Deposition | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "deposition"

Florida Supreme Court hears landmark Foreclosure Fraud suit

Florida Supreme Court hears landmark Foreclosure Fraud suit


Does the rule of law matter?

Why hasn’t David J. Stern not been disbarred? Suspended?

Is Fraud upon the court 100,000’s of time & to the face of a judge not a crime?

Why would the original judge not sanction anyone?

Will the Supreme Court allow fraud to slap it in its face 2nd time around?

Where has justice gone?

Reuters-

The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a landmark lawsuit that could undo hundreds of thousands of foreclosures and open up banks to severe financial penalties in the state where they face the bulk of their foreclosure-fraud litigation.

Legal experts say the lawsuit is one of the most important foreclosure fraud cases in the country and could help resolve an issue that has vexed Florida’s foreclosure courts for the past five years: Can banks that file fraudulent documents in foreclosure proceedings voluntarily dismiss the cases only to refile them later with different paperwork?

The decision, which may take up to eight months, could influence judges in the other 26 states that require judicial approval for foreclosures.

The case at issue, known as Roman Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, stems from the so-called robo-signing scandal that emerged in 2010 when it was revealed that banks and their law firms had hired low-wage workers to sign legal documents without checking their accuracy, as is required by law.

If the state Supreme Court rules against the banks, “a broad universe of mortgages could be rendered unenforceable,” said former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, author of the book, “Foreclosures in Florida.”

[REUTERS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Florida foreclosure case could SLAM banks

Florida foreclosure case could SLAM banks


Reuters-

The Florida Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Thursday in a lawsuit that could undo hundreds of thousands of foreclosures and open up banks to severe financial liabilities in the state where they face the bulk of their foreclosure-fraud litigation.

The court is deciding whether banks who used fraudulent documents to file foreclosure lawsuits can dismiss the cases and refile them later with different paperwork.

The decision, which may take up to eight months to render, could affect hundreds of thousands of homeowners in Florida, and could also influence judges in the other 26 states that require lawsuits in foreclosures.

Of all the foreclosure filings in those states, sixty three percent, a total of 138,288, are concentrated in five states, according to RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure marketplace. Of those, nearly half are in Florida. In Congressional testimony last year, Bank of America, the U.S.’s largest mortgage servicer, said that 70 percent of its foreclosure-related lawsuits were in Florida.

The case at issue, known as Roman Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, stems from the so-called robo-signing scandal that emerged in 2010 when it was revealed that banks and their law firms had hired low-wage workers to sign legal documents without checking their accuracy as is required by law.

This was a case of an intentionally fraudulent document fabricated to use in a court proceeding,” says former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, author of the book Foreclosures in Florida.

[REUTERS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

PINO v. BONY Oral Argument set for Thursday May 10, 2012 at 9:00 am

PINO v. BONY Oral Argument set for Thursday May 10, 2012 at 9:00 am


The Oral Arguments in Roman Pino v. Bank of New York will be heard before the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday, May 10, 2012  at 9:00 AM.  In this case the court will be addressing the circumstances under which a voluntary dismissal (a final judgment or other court action) can be set aside long after the case is over, based on underlying fraud on the court.

The Oral Arguments can be watched live on http://thefloridachannel.org/watch/web3/1336655014.

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 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Florida Supreme Court to review dismissed foreclosure lawsuit against Greenacres man

Florida Supreme Court to review dismissed foreclosure lawsuit against Greenacres man


This shouldn’t be so difficult, David J. Stern has TONS of fraudulent documents out there. Pick any County, any documents his firm filed and you’re sure to find fraud. Just read the depositions from his former employees.

“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.

PALM BEACH POST-

An unassuming drywall hanger from Greenacres has banks warning of a “widespread financial crisis” if the Florida Supreme Court favors him in a landmark foreclosure case justices will hear this week.

Plucked out of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Roman Pino v. the Bank of New York is the first significant foreclosure complaint to be heard by the high court since the state’s legendary housing collapse.

It’s particularly unusual because the 41-year-old Pino had already settled the case when the Supreme Court decided in December to take up a legal question it said could affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis statewide.

At issue is whether a bank can escape punishment for filing flawed or fraudulent documents in a case by voluntarily dismissing it. (A voluntary dismissal allows the bank to refile at a later date.)

That’s what Royal Palm Beach-based foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice said happened when he challenged a document created by the Law Offices of David J. Stern and sought to question employees about its veracity. On the eve of those depositions, the bank moved to dismiss the case, blocking the court’s ability to address any sanctions.

“The objective here was to hide from punishment for the wrongdoing,” Ice said.

[PALM BEACH POST]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF AURORA BANK FSB ASST. VICE PRESIDENT NEVA HALL

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF AURORA BANK FSB ASST. VICE PRESIDENT NEVA HALL


Read With Care… because almost all banks/servicers use the same LPS – Fidelity systems. :)

6 Q Tell me about the actual act of signing these
7 affidavits. When you received them from the person who
8 distributes the documents, would they come to you in
9 physical form?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. And would there be one or a stack of
12 them, or how would they come to you?
13 A It could be either.
14 Q Okay. Was it more common than not to get more
15 than one?
16 A No.
17 Q Was there a certain time of day those would be
18 delivered to you?
19 A I usually got them in the morning.
20 Q Would the notary be right there with you?
21 A No.
22 Q Where was the notary?
23 A On the same floor, in the same area.
24 Q So the notary would not watch you sign the
25 document?

1 A No.

[…]

20 Q Tell me about the LPS Fidelity system. Is
21 that one system or are those — is that one title for
22 the same system?
23 A Actually, LPS owns or has both systems. They
24 have the Fidelity system and the LPS desktop management
25 system.

1 Q And in your course of sending affidavits
2 sometimes you would consult both of those or one of
3 those?
4 A Yes. Primarily the — our system of record.
5 Q The desktop?
6 A No.
7 Q Or the Fidelity?
8 A The Fidelity.
9 Q What can you tell me about the Fidelity
10 system? Does that have the entire payment history?
11 A Yes.

[…]

10 Q Would Fidelity have — besides the full
11 payment history, what other kinds of things would be on
12 the Fidelity system?
13 A The date the note was signed, the origination
14 balance, the principal balance, the date of default –
15 or actually the contractual due date because it’s not
16 always defaulted.
17 Q Anything else?
18 A In bankruptcy we had to post petition due
19 date; the contractual payment and any pending payment
20 changes; the escrow information.
21 Q What about servicing notes, would that be on
22 the Fidelity system?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Now, besides those, anything else?
25 A Yeah, there’s a lot of information on

1 Fidelity. I wouldn’t be able to name it all.
2 Q You said Fidelity contains the date the note
3 was signed; is that right?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Does it contain actual copies?
6 A Not in Fidelity, no.
7 Q Okay. So, in other words, so we are clear,
8 you wouldn’t click on Fidelity to look at a copy of the
9 note; is that right?
10 A No. We have a different system that does
11 that.

[…]

4 Q Okay. What’s in the LPS desktop management
5 system?
6 A Communication to the law firms.

[…]

19 Q Okay. Besides correspondence and besides the
20 milestones, anything else on the LPS desktop management
21 system?
22 MR. ELLISON: Object to the form.
23 You can answer.
24 MR. ZACKS: What’s wrong with the form?
25 MR. ELLISON: She didn’t say, correspondence.

1 She said, communications to law firms.
2 BY MR. ZACKS:
3 Q You can answer.
4 A Yeah, they have documents in that — either
5 documents from us or we would get documents from them
6 through LPS.
7 Q From?
8 A The law firm.
9 Q And by “law firm,” you’re talking about
10 outside foreclosure counsel; is that right?
11 A Correct.
12 Q Or could it be any other kind of counsel, or
13 bankruptcy counsel?
14 A Yes.

[…]

9 Q On the Fidelity system, you said that would
10 contain all the payment records, right?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Would that contain payment records from
13 previous servicers, if there were any?
14 A I don’t think so.
15 Q Where would those records be?
16 A They are in a separate — they’re stored
17 separately.
18 Q Is it a separate database system?
19 A Yeah.
20 Q Okay.
21 A Yes.
22 Q What’s that?
23 A I think it’s called Doctrak.
24 Q Doctrak?
25 A D-O-C-T-R-A-K.

[…]

1 Q In your course of signing affidavits of
2 indebtedness, did you ever review the Doctrack system?
3 A No.
4 Q Who is in charge of maintaining the Doctrack
5 system?
6 A I don’t know.
7 Q Who is in charge of the standards in audits
8 for the Doctrak system?
9 A I don’t know.

[…]

24 Q Do you receive anything else from Amber,
25 besides the affidavit itself?

1 A Receive any?
2 Q Sure. She drops off an affidavit on your
3 desk, right?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Is there anything else, along with that
6 affidavit, that she would normally drop off for you?
7 A I don’t understand what you’re asking me. I
8 don’t know what –
9 Q Sure. Would she drop off, you know, the
10 origination file attached to the affidavit, or –
11 A No.
12 Q Would there be anything attached to that
13 affidavit?
14 A Sometimes the — no. I would just be
15 speculating. I don’t remember.
16 Q Along with the affidavit, would there be any
17 specific instructions for you to sign or review or
18 anything like that?
19 A No.
20 Q Just the affidavit itself?
21 A Yes.

