraud Settlement: the Real Game


CreditSlips-

Warning: This is a long blog post. But if you follow mortgage servicing, I think you’ll find it worth reading. Despite lots and lots of media coverage of the servicing fraud settlement, nobody seems to understand the real story that’s going on. I think that this post will explain a lot.

Let’s start by recapping what we know.  Back in March we started hearing media reports of a proposed penalty for servicers in the $20-$30B range.  Then the American Banker published a 27-page term sheet from the AGs for servicing standards. Next, Huffington Post published a 7-page CFPB powerpoint presentation. Then came the draft C&D orders and then in April, the final C&D orders (which eliminated the ridiculous “single point of contact which need not be a single person” and replaced it with “single point of contact as hereinafter defined” and then failed—quite deliberately—to define it anywhere in the document).

Now there’s another round of activity and conflicting reporting. The American Banker reported that there was a new AG term sheet proposed and that principal reductions were off the table. That turns out to be incorrect, as Shahien Nasiripour reported in the Huffington Post. The new AG term sheet that the American Banker referenced deals only with servicing standards. The American Banker assumed that this mean that principal reductions were off the table because they weren’t referenced in the term sheet. In fact they are still very much in play. They’re just in a second, separate term sheet. So now there are two separate term sheets–one covering servicing standard and another covering monetary issues/principal reductions. (Recall that the original AG term sheet did not cover the monetary issues—that was clearly for a separate document.) We are also hearing news reports that the banks are offering to settle for $5B and won’t go above $10B.

So how do we make sense out of all of this?


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Leading Mortgage Firms May Be Forced To Reduce Loan Balances For Distressed Homeowners

Leading Mortgage Firms May Be Forced To Reduce Loan Balances For Distressed Homeowners


For those of you that disagree, please read this post to understand why this makes perfect sense…

HuffPo-

The nation’s five largest mortgage firms may be forced to reduce loan balances for distressed homeowners as part of an agreement with state attorneys general and the Obama administration to settle claims of faulty mortgage practices, a top state official involved in the negotiations said Tuesday.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Why The Attorneys General Should Not Settle W/Out Principal Reductions

Why The Attorneys General Should Not Settle W/Out Principal Reductions


Why they should be FORCED.

Take this home for example. It was originally sold for $289,000.

Prior to Final Judgment, property had two (2) assignments of mortgage for two entities same robo-signer for both via MERS.

At auction it was sold for a MAJOR discount at approx. 75% off. to Indymac via LPS Minnesota address in 2010. We know Indymac has been shut down way before this time.

Why couldn’t they work a deal like this when this person whom I personally know tried over and over to get a modification AT THE TIME?

They had a good job then and still have a good job today.

So why do they not want to work with the borrowers and reduce the principal to reflect today’s REAL and TRUE appraisal of the property?

Make sure you follow the transactions to understand what happened and why it makes no sense where this goes.

Now Here comes more funny business:

Still following?

  • Property was Quit Claimed/Transferred To Freddie Mac for $100.00 (prepared by David Stern) but consideration shows only $10.00.
  • Property then sold for $3900.00 more 13 days later $78,000
  • SAME day flipped for $150,000
  • Previous records are all gone [compare both images]

Don’t forget…

IS LPS’s Aptitude Solutions Software In Your County Courts & Land Records???

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

[NYSC] “Bona Fide Purchaser After Foreclosure, Inequitably Effected” WAMU v. EDWARD MURPHY

[NYSC] “Bona Fide Purchaser After Foreclosure, Inequitably Effected” WAMU v. EDWARD MURPHY


Excerpts:

Upon resolution of the jurisdictional issue raised by Murphy, he also seeks to add Luciano as a party defendant  because of his alleged “bona fide purchase” of the Millstone Road premises from the plaintiff after foreclosure. The application is granted and Luciano is added as a party defendant to this action because he is a necessary party in order for the Court to grant the proper and necessary relief in this lawsuit. CPLR §1001 provides that persons “who might be inequitably affected by a judgment” shall be made a party. Clearly, Luciano as the present owner of the Millstone Road premises may be “inequitably affected” by the jurisdiction question to be decided. Further, the events surrounding the dates of contract and sale of this property and the sale price are all issues requiring Court scrutiny as to Luciano’s claim to be a “bona fide purchaser” of the property for value.

Here, the closing on the sale of the Millstone Road premises occurred just 3 days prior to Murphy’s order to show cause seeking injunctive relief asserting the lack of knowledge of and Court jurisdiction over this foreclosure action. Obviously, any conversations, discussions, settlement negotiations or other communications between the plaintiff, Murphy and possibly Luciano concerning Murphy’s prospective actions as to this foreclosure action in which Luciano claims no knowledge as well as possible “bad faith” on the part of plaintiff are all issues which the Court needs to explore to assure the foreclosure process was fair and equitable.

Real Property Law §266 provides an innocent “bona fide purchaser” for value is protected in his/her title to property unless he/she had previous notice of the alleged fraud by the seller. See, Karan v. Hoskins. 22 AD3d 638, 803 NYS2d 666 (2nd Dept. 2005); Barnes v. West, 29 Misc3d 1230(A), WL 4941987 (2010). In the event, the Court finds that jurisdiction was not acquired over Murphy, Murphy’s remedy is to be put back into possession of the Millstone Road premises unless it has been purchased by a “bona fide” innocent and good faith purchaser, in which case Murphy’s remedy is limited to damages against the plaintiff.

<SNIP>

Finally, Murphy cannot be charged with equitable estoppel as his actions through his attorney have all been to avoid the very sale which the plaintiff conducted to Luciano. The Court in Bank of America, NA v 414 Midland Ave. Associates, LLC, AD3d ,911 NYS2d 157 (2nd Dept 2010) noted:

“Where an owner knows of a defect in title and fails to address it,
laches does not apply unless the facts are sufficient to constitute equitable
estoppel (see, Krakerv. Roll, 100 AD2d 424,433,474 NYS2d 527;
Washington Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Global Props &
Assoc., Inc., 15 Misc3d 1142[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 51114[U], 2007 WL
1558884, aff’d. 55 AD2d 727, 865 NYS2d 641). Equitable estoppel arises when
a property owner stands by without objection while an opposing party asserts an
ownership interest in the property and incurs expense in reliance on that belief
(see, Andrews v. Cohen, 221 NY 148, 153, 116 NE 862). The property owner
must ‘inexcusably’ delay in asserting a claim to property knowing that ‘the
opposing party has changed his position to irreversible detriment’ ( Orange &
Rockland Utils v. Philwold Estates, 70 AD2d 338, 343,421 NYS2d 640,
mod. on other grounds 52 NY2d 253, 437 NYS2d 291, 418 NE2d 1310.”

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=48471543 access_key=key-q815r6f7zshb7kjqx21 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Mass. BK Judge Issues “Emergency Preliminary Injunction, Pending Loan Modification Request” CRUZ v. WELLS FARGO

Mass. BK Judge Issues “Emergency Preliminary Injunction, Pending Loan Modification Request” CRUZ v. WELLS FARGO


In re: JOSE D CRUZ, Chapter 13, Debtor.
JOSE D CRUZ, Plaintiff,
v.
HACIENDA ASSOCIATES, LLC and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants.

Case No. 10-43793-MSH, Adv. Pro. No. 11-04006.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Central Division.

January 26, 2011.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MELVIN S. HOFFMAN, Bankruptcy Judge

Before me is the emergency motion of the plaintiff, Jose D. Cruz, for a preliminary injunction barring defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from foreclosing its mortgage on the plaintiff’s residence at 73 Bolton Street, Marlborough, Massachusetts. After a preliminary hearing on the motion on January 18, 2011, I entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure sale, which had been scheduled for that day, but permitted Wells Fargo to postpone the sale by public proclamation to a date after January 25, 2011. On January 25th, I held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. After reviewing the complaint and the evidence submitted by the parties, and for the reasons stated below, I will grant the plaintiff’s motion and enter a preliminary injunction subject to certain conditions.

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065, my decision whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction must be based on the evidence before me, including the verified complaint and affidavits submitted by the parties. I consider the plaintiff’s complaint to be a verified complaint because the plaintiff filed an affidavit dated January 13, 2011 in which he verified the facts alleged in the complaint. The plaintiff also filed the affidavit of Joseph Molina of GIM Services, Inc., who averred that his office submitted a loan modification application to Wells Fargo on behalf of the plaintiff on November 29, 2011. According to Mr. Molina’s affidavit, after several inquiries regarding the status of the loan modification application, his office was informed by telephone on January 19, 2011 (after the complaint had been filed) that the plaintiff’s loan modification application had been denied, and that the reason given for the denial was the approaching foreclosure sale. Mr. Molina also averred that Wells Fargo has not yet communicated this denial to the plaintiff in writing. Lastly, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his attorney, Michael Shepsis, who averred that he had contacted Wells Fargo’s foreclosure counsel on several occasions regarding the status of the loan modification and as of January 18, 2011, he had not received any notice that the application had been denied.

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the requesting party must demonstrate that (i) there is a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim; (ii) that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (iii) that the harm to the requesting party if the injunction is not granted is greater than the harm to the opposing party if it is granted; and (iv) that the public interest would not be adversely affected by the issuance of the injunction. See Sunshine Development, Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 33 F.3d 106, 110-11 (1st Cir. 1994).

On the issue of irreparable harm, the plaintiff seeks in Counts I (breach of contract) and V of his complaint (breach of duty of good faith and reasonable diligence) judgment canceling the pending foreclosure sale of his home. Accordingly, I find that absent an injunction the plaintiff will be irreparably harmed because a foreclosure sale will effectively deprive him of the relief requested in those counts of his complaint.

The question of whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his complaint is really the critical factor to be determined here. See Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1991). The plaintiff argues that Wells Fargo, which is a participant in the federal government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), breached its obligation under the program by scheduling a foreclosure sale of the plaintiff’s property while the plaintiff’s application for a loan modification was under consideration by it. HAMP arose out of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and is administered by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) as the agent of the Department of the Treasury. Speleos v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 2010 WL 5174510, *1 (D. Mass. 2010). The program requires that all mortgage loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac” and together with Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored agencies or “GSEs”) that meet certain requirements be evaluated by the loan servicers for loan modifications. If a borrower qualifies, then the servicer is obligated to modify the loan in accordance with a predefined formula that reduces the borrower’s monthly payment to 31% of his gross income for the first five years.[1] In addition, many servicers of mortgage loans not owned by the GSEs have executed so-called Servicer Participation Agreements (“SPAs”) with Fannie Mae, as agent for the Treasury Department, by which they agree to review and modify loans on similar terms. The Treasury Department, through Fannie Mae, has established guidelines that servicers must follow in evaluating and approving loan modification requests by borrowers. These guidelines are binding on each servicer by way of its servicing agreements with the GSEs or the SPA to which it was a party. I take judicial notice of the fact that Wells Fargo has executed an SPA, and is thus obligated to follow the HAMP requirements with respect to evaluating a loan modification application.[2]

The plaintiff points to Supplemental Directive 09-01, the first of the Treasury Department’s HAMP guidelines, to support his allegation that servicers such as Wells Fargo are prohibited from foreclosing on mortgages that are under review for loan modification. This directive also requires servicers to seek alternatives to foreclosure in the event that a loan modification is denied.[3] The plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo scheduled the foreclosure sale of his property while his loan was being reviewed for a HAMP modification, and that this alleged violation of the HAMP guidelines constituted a breach of contract and of Wells Fargo’s duty to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence, justifying, among other things, cancellation of the foreclosure.

The plaintiff’s breach of contract claim in Count I of the complaint is premised on the proposition that he is a third party beneficiary of the Wells Fargo’s SPA or its servicing agreements with the GSEs. While the HAMP program was intended to benefit homeowners by helping them avoid foreclosure, the majority of courts considering the issue have held that consumers have no private cause of action as third party beneficiaries to enforce HAMP violations by their servicers. See McKensi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2010 WL 3781841, *5-6 (D. Mass. 2010) (“the existing case law weighs decisively in favor of defendant: numerous district courts have interpreted identical HAMP agreements and have come to the conclusion that a borrower is not a third party beneficiary.”) (quoting Hoffman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2010 WL 2635773 (N.D. Cal.) and citing additional cases); but see Reyes v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., 2009 WL 3738177, *2 (S.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint alleging a third party beneficiary status with respect to a HAMP violation was “sufficient to state a plausible claim for breach of contract under a third party beneficiary theory”). Very recently, Judge Gorton of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts cited the proposition in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 311(b) that one must look to a contract itself to determine whether the parties intended to give rights to third party beneficiaries. Speleos, 2010 WL 5174510 at *5. He held that although the various SPAs and servicing agreements related to HAMP serve to benefit borrowers, nothing in the contracts themselves indicate an intent to create a private right of action in favor of borrowers. I agree with the majority view that the plaintiff is not a third party beneficiary of Wells Fargo’s SPA or other relevant HAMP servicing agreements and, therefore, I find that the plaintiff is not likely to succeed on Count I of the complaint.

In Count V of his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo breached its duty to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence by attempting to foreclose its mortgage on the plaintiff’s property. Massachusetts courts have consistently held that in addition to complying with the statutory requirements governing mortgage foreclosure set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, a mortgagee must act in good faith and must use reasonable diligence to protect the interests of the mortgagor. Williams v. Resolution GGF OY, 417 Mass. 377, 382-83 (1994). In Snowden v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 2003 WL 22519518 (Mass. Super.), the court held that a lender breached this duty by foreclosing a mortgage the day after receiving notice that the borrower had negotiated an agreement to sell the property at a price beneficial to the lender. The court noted that mortgagees in Massachusetts must act as a “trustee for the benefit of all persons interested.” Id. at *2 (quoting Taylor v. Weingartner, 233 Mass. 243, 247 (1916)).

The plaintiff argues that by scheduling a foreclosure sale while the plaintiff’s loan modification request was pending, Wells Fargo breached its duty to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence to protect the plaintiff’s interests. The plaintiff’s argument finds support in Speleos, which concluded that even though the borrowers had failed to state a claim for relief under third party beneficiary theory, they could state a claim for negligence on the theory that the defendants had a duty under the HAMP guidelines not to proceed with a foreclosure sale while evaluating the borrowers for a loan modification. Speleos, 2010 WL 5174510 at *6. The plaintiff’s allegation in Count V of the complaint that Wells Fargo breached its duty of good faith and reasonable diligence is comparable to the negligence claim in Speleos.

The evidence thus far indicates that Wells Fargo scheduled and intended to conduct a foreclosure sale of the plaintiff’s property while the plaintiff’s request for a loan modification was pending before it. Even if the modification was denied on January 19, 2011, eight days prior to the rescheduled foreclosure sale, the plaintiff was not given written notice of the denial nor was he offered other foreclosure mitigation options as required under HAMP guidelines. I find, therefore, that there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on Count V of his complaint.

In addition, I find that the plaintiff has satisfied the remaining requirements for injunctive relief. While it is possible that the value of the plaintiff’s property may depreciate as this case proceeds (although Wells Fargo offered no evidence on this point), I find that any potential detriment to Wells Fargo from depreciation is outweighed by the enormity of the harm to the plaintiff from a foreclosure sale. Further, my order that the plaintiff make payments to the Chapter 13 trustee will protect Wells Fargo from depreciation and unpaid real estate taxes in the event it ultimately prevails in this action. Finally, I find that it is in the public interest to ensure that lenders foreclose on properties only when they are entitled to do so. Also, the neighbors surrounding the plaintiff’s property will likely benefit if foreclosure can be avoided.

