SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff
against
FRED J. CARLO, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DEBMOR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF DEBMOR ESTATES CONDOMINIUM III, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, and MRS. CARLO
Excerpt: Conclusion
It is the finding of this court that the New York Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate mortgage foreclosure matters. That is not the issue. Here, the plaintiff failed to have ownership of the mortgage and note at the time it filed and served its summons and complaint with the Richmond County Clerk. Therefore, the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action at the time.
Here, the default judgment of foreclosