Q Define “cradle to grave” in the context you said it — meant it when you said it.
A When I speak of cradle to grave, that would be that we provide services that may become necessary on a default of loan on behalf of the client, so it generally come in as a foreclosure. If the foreclosure is interrupted by a bankruptcy, we will handle that bankruptcy. Once the bankruptcy has been concluded and we’re free — sorry — from the automatic stay, we would then continue on with the foreclosure. Once the foreclosure is complete and title invest in the servicer, we would then handle any evictions where necessary. Once the eviction is complete and it becomes a real estate-owned property, we would then open the title work and handle the closing on behalf of the grantor, the bank as the seller, to the grantee.
Q And those systems that were used by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., you developed?
A I — the day one, I developed them; day two, they continued to be expanded and improved upon by people that were smarter than I was in those particular areas.
Q Okay. But would you agree with me certainly until 2006, you were the captain of the ship with regard to your office and how it ran and the systems that were to be used?
A I would agree that I was the captain of the ship. I would strongly disagree that processes were put in — that were put in were put in by me. The development, better practices, things like that, Miriam, Sam, Beverly, when she joined, and Cheryl, did a lot of that. So, there was — in 2000 — even in 2000, there were procedures and policies put in place that they were comfortable in doing and realized that I would have no objection. If I had to deal with every granular change that results from Fannie or Freddie guidelines or a local rule or a judge making some sort of requirement, that by definition would be an impossibility. Hence, development expanding processes and procedures very quickly fell on Miriam, Beverly and — and — and Cheryl. I was there for the day-to-day probably up until 2006. He had my nose and things, but it didn’t take long to realize that. Sometimes you can’t be the rainmaker and be involved in procedure because very quickly, I did not know or have knowledge as to the capabilities of the staff that was in place.
Q Did you ever object to any of the policies or procedures that were put in place by others beside yourself.
A I don’t I don’t recall. Apparently, not very long or hard or I’ll stay with them in there.
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.
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.
Action Date: October 24, 2011 Location: West Palm Beach, FL
HURRICANE CHERYL DESTROYS LAND RECORDS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY
In the six month period from September 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009, 502 mortgage assignments, signed by Cheryl Samons, were filed in the official records of Palm Beach County, FL.
Samons was the office manager for the Law Offices of David J. Stern, but she signed as a MERS officer.
Mortgage-backed trusts were the primary beneficiary of these Samons Assignments.
Mortgage Assignments Signed by Cheryl Samons Filed in Palm Beach County from September, 2008, through February, 2009:
Multiplied by three, in the 18-month period from July 4, 2008 though January 4, 2009, Samons is likely to have signed 1,506 Assignments.
This is the same 18-month period that 1,742 Docx Assignments were being filed in Palm Beach County. These had a stated mortgage value of $560,239,797 or an average mortgage value of $321,607 per assignment.
Samons Palm Beach County assignments filed from July 4, 2008 through January 4, 2009 have an estimated value of $484,340,182, nearly half a billion dollars.
This does not include the assignments signed by other Stern employees, associate Beth Cerni or paralegal Carol Wasserman.
The combined value of mortgages, primarily transferred to mortgage-backed trusts, for one county for one 18-month period: $1,044,579,939.
While Docx Assignments were only filed for 18 months in Palm Beach County, Samons assignments appeared regularly from 2007 through 2010.
8 Q. And what was said about Cheryl’s bills being paid for
9 the Law Offices of David Stern?
10 A. That he’s always done it. David Stern has always
11 paid for Cheryl’s expenses.
12 Q. Personal expenses?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know if he — Well was there rumor — Was
15 there talk, rather, that he paid — that he bought her car?
16 A. No, that’s confirmed. He did buy her a car. I
17 acknowledge that.
18 Q. He did buy her a car?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What kind of car did he buy her?
21 A. It was a BMW SUV.
<SNIP>
Q. Anything that –
4 A. Is it like personal or business or –
5 Q. Personal? Business? Anything at all?
6 A. Personal? The only thing that I was aware of that
7 took place there were the perks that certain employees received
8 from David Stern. If they were either dating him or they were
9 good friends with him, that they would basically do certain
10 things for him for certain files, in the sense of like David
11 Vargas. He would have certain perks from David Stern, like a
12 house, a car, cell phone paid all by David Stern.
13 And that’s all I know.
14 Q. Okay. So do you know of any other perks besides what
15 you said that Cheryl Salmons got? A car you said, for sure.
16 And her personal bills paid.
17 A. Yes. And cell phone.
18 Q. And probably her mortgage?
19 A. Yes. And vacations and gifts, jewelry.
20 Q. Who else would received gifts and jewelry or cars or
21 homes?
22 A. His girlfriend and David Vargas.
23 Q. Who’s his girlfriend?
24 A. At the time it was Christina Dell’Aguila
Palm Beach Post-
A new deposition of Cheryl Samons, the once second-in-command of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, reveals the chaos that occurred last fall as the Florida attorney general’s investigation was announced, the robo-signing scandal broke and the largest foreclosure law firm in Florida began to implode.
The deposition, linked to on a foreclosure blog by defense attorney Michael Alex Wasylik, was taken in a class-action lawsuit filed by former Stern attorneys who allege they were terminated without the 60 days notice required by federal law and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Samons was singled out last fall for her role in signing thousands of foreclosure documents that she had no personal knowledge of and for allegedly having her signature forged by employees who were pushed to speed the processing of foreclosure cases.
Although disappointing not to see the final outcome behind the documents, this does not settle well with the FRAUD obviously involved.
“We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,” the appeals court wrote in certification to the Supreme Court.
According to AP, the court on Monday issued a high profile-case order in the matter of Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon. One of the issues in the case is whether there was a fraud on the trial court.