Under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065 the court may require a party who benefits from a preliminary injunction to post security to protect the enjoined party in the event that the injunction turns out to have been wrongly issued. Here, the plaintiff’s first and second amended Chapter 13 plans filed in the main case, dated September 24 and October 11, 2010 respectively, each contained provisions in which the plaintiff agreed to make monthly payments to Wells Fargo while his loan modification application was under review. At the evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff’s motion, the plaintiff’s counsel conceded that these payments have not been made to date. The Chapter 13 trustee noted that the plaintiff’s amended Schedule J accompanying his bankruptcy petition lists a total of $1800 in expenses to be dedicated to home mortgage and real estate tax payments. In his memorandum of law in support of his motion for injunctive relief, the plaintiff indicates that his current monthly income is $5829, plus $1,200 in rental income from a tenant. Based on these amounts, a hypothetical HAMP loan modification would involve an initial monthly payment of $1806.99, equal to 31% of total income, after subtracting 25% of the rental income to account for vacancy risk. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction will be conditioned on the plaintiff’s making monthly payments of $1800 to the Chapter 13 trustee. This payment requirement shall be retroactive to October 1, 2010 (the first month after the plaintiff proposed to make these payments in his September 24, 2010 amended Chapter 13 plan). Payments shall be held by the trustee for the benefit of Wells Fargo and paid to Wells Fargo in the event it prevails in this action.

The plaintiff shall make payments of $1800 per month to the Chapter 13 trustee on the first day of each month beginning on February 1, 2011, with a ten day grace period for late payment. In order to catch up on payments due for October through January, the plaintiff shall make a double payment of $3600 on the first day of March, April, May and June. The failure of the plaintiff to make any payment when due will be grounds for vacating the injunction.

A separate order shall enter.

[1] See, e.g., Making Home Affordable Program Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages, Version 3.0 (hereinafter “HAMP Handbook”) at 65, available at https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/programs/docs/hamp_servicer/mhahandbook_30.pdf.

[2] See Wells Fargo Servicer Participation Agreement, available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/housing-programs/mha/Documents_Contracts_Agreements/093010wellsfargobanknaSPA(incltransmittal)-r.pdf; see also HAMP Handbook, supra note 1 at 17 (explaining the role of the SPA).

[3] Each of the GSEs has its own version of this directive, but all contain the prohibition against foreclosure while loans are under review for modification.

Opinion Below…

[ipaper docId=48280277 access_key=key-qb2mjnigqj544ury1k5 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

FL 5thDCA Appeals Court Reversal “PURCHASERS’ DUE PROCESS VIOLATED” GIANTHONY HOMES, INC. v. US Bank National Association

FL 5thDCA Appeals Court Reversal “PURCHASERS’ DUE PROCESS VIOLATED” GIANTHONY HOMES, INC. v. US Bank National Association


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

JANUARY TERM 2011

GIANTHONY HOMES, INC. and
AVONDALE DIVERSIFIED, INC
,
Appellants,

v.                                      Case No. 5D10-715

U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
, etc., et al.,
Appellees.
________________________________/
Opinion filed January 28, 2011

EVANDER, J.

Excerpt:

Based on these findings, it is clear that appellants’ procedural due process rights
were violated.
Shlishey the Best, Inc. v. CitiFinancial Equity Servs., Inc., 14 So. 3d
1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (purchasers’ right to procedural due process violated where
trial court entered order that vacated foreclosure sale and certificate of title when
purchaser had neither notice nor opportunity to be heard). Appellants were entitled to
receive a copy of U.S. Bank’s motion and an opportunity to be heard thereon. Dep’t. of
Transp. v. Baird, 992 So. 2d 378, 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

[ipaper docId=48109862 access_key=key-2cjrin0zpg8gccif8c04 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NY Emergency Order To Show Cause, HSBC Stayed CO-OP Auction Shares

NY Emergency Order To Show Cause, HSBC Stayed CO-OP Auction Shares


According to records:
Attorney/Firm For Defendant: STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.

Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active

220 NORTHPOINTE PKWY SUITE G
AMHERST, NEW YORK 14228
716-204-2400

excerpt…

NOW, IT IS ORDERED THAT EXECUTION OF ANY PUBLIC SHARES OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 135 OCEAN PARKWAY, UNIT 16-D, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, 11218, SHALL BE STAYED PENDING THE HEARING OF THIS MOTION, AND SPECIFICALLY THAT DEFENDANT HSBC BANK USA, N.A. BE STAYED FROM EXECUTING A PUBLIC SALE OF PLAINTIFF’S SHARE OF STOCK ON JANUARY 13, 2011 at 2:OO P.M.