[…]

10 Q Okay. And did you — and you’ve already said
11 you wouldn’t check to see if Fannie Mae or Freddie owned
12 that loan, right?
13 A No.
14 Q Okay. Would you check to see if anybody else
15 owned that loan?
16 A No.
17 Q Do you know if anyone did?
18 A I don’t know.
19 Q Did you ever verify a complaint that had a
20 count that said a note was lost?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. And did you look for the note yourself?
23 A No.
24 Q Did you talk to anyone about looking for the
25 note?

1 A No.
2 Q What did you do to verify that a note was lost
3 or misplaced?
4 A Not usually anything.

[…]

7 Q You don’t need special permission to see who
8 the owner or investor is, right?
9 A Correct.
10 Q Would you look at any internal servicing
11 records to determine who the owner or investor was prior
12 to signing affidavits of indebtedness?
13 A Not always, no.
14 Q Okay. Ever?
15 A I can’t say.

Click PDF to Continue to the Full Deposition

Down Load PDF of This Case

Want to know what LPS does when they have the wrong entity? Read The Internal Leaked Emails

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

PINO vs BONY | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AND AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION

PINO vs BONY | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AND AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION


Via MATT WEIDNER

EXCERPT:

INTRODUCTION
The Court retained this case so that it could give needed guidance to trial courts and other litigants by its answer to a certified question arising from a mortgage foreclosure action. As the Court wrote: The question certified . . . 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.
Pino v. Bank of New York, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S711 (Fla. Dec. 8, 2011). Florida Land Title Association (“FLTA”) and American Land Title Association (“ALTA”) file this brief to address the need for this Court to give guidance to trial courts and litigants on the importance of protecting the rights of third parties that have justifiably relied on the finality of a prior court action when buying, extending financing on, or insuring title to real property.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Court can expressly limit its decision in this case to the setting aside of a voluntary dismissal in a case where no third party interest in real estate is implicated. Should it choose to do so, FLTA and ALTA have no issues to address. However, if the Court decides to write more broadly, we respectfully ask the Court to emphasize the need to protect the rights of affected third parties when collateral attacks are brought against otherwise final court judgments, orders, decrees or proceedings. The residential mortgage foreclosure crisis has caused a host of problems for homeowners, lenders, and Florida’s court system. The Court addressed many of these problems by forming the Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosures in 2009 and by adopting its recommended amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010. However, unlike some other states, the Court has not adequately addressed the protection of third party interests when otherwise final court proceedings are collaterally attacked, especially the interest of those who have purchased foreclosed real estate.

Respectfully, if the Court is to give guidance to trial courts and litigants regarding collateral attacks against foreclosure actions (whether relief is sought under rule 1.540(b) or the use of inherent judicial powers) beyond the narrow facts of this case, it should give guidance on protecting the interests of third parties that purchase, finance and insure title to foreclosed properties. Recognition and protection of these neglected interests is vital to the integrity of our judicial system and to the ultimate resolution of the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

[…]

Download PDF Below

Down Load PDF of This Case

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

David J. Stern Sued by DJSP Enterprises and PI Bill Warner While Stern Buys 150 “Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s,” Foreclosure King takes on Burger King.

David J. Stern Sued by DJSP Enterprises and PI Bill Warner While Stern Buys 150 “Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s,” Foreclosure King takes on Burger King.


Oh my, look what we have here…big mistake because I don’t think this is going very far….his franchises that is.

Bill Warner Private Investigator-

My source in Fort Lauderdale tells me that attorney David J. Stern has rolled over his $Millions in foreclosure home profits and the cash he got up front from the DJSP Entreprises Inc. FKA Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp deal into at least 150 Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s, will that be fries with your meal sir?

It appears that David J. Stern is buying ”Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s” in bulk, Stern is trying to acquire 500 Burger Joints NATIONWIDE

[BILL WARNER]

image: Bill Warner

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

David Stern Investors Admit Foreclosure Documents Were Forged

David Stern Investors Admit Foreclosure Documents Were Forged


Folks, please tweet, forward, whatever. This is a huge story that deserves to be given major coverage in MSM. Local judges need to be aware that they are being handed forged documents.

FDL-

In 2010, the Law Offices of David J. Stern spun off the robo signing document mill part of his business into a separate, publicly traded company.

Stern pocketed some $60 million from that deal. The investors got the company and all its documents, internal procedures and everything you would need in order to find out what really happened within the Stern document mill.

A little after 8 AM EST today, a filing went up on the SEC’s Edgar database. It’s a Complaint in lawsuit, dated yesterday.

[FIRE DOG LAKE]

[ipaper docId=77175540 access_key=key-167l9gbhw0d6noa9m8tu height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Mortgage Fraud:  Law Offices of David J. Stern, ProVest, PTA

Mortgage Fraud: Law Offices of David J. Stern, ProVest, PTA


Mortgage Fraud

Law Offices of David J. Stern
ProVest
PTA

Action Date: January 4, 2012
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL

In the lawsuit filed by DJSP Enterprises against David J. Stern and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, there are also allegations involving ProVest, the process server used by Stern and most of the other major foreclosure mills hired by Lender Processing Services in over 20 states.