And we all now the original work behind this was none other than Law Offices of David J. Stern, who has recently shut down as of March 31, 2011.
On February 2, 2011 the Florida 4th DCA said
We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents. The defendant has requested a denial of the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. If this is an available remedy as a sanction after a voluntary dismissal, it may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State. Accordingly we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as of great public importance
Foreclosure proceedings in courts nationwide have exposed a swamp of fraudulent documents, and in some cases — though perhaps far too few — those bad docs have sunk attempts by banks to take people’s homes.
In a reflection of how bad things have gotten, lenders are asking judges to “ratify” foreclosures done with robo-signed documents, the Palm Beach Post reported on Saturday. While such“ratification” would not, as a matter of law, mean much, the Post says, it might discourage people from challenging the foreclosures.
With luck, two recent developments may help really clean up the fraud in the Sunshine State. First, an appeals court has asked the Florida Supreme Court to clarify judges’ power to address the fraud, and second, the Florida Bar Association is finally taking a stand.
Asking for Power to Punish Foreclosure Fraud
By MICHELLE CONLIN – Feb 6, 2011 7:29 PM ET
By The Associated Press
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — During the housing crash, it was good to be a foreclosure king. David Stern was Florida’s top foreclosure lawyer, and he lived like an oil sheik. He piled up a collection of trophy properties, glided through town in a fleet of six-figure sports cars and, with his bombshell wife, partied on an ocean cruiser the size of a small hotel.
When homeowners fell behind on their mortgages, the banks flocked to “foreclosure mills” like Stern’s to push foreclosures through the courts on their behalf. To his megabank clients — Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, GMAC, Citibank and Wells Fargo — Stern was the ultimate Repo Man.
At industry gatherings, Stern bragged in his boyish voice of taking mortgages from the “cradle to the grave.” Of the federal government’s disastrous homeowner relief plan, which was supposed to keep people from getting evicted, he quipped: “Fortunately, it’s failing.”
The worse things got for homeowners, the better they got for Stern.
That is, until last fall, when the nation’s foreclosure machine blew apart and Stern’s gilded world came undone. Within a few months, Stern went from being the subject of a gushing magazine profile to being the subject of a Florida investigation, class-action lawsuits and blogger Schadenfreude that, at last long, the “foreclosure king” was dead.
“What Stern represents is an industry that was completely unrestrained, unchecked, unpunished and unsupervised,” says Florida defense attorney Matt Weidner. “This was business gone wild.”
The rise and fall of Stern, now 50, provides an inside look at how the foreclosure industry worked in the last decade — and how it fell apart. It also shows how banks, together with their law firms, built a quick-and-dirty foreclosure machine that was designed to take as many houses as fast as possible.
A Palm Beach county homeowner fighting alleged foreclosure fraud has ended up before the Florida Supreme Court.
An appeals court last week requested that the high court consider the case of Greenacres homeowner Roman Pino as a matter of “great public importance.” The decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach was unusual as neither the bank nor the homeowner requested such a review.
“We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,” the appeals court wrote in certification to the Supreme Court.
Should the case be accepted by the Florida Supreme Court and a decision rendered in favor of Pino, thousands of cases could be impacted as allegations of document fraud run rampant throughout the state.
JUDGE POLEN: I’m afraid I’m not following
that. David Stern’s client at the time was BNY
Mellon Bank, right?
MR. NIEVES: Yes.
JUDGE POLEN: Okay. And that’s evidence of
what, an assignment to a bank?
MR. NIEVES: Basically, the law firm
manufactured evidence for the client’s case.
JUDGE POLEN: Okay.
MR. NIEVES: It was signed and executed by
Cheryl Samons, who works for David Stern, and
executed the assignment solely for the litigation,
and, in the assignment, posed as an officer of a
different entity.
<SNIP>
MS. GIDDINGS: Well, Your Honor, if you look at
the allegations that they have made, almost all of
those allegations pertain to a different case.
They’re not this particular case. I don’t know what
that document — what occurred in that document. But
I think this court is probably going to have a number
of cases that come up before it where that issue
is — it may be at issue in subsequent proceedings.
And when you reopen — if you’re going to reopen
those cases, you have to make sure that you’re
reopening it for something that is material.
JUDGE FARMER: Fraud on the Court is not
material?
MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, fraud on the
Court –
JUDGE FARMER: Publishing false documents is
not material?
<SNIP>
MS. GIDDINGS: Because there was no affirmative
relief obtained in this case, Your Honor. And, in
fact, the relief was that Mr. Pino has been living in
the house for a long time, apparently without making
any payments. And I understand your concerns, Your Honor.
But I’m urging you to consider this case in the grand
scheme of things. If you allow courts to go back and
open up all of these cases, when it’s clear on the
face that there was no affirmative relief obtained,
or that the affirmative relief would not have been
material, then you’re going to create chaos in the
court system.
JUDGE FARMER: So, are you suggesting that this
fraud has been that widespread that it –
MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, I’m not
acknowledging that any fraud occurred. I think that
there is — we all know –
JUDGE FARMER: Why would we shrink — as a
court system, why would we shrink, no matter how many
cases it might involve, from looking out for attempts
to defraud courts to publish and utter and use false
instruments? Why wouldn’t we be most vigilant?
Feel sorry for the poor robo-signer who had to sign 1,000 foreclosure files a day? Then here’s some good news: allegations are now surfacing that at least one robo-signer got help from co-workers.
Imagine standing in your front yard and watching as a car pulls up. A stranger gets out, walks up to you, verifies your identity, then serves you with foreclosure papers. Now imagine that you’ve never missed a mortgage payment in your life.
You’ve seen the headlines about banks stopping foreclosures – but if you haven’t yet realized the implications for every American, this is a story you don’t want to miss.