[ipaper docId=47617748 access_key=key-1lsldoed8t45dhekgkcl height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

What would happen if scores of people who had lost their homes to foreclosure somehow persuaded a judge to overturn the proceedings?

What would happen if scores of people who had lost their homes to foreclosure somehow persuaded a judge to overturn the proceedings?


Lets revisit this article from last October… After the ruling yesterday, I bet many Title Company executives are ____________________ fill in the blank…

After Foreclosure, a Focus on Title Insurance


By RON LIEBER
Published: October 8, 2010

When home buyers and people refinancing their mortgages first see the itemized estimate for all the closing costs and fees, the largest number is often for title insurance.

This moment is often profoundly irritating, mysterious and rushed — just like so much of the home-buying process. Lenders require buyers to have title insurance, but buyers are often not sure who picked the insurance company. And the buyers are so exhausted by the gauntlet they’ve already run that they’re not interested in spending any time learning more about the policies and shopping around for a better one.

Besides, does anyone actually know people who have had to collect on title insurance? It ultimately feels like a tax — an extortionate one at that — and not a protective measure.

But all of the sudden, the importance of title insurance is becoming crystal-clear. In recent weeks, big lenders like GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have halted many or all of their foreclosure proceedings in the wake of allegations of sloppiness, shortcuts or worse. And a potential nightmare situation has emerged that has spooked not only homeowners but lawyers, title insurance companies and their investors.

What would happen if scores of people who had lost their homes to foreclosure somehow persuaded a judge to overturn the proceedings? Could they somehow win back the rights to their homes, free and clear of any mortgage? But they may not be able to simply move back into their home at that point. Banks, after all, have turned around and sold some of those foreclosed homes to nice young families reaching out for a bit of the American dream. Would they simply be put out on the street? And then what?

The answer to that last question may depend on whether those new homeowners have title insurance, because people who buy a home without a mortgage can choose to go without a policy.

Then there is a glimpse behind the scenes …

[ipaper docId=46466367 access_key=key-448g7r9wonwz1j4ufuq height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

A house for $200? Foreclosure confusion leads to rock bottom auction prices

A house for $200? Foreclosure confusion leads to rock bottom auction prices


By Kimberly Miller
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 5:54 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010

Scores of Palm Beach County homes were sold to investors at foreclosure auction this month for as low as $200 following the collapse of the David J. Stern law firm and ensuing confusion as thousands of its cases are reassigned.

It’s yet another muddle for the already overwhelmed foreclosure courts to sort out as former Stern cases went to auction with no bank representation, bids or proper public notice.

The result on Wednesday was 56 percent of winning offers were from investors or individual buyers who in some cases spent no more than a month’s mortgage payment to get homes that sold for upward of $240,000 during the real estate boom.

During a typical foreclosure auction, investors or individual buyers purchase between 3 percent and 13 percent of the homes, with the majority bought back by the banks.

But it is nowhere near certain the rock bottom prices will stick. Some of the sales were done without the required public advertisement. The Palm Beach County Clerk of Court will not issue a certificate of sale without proof that the auction was advertised once a week for two consecutive weeks before the sale.

Still, it takes a judge’s order to vacate or verify a questionable sale.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Why Do Banks, MERS Use Lender Processing Services’s Minnesota Address?

Why Do Banks, MERS Use Lender Processing Services’s Minnesota Address?


1270 Northland Dr
Mendota Heights, MN 55120

Found another interesting affidavit/ foreclosure deed in Massachusetts Land Records. Some might recall back on June/2010 SFF made a post on this address here.