The allegations regarding ProVest are found in paragraphs 36-38:

36. Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants also knowingly and systematically inflated their process of service costs to the Court. Specifically, Seller Defendants engineered a fraudulent scheme whereby they directed their process servicing work to a process servicing company called ProVest. The Seller Defendants caused each file to generate four or five separate fees for service of process regardless of whether service of process on multiple defendants was necessary or appropriate and regardless of whether service of process for multiple defendants could be achieved at the same address.

37. In exchange for receiving these inflated service of process fees, ProVest, in turn, routinely referred back to PTA servicing requests for “skip tracing” to locate defendants for whom ProVest purportedly did not have accurate street address information to effect service of process. ProVest “hired” and paid fees to PTA for “skip tracing” services despite the fact that ProVest had the ability and resources to perform “skip tracing” itself and routinely did so itself.

38. The Seller Defendants’ arrangement with ProVest amounted to a kickback scheme. DS Law padded and inflated its process servicing costs which were billed to its clients and added to the court costs assessed to foreclosure defendants. In exchange for feeding this work to ProVest, PTA earned manufactured “skip tracing” fees which inflated PTA’s revenues and profits and which represented another way in which the Seller Defendants artificially inflated the revenues of the Target Business prior to the Transaction.

 

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Mortgage Fraud:  DJSP Enterprises, INC vs. Law Offices of David J. Stern

Mortgage Fraud: DJSP Enterprises, INC vs. Law Offices of David J. Stern


Mortgage Fraud

DJSP Enterprises
Law Offices of David J. Stern

Action Date: January 4, 2012
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL

DJSP Enterprises, the publicly-traded company that was supposed to make millions for investors from the foreclosure services it provided to The Law Offices of David Stern (“the Stern Firm”), sued David J. Stern and the Law Offices of David Stern.

Stern Law mortgage foreclosure caseload rose from 15,000 in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009.

In 2009, Stern Law handled 20% of all foreclosures in Florida.

Stern Law’s clients included all 10 of the top 10, and 17 of the top 20 mortgage servicers in the U.S. including Fannie, Freddie, Citibank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, GMAC and Wells Fargo.

The non-legal, back room servicers related to foreclosures included REO services: property inspection, valuation, eviction, broker assignment – these were performed by DJSP Enterprises – the sole client was Stern Law.

Here are Paragraphs 29 -35:

29. The Seller Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs DAL and DJSP into entering into the Transaction by fraudulently and artificially inflating the Target Business’ actual revenues, by intentionally failing to disclose that the Target Business and DS Law were not, in fact, operating in accordance with all applicable laws, and by concealing that DS Law was in jeopardy of losing its largest clients due to DS Law’s unlawful conduct. Indeed, before entering into the Transaction, the Seller Defendants knew that DS Law and the Target Business had been systematically falsifying and/or back-dating pertinent legal documents, submitting such documents to the courts, routinely misplacing and losing original key documents, filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and were in jeopardy of losing the Seller Defendants’ largest foreclosure clients due to such conduct.

30. By cutting corners in the foreclosure process without following the rule of law, the Defendants artificially reduced the expenses of the Target Business which falsely inflated the profitability of the Target Business.

31. To summarize, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that DS Law and the Target Business were systematically operating in an unlawful manner. In addition, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that the Target Business’ reported revenues were not accurate, inflated, and improperly calculated and that the expenses of the business were also distorted due to the systematic practices designed to “shorten” the legal process. The Seller Defendants falsely led DAL and DJSP to believe that they were acquiring a long-term profitable business that operated in accordance with all applicable laws to induce DAL and DJSP to enter into the Transaction.

33. Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants were at all times well aware that DS Law and the Target Business were intentionally perpetuating a fraud on the courts by, inter alia, systematically filing forged documents, forging signatures on such documents, fraudulently backdating documents, improperly notarizing and witnessing documents, fabricating documents, signing affidavits without reviewing or verifying the information contained therein, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents.

34. Indeed, the Seller Defendants directed employees of DS Law and the Target Business to purposefully overlook glaring inaccuracies in foreclosure pleadings and to essentially rubber stamp computer generated documents without reviewing or verifying the accuracy of the documents. New attorneys at DS Law were not only encouraged, but were even ordered to sign legal filings and pleadings without reading them. As a result, false and inaccurate documents were routinely executed and filed with the courts in an effort to hasten foreclosure proceedings and illegally obtain final judgments of foreclosure for the Seller Defendants’ clients.

35. The Seller Defendants even incentivized these unscrupulous and unlawful practices by giving their employees bonuses and extravagant gifts for churning out the highest number of foreclosure cases in the least amount of time. The Seller Defendants encouraged contests between DS Law attorneys to see who could jam a foreclosure case through the courts the fastest.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF DAVID J. STERN 12/21/2011

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF DAVID J. STERN 12/21/2011


H/T FloridaForeclosureFraudWebBlog

EXCERPTS:

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.

[ipaper docId=76269312 access_key=key-3ow5ih0w1jc7uvgohvw height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF AURORA BANK JOANN “EDNA” REIN

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF AURORA BANK JOANN “EDNA” REIN


H/T Foreclosure Hamlet

EXCERPTS:

11 Q. Explain to me how LPS works.

 12 A. LPS works basically the same as LenStar.

 13 The attorney puts the request in there if they need

 14 an assignment.

 15 Q. Okay. And the attorney would put in who

 16 the assignment was to be from and who the assignment

 17 was to be to?

 18 A. Yes.

 19 Q. Do the attorneys put in — I’m talking now

 20 about the LPS system — do the attorneys put in what

 21 I would call the effective date of the assignment?

 22 A. We do not effective date our assignments.

 23 Q. You’ve never executed assignments with

 24 effective dates?

 25 A. Yes, I have.

 […]

Q. Did Aurora have a policy as to whether you

10 were allowed to execute assignments of mortgage

11 after the notary left?

12 A. Not that I’m aware of.

13 Q. But you never took an oath before you

14 signed the assignments of mortgage?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Did you have personal knowledge of the

17 contents of the assignments of mortgage?

18 MR. ELLISON: Object to the form.

19 You can answer.

20 THE WITNESS: No.

21 BY MS. LUNDERGAN:

22 Q. The assignment of mortgage that’s been

23 marked as Exhibit A, did you have personal knowledge

24 of the information in that assignment of mortgage?

25 A. No.

[…]

[ipaper docId=75472996 access_key=key-yokvodv333m0q2kgrys height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

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

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


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.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR BOMBSHELL!!!!! FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RESURRECTS PINO v. BONY

NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR BOMBSHELL!!!!! FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RESURRECTS PINO v. BONY


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 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Foreclosure mill getting peppered, Linked to the first criminal case brought against alleged robo-signers

Foreclosure mill getting peppered, Linked to the first criminal case brought against alleged robo-signers


In case you wish to read the transcripts from this story check it out: FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES “LPS” SCOTT A. WALTER PART 1 &

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES SCOTT A. WALTER PART 2 “STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.”, “O. MAX GARDNER”, “US TRUSTEE”

NY POST-

The stink is growing around the state’s largest foreclosure mill.

The Steven J. Baum law firm, which last month agreed to pay a $2 million fine to settle a federal probe into bogus foreclosure case filings, has now been barred by federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from getting any more referrals of home loan defaults owned by either company.

In addition, the 70-lawyer firm is linked to the first criminal case brought against alleged robo-signers.

The criminal case was brought by the Nevada attorney general against two title officers — Gary Trafford and Gerri Sheppard — charged with forging signatures on 606 foreclosure-related mortgage documents.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Missing links in the chain of ownership lead to some foreclosure postings being challenged in Texas

Missing links in the chain of ownership lead to some foreclosure postings being challenged in Texas


MERS, LPS, MERS, LPS everywhere is MERS or LPS…

This involves Tywanna Thomas, who we all know worked for Lender Processing Services’ DocX. We learned a lot from the deposition of Cheryl Denise Thomas aka Tywanna’s Mother who also worked with her.

My San Antonio-

Ezequiel Martinez, a San Antonio real estate investor who helps homeowners avoid foreclosure, recently found himself in the same predicament as his clients.

Rather than simply fight to stop the foreclosure on his Live Oak investment home, Martinez filed suit against his lender, saying the mortgage should be voided because of phony loan documents and because he doesn’t think the bank can prove it owns the mortgage note.

If Martinez wins the case, he just might be done making mortgage payments on the house at 7502 Forest Fern.

“We’re not trying to get a free house,” he explained. “We’re trying to save the house from foreclosure fraud.”

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

After 16 years with “Foreclosure King” employee laid off via e-mail, no vacation pay

After 16 years with “Foreclosure King” employee laid off via e-mail, no vacation pay


REWIND: Why is she complaining, after all didn’t she get her expenses paid and get a new BMW SUV fully paid by Law Offices of David J. Stern?

Excerpt from Depo of Kelly Scott-

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.

[PALM BEACH POST]

[ipaper docId=66821723 access_key=key-1qrsxlrf5s5wmy5xsloy height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

New York Attorney General Deposed 53 in Bank of America Case Over Merrill

New York Attorney General Deposed 53 in Bank of America Case Over Merrill


Bloomberg-

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office has taken testimony from 53 witnesses in its investigation into Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s 2008 acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., a federal judge said.

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said in an order today that “there have been 53 examinations under oath by the NYAG” in its investigation. The witnesses weren’t identified in the order, which involved evidence gathering in the case.

[BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

“Robo-Affidavit” Class Action Settles for $5.2 Million | MIDLAND FUNDING v. BRENT

“Robo-Affidavit” Class Action Settles for $5.2 Million | MIDLAND FUNDING v. BRENT


From the Memorandum Order from Ohio District Court…

MIDLAND v. BRENT [pdf]

According to that relationship, JBR requested an affidavit to support the Brent debt using the Midland “You’ve Got Claims” computer system, which is a system that allows attorneys like JBR to log on and request certain supporting documentation be generated.

Whether through the “You’ve Got Claims” system or otherwise, Midland receives and fulfills about 200 to 400 requests for affidavits per day. Ivan Jimenez, one of Midland’s ten “specialists” in the department that supports law firms, personally signs between 200 and 400 of such affidavits per day. (Ivan Jimenez Dep., Doc. 35, Ex. E at 15). He finds the stack on a printer, signs them, and sends them by internal mail to the notary. (Id. at 16-17 (“Q: Where do your affidavits come from? A: As far as what I deal with, they just come from the printer as far as where we get them”)). Mr. Jimenez has the ability to check the accuracy of the information on the affidavit via the computer system and he does, but the percentage of those that are checked for accuracy is “very few and far between.” (Id. at 24).

Then, after receipt of the signed affidavit from Midland, JBR attached it to the complaint filed in Sandusky, Ohio Municipal Court. When the affidavit is compared to the deposition of the affiant, Ivan Jimenez, it is apparent that the affidavit itself contains many falsehoods.

In paragraph 1, the affidavit reads “.I make the statements herein based upon my personal knowledge.” It is apparent from the Jimenez deposition that Mr. Jimenez actually had no personal knowledge of Ms. Brent or her account. For instance, while Mr. Jimenez is assigned to support and work with ten law firms, JBR is not one of them, leading to the logical conclusion that he would not have personal knowledge of any matter they were handling. (Jimenez Dep., Doc. 35, Ex. E at 7-8; Id. at 16). It appears to be an entirely random act that he signed this affidavit: he was the signer based entirely on when it came off the printer rather than based on his personal knowledge of Ms. Brent or her account. (Id. at 16-17). Mr. Jimenez never had any contact with Ms. Brent at all, leading to a logical conclusion that he could not have had the “personal knowledge” claimed in paragraph 1. See Id. at 25-26 (“Q: Did you ever have any contact with Ms. Brent, any business contacts at all? A: I did not personally.”).

In paragraph two of the affidavit, the affiant states:. I have personal knowledge of all relevant financial information concerning Midland Credit Management Inc.’s account number 8524186453, which includes the following information: that the defendant did fail to make payments on the account and that demand has been made for defendant to make payment of the balance owing on the account described above more than thirty (30) days prior to making this affidavit; that the attorneys representing the plaintiff Midland Funding LLC were retained on Midland Funding LLC (sic) behalf by me or persons reporting to me for the purpose of collecting the delinquent debt owed on the defendant’s account number set out above; and that there was due and owing to Midland Funding LLC the sum of $4,516.57. (Jimenez Aff. ¶ 2). As is evident in the discussion supra regarding paragraph one of the affidavit, Mr. Jimenez has no personal knowledge about the Brent account. He was not familiar with this account, did not know the last time a payment was made and did not know the outstanding balance. The paragraph also represents that the law firm, JBR, was hired by Mr. Jimenez or one of his employees. However, the following exchange during the deposition makes clear this is not true:

Q: So were you aware when you signed this affidavit that it was going to be used as part of a collection action in a lawsuit?

A: I was not.

Q: Are you aware of any other reasons that affidavits are completed, except for the collection actions that are filed in the courts?

A: I wouldn’t know what the firm uses the affidavits for.

Q: So you simply sign them?

A: Yes.

Q: You work for Midland Credit Management; correct?

A: Yes.

Q This affidavit lists at the top as a plaintiff, Midland Funding, LLC. What’s the relationship between Midland Credit Management and Midland Funding LLC?

A: I wouldn’t be the best person to ask that question. I don’t know.

Q: Okay. If you look at paragraph 2, four lines from the bottom of paragraph 2, you’re attesting to the fact, “that the attorneys representing Plaintiff Midland Funding LLC were retained on Midland Funding LLC behalf by me or persons reporting to me for the purpose of collecting the delinquent debt.” Is that what it says? Did I read that correctly?

A: Yes

Q: When did you retain the attorneys representing Midland Funding LLC?

A: I don’t know when the people in my department retained the attorneys.

Q: Did you personally retain the attorneys?

A: I did not.

Q: Which persons in your department did retain the attorneys?

A: I wouldn’t know specifically.

Q: Are these — how many people do you have reporting to you?

A: I have zero.

Q: Do you know the names of any persons in your department or any persons in Midland Credit who actually do have the responsibility of retaining attorneys?

A: I don’t know who in my department would do that.

Q: Would there be someone from another department that would do that?

A: I wouldn’t know. (Jimenez Dep. at 19-21).

Thus, there are two patently false claims within paragraph two: first that Mr. Jimenez had any personal knowledge regarding Ms. Brent’s debt, and second, that Mr. Jimenez was involved with the decision or act of hiring JBR to pursue legal action.

Paragraph three describes how Midland acquired the debt from Citibank, and if it is read alone, it only states a fact that is very likely true. However, when read in conjunction with paragraph one (“I make the statements herein based upon my personal knowledge”), it is apparently false. The issue of the affiant’s knowledge was raised in the deposition:

Q: Well, it says in this affidavit that, in number 3, “That Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest sold and assigned all right, title, and interest in this account to the plaintiff.” So if it was sold to the plaintiff, my assumption is it was purchased by the plaintiff. And the question I have is, did you have any role or were you involved in any way, shape, or form in the purchase of this account?

A: I was not.

Q: Do you know anything about the terms of the purchase of this account?

A: I do not. (Jimenez Dep. at 21-22). Thus, the statement in paragraph three, however true or not, cannot be based on personal knowledge.

Paragraph five is also of concern. It asserts that Ms. Brent is neither a minor nor mentally incapacitated, which are facts that are probably true. However, the affiant bases those conclusions “upon business dealings with the defendant(s),” which is clearly not possible since he had no contact with Ms. Brent. See supra.

If this is not enough, the affidavit is improperly sworn, as evidenced by the deposition:

Q: You mentioned earlier, when I asked you about that, you signed these affidavits and had them notarized. Was the notary present in the room when you were signing all the affidavits, or do you sign them and give them to the notary?

A: I sign them and give them to the notary. (Jimenez Dep. at 15). Minnesota Revised Code requires that “an oath… shall be administered… [t]o affiants[.]” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 358.07 (West 2004).

In finding assertions in the affidavit to be false and misleading, this Court is not concluding that all the information in the affidavit is incorrect. Brent has provided no evidence that the amount of the debt, the fact that it is unpaid, or other vital account information, is false. As discussed infra, the actual account information is probably either correct or likely thought correct in good faith by Midland and MCM (and likely a bona fide error if so).

However, this Court finds that the affidavit as a whole is both false and misleading for the aforementioned reasons and notwithstanding the fact that some of the data in it are correct. It is unclear to this Court why such a patently false affidavit would be the standard form used at a business that specialized in the legal ramifications of debt collection. Midland, MCM, or JBR could easily prepare a form affidavit that achieved the same goals without being misleading by reflecting the truth, plain and simple. Rather than basing the affidavit on false personal knowledge, they could base it on the accuracy of the records kept and the accuracy of the data.

3. Materiality

In a recent opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that “[a] statement cannot mislead unless it is material, so a false but non-material statement is not actionable.” Miller v. Javitch, Block and Rathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 596 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hahn v. Triumph P’ships LLC, 557 F.3d 755, 758 (7th Cir. 2009)). Both Miller and Hahn allow for a statement to be “false in some technical sense” but still not in violation of the FDCPA. Miller, 561 F.3d at 596 (quoting Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 556 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir.2009)); Hahn, 557 F.3d at 758.

Generally, material facts are ones which, if known, might influence a person’s decision on a matter. See generally Black’s Law Dictionary 998 (8th ed. 2004) (defining material as “[h]aving some logical connection with the consequential facts [or] [o]f such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person’s decision-making; significant; essential[.]”). Thus, the Court evaluates statements for materiality by considering whether they make the proposed assertion more or less likely.

In general, a complaint and attached affidavit act as both a message to the court and a message to the debtor.*fn2 While the creditor seeks different action from either audience (payment from the debtor as opposed to judgment from the court), the general assertions are the same: that the debt is valid, that there is a total amount, that it is delinquent, that it is subject to interest, and that it is now due and owing. Therefore, a statement or claim based on an affidavit would be material if it makes one of those listed assertions more or less likely than if that fact were not considered.

It is unsurprising when a consumer/debtor contacted by a collection agency about a seven-year-old debt would question whether it was a valid obligation. Ms. Brent instantly questioned the validity of the debt. Both the complaint and Jimenez affidavit refer to the debt being owed to “CITIBANK USA,” and in her answer, Brent “denies that she originally owed any claim to CITIBANK USA at any time.” (Doc. 2 at ¶ 1; See also Brent Dep., Doc. 35, Ex. F at 26 (wherein Ms. Brent asserts “[t]o my knowledge, I’ve never had a CitiBank USA.”)). Thus, Ms. Brent clearly questions the validity of the debt. To further add confusion to this particular case, investigation reveals that the debt was originally owed to “Associates,” and was acquired by Citibank before it was acquired by Midland years later. Since neither the complaint nor affidavit mention “Associates” in any form, it would be extremely plausible for Ms. Brent to doubt the validity of this debt.

The claims within the Jimenez affidavit that this Court finds to be false are materially related to supporting the proposition of whether the debt is valid. The affidavit states that the affiant personally knows that this debt is valid, that he personally has “business dealings with the defendant(s),” and specifically that he has personal knowledge of this particular account. These statements are material to the issue of whether the debt is valid at all, and if relied on, help to make the proposition that it is more likely valid than it was without the statements.

Considering public policy, it is also worth noting many debt collection cases of these types place courts in the position of evaluating the validity of the plaintiff’s claim without any response from the defendant. Thus, in general terms, courts rely on the assertions in an affidavit to determine, among other things, whether the debt is valid and judgment, usually default judgment, should be granted.

This case, then, is distinguishable from those with immaterial falsehoods. In Miller, the Sixth Circuit determined that the difference between suing “for money loaned” rather than specifying that it was for an unpaid credit card debt did not amount to a violation of the FDCPA. Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561 F. 3d 588 (6th Cir. 2009). Miller admitted “that she ‘pretty much’ understood [the complaint]” when she received it as being an attempt to collect on a credit card that she stopped paying. Id. at 591. She was aware of the credit card and recalled that she stopped paying on it. Id. at 590.

By contrast, in the case at the bar, Brent claims that she was not aware of any obligation owed to Citibank. Upon receiving the Midland complaint and attached Jimenez affidavit, she had to evaluate whether the debt being sued on was a valid one. The contents of the affidavit itself, and in particular the fact that the affiant allegedly had personal knowledge that the debt was valid, would effectively serve to validate the debt to the reader, whether that was Brent or a court.

Therefore, the affidavit was false, deceptive, and misleading in its use in conjunction with an attempt to collect a debt, and Midland and MCM have violated FDCPA § 1692e.

Below is the Settlement Agreement set in place

[ipaper docId=62460947 access_key=key-25d1nrlzklhzplacelcb height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

Florida Supreme Court foreclosure case PINO v. BONY settled

Florida Supreme Court foreclosure case PINO v. BONY settled


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 Miami Herald-

Both sides have agreed to settle a high-profile foreclosure fraud case pending before the Florida Supreme Court.

Details of the settlement were not disclosed in a brief stipulation filed Thursday with the high court.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach had certified the case as a matter of “great public importance.”

The appeal court ruled Roman Pino couldn’t try to prove the Bank of New York Mellon defrauded him when it foreclosed on his Greenacres home.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

How the Mortgage Industry Bullies Lawyers Who Sue Them (With the Help of PR Outlet Housing Wire)

How the Mortgage Industry Bullies Lawyers Who Sue Them (With the Help of PR Outlet Housing Wire)


NakedCapitalism-

One of the striking things, as the mortgage crisis has ground on, is how persistent and to some degree effective the industry incumbents have been in influencing news stories. One can argue they’ve been more successful than the TBTF banks, perhaps because if you can tank the global economy, keep your job, and still continue to pay yourself egregious bonuses, you don’t need to stoop to throttling every bit of negative coverage. The fact that near-urban legends like strategic defaults are trumpeted in the media as if they are a meaningful phenomenon, or that defenses of securitization practices by firms like K&L Gates, which have liability on their legal opinions, dominated the coverage on that issue for quite some time until more and more court decisions showed their analysis to be sorely wanting, illustrates how much spin there is in what purports to be news.

Continue reading [NAKEDCAPITALISM]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Prof. Levitin | About Those Notes…Evidence of Securitization Fail

Prof. Levitin | About Those Notes…Evidence of Securitization Fail


You’re either pregnant or you ain’t. Can’t be both!

Credit Slips-

Since last October, shortly after the robosigning scandal broke, I’ve been talking until I turned blue in the face about robosigning being the tip of the iceberg with mortgage problems and that the real issue was chain of title. Robosigning appeared to be an almost unexpected deposition by-product; the real goal in the depositions that uncovered the robosigning was exposing the backdating of mortgage endorsement. And that they did–the notaries’ whose seals were on the documents didn’t have their commissions when the assignments supposedly took place.

But why would anyone bother backdating mortgage assignments? …


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

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