What all information is in these walls? Maybe ya’ll can fill in the missing pieces. :)

MERS 1270

[ipaper docId=44855213 access_key=key-2dsyy5ygaew0kwfjovyt height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (6)

Stern’s foreclosure mistake leads two to buy same house

Stern’s foreclosure mistake leads two to buy same house


Paperwork error complicates home sale, raises questions about process

By Diane C. Lade and Doreen Hemlock, Sun Sentinel
5:00 p.m. EST, December 4, 2010

Real estate investor Marjorie Oster was pleased when she snagged what looked like a good deal through a Miami-Dade County foreclosure court auction: a four-bedroom house in Cutler Bay, with a swimming pool, for about $95,000.

But when her husband drove by the next day to check on the property, he saw “someone cleaning the pool, a lawn service cutting the grass and a note it was being tented for termites,” said Oster, a Miami resident who has been in real estate for 15 years.

It turns out the house she thought she had purchased had been sold in a short sale the week before to someone else — Osberto Jimenez, a 40-year-old Cuban-born truck driver. The law firm handling the foreclosure for the lender mishandled the paperwork and never canceled the auction sale.

“So we both own the same house and I’m frustrated as hell,” said Oster. “Someone screwed up.”

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

GEORGIA CLASS ACTION | ROLLINS v. MERS, MERSCORP

GEORGIA CLASS ACTION | ROLLINS v. MERS, MERSCORP


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

DUSTIN ROLLINS

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC :
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, Inc.;
and MERSCORP, Inc

The Plaintiff shows herein that MERS’ foreclosure on Plaintiff’s property was not valid and was wrongful, as are those foreclosures by MERS on the property in the State of Georgia of all similarly situated persons to the Plaintiff wherein MERS sent the notice of foreclosure to the debtor and wherein MERS purports to have exercised the power of sale and auctioned the property. MERS does not have the authorized power to send a valid notice of foreclosure within the State of Georgia for those deeds where it is “solely a nominee” and does not have the authority or power under Georgia law to foreclose on a property or engage in an auction of sale on such property where is is “solely a nominee” on such deeds.

[ipaper docId=39968483 access_key=key-7smnwqncufavpx6wof7 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (9)

After Foreclosure, a Focus on Title Insurance

After Foreclosure, a Focus on Title Insurance



By RON LIEBER
Published: October 8, 2010

When home buyers and people refinancing their mortgages first see the itemized estimate for all the closing costs and fees, the largest number is often for title insurance.

This moment is often profoundly irritating, mysterious and rushed — just like so much of the home-buying process. Lenders require buyers to have title insurance, but buyers are often not sure who picked the insurance company. And the buyers are so exhausted by the gauntlet they’ve already run that they’re not interested in spending any time learning more about the policies and shopping around for a better one.

Besides, does anyone actually know people who have had to collect on title insurance? It ultimately feels like a tax — an extortionate one at that — and not a protective measure.

But all of the sudden, the importance of title insurance is becoming crystal-clear. In recent weeks, big lenders like GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have halted many or all of their foreclosure proceedings in the wake of allegations of sloppiness, shortcuts or worse. And a potential nightmare situation has emerged that has spooked not only homeowners but lawyers, title insurance companies and their investors.

What would happen if scores of people who had lost their homes to foreclosure somehow persuaded a judge to overturn the proceedings? Could they somehow win back the rights to their homes, free and clear of any mortgage? But they may not be able to simply move back into their home at that point. Banks, after all, have turned around and sold some of those foreclosed homes to nice young families reaching out for a bit of the American dream. Would they simply be put out on the street? And then what?

The answer to that last question may depend on whether those new homeowners have title insurance, because people who buy a home without a mortgage can choose to go without a policy.

Title insurance covers you in case people turn up months or years after you buy your home saying that they, in fact, are the rightful owners of the house or the land, or at least had a stake in the transaction. (The insurance may cover you in other instances as well, relating to easements and other matters, but we’ll leave those aside for now.)

Continue reading…NEW YORK TIMES

.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in assignment of mortgage, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Old Republic Title, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, title company, Title insuranceComments (2)

RESTRAINED |’MERS’ and any of its attorneys, agents, successors and assignees by NY SUPREME COURT

RESTRAINED |’MERS’ and any of its attorneys, agents, successors and assignees by NY SUPREME COURT


Supreme Court of the State of New York, held
in and for the County of KINGS, at
the Courthouse located at 360 Adams
Street, Brooklyn, NY on the 2nd day of
June, 2010

“WHY an order should not be made dismissing the within action due to Plaintiffs lack of standing; together with such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable;”

ORDERED, that pending the hearing . . of this motion, the Plaintiff Mortgage Electronic Registration System as Nominee for US Bank, N.A., and any of its attorneys, agents, successors and assignees, be and are hereby restrained from implementing or any way pursuing the closing of title on any third party sale of the premises known as 81 Woodbine Street, Brooklyn, NY 11221; and Plaintiff Mortgage Electronic Registration System as Nominee for US Bank, N.A., and any of its attorneys, agents, successors and assignees be and are hereby restrained from evicting Liborio Munoz and his family and any other occupants from the premises known as 81 Woodbine Street, Brooklyn, NY 11221.

[ipaper docId=36645881 access_key=key-12v2ajab40rvsj0bsv1b height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in auction, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dismissed, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, lawsuit, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, TRO, trustee, trustee sale, TrustsComments (0)

‘CAVEAT EMPTOR’ |Family buys WORTHLESS WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE at AUCTION

‘CAVEAT EMPTOR’ |Family buys WORTHLESS WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE at AUCTION


Boulder Creek family bought worthless second mortgage from Wells Fargo at foreclosure auction

Posted: 07/22/2010 01:30:01 AM PDT


 

… (A nearly $100,000 payment landed Hayley Strand, her fiance Bryan Janbay and her parents Randall and Roberta Strand a piece of paper, not the house they thought they’d purchased near Boulder Creek.)

BOULDER CREEK — Roberta and Randall Strand thought they were getting a great deal on a foreclosure and helping their daughter and future son-in-law become homeowners. Instead they are holding a worthless second mortgage.

The home they bought for just under $98,000 and fixed up for $25,000 is scheduled for a foreclosure auction this afternoon to satisfy a debt of more than $529,000.

They offered lender Wells Fargo $75,000, but it was to no avail.

Wells Fargo spokeswoman Michele Ashley issued a statement saying, “We believe the foreclosure auction of the property on which the Strand family bid was done correctly, and are confident the legal resolution to this matter will bear that out. Currently, Wells Fargo has presented the family with options that can help them through this matter.”

The Strands saw a newspaper notice last fall about the home, which is a mile from theirs, slated for a foreclosure auction. The unpaid debt was listed as $97,604.

Nestled under the redwoods on Cypress Trees Lane, the place needed work but their daughter, Hayley, 24, and her fiance, Bryan Janbay, 28, were willing to put in the effort.

Roberta looked up the property records. She saw there were two mortgages, a first and a second, recorded on the same date with the same lender. She figured the lender was auctioning the first and that the second mortgage would be wiped out.

“The price was right,” her husband said.

They took out a mortgage

on their own home to make their offer. At the auction on the steps of the county Governmental Center in November, they were the only bidders.The house had been stripped, and they spent $25,000 on improvements — windows, paint, carpet, lighting and appliances.

In January, before Hayley and Bryan could take out a mortgage to pay them back, a notice arrived from Wachovia Bank, saying the previous owners owed $529,259 on their loan.

Roberta thought it was a mistake.

“I tried speaking to someone at Wachovia, but no one would speak to me because my name was not on the loan,” she said.

She sent certified letters to Wachovia and didn’t hear back until April, when a foreclosure sale notice was posted on the property.

“Rather than foreclose on both loans at the same time, Wachovia chose to foreclose, market and sell the worthless junior lien, purporting it to be the real property, which is what we purchased,” she said.

The family sued Wells Fargo, which acquired Wachovia, and Cal-Western Reconveyance, which posted legal notices of the sale, claiming deceit, fraud and wrongful foreclosure. They want their money back.

The Strands’ attorney, Steve Vondran of Newport Beach, argued that “Wells Fargo and Cal-Western have set up a system that allows them to mutually profit off the sale of worthless second mortgages.”

Continue reading….santacruzsentinel.com

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in auction, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, wells fargoComments (1)

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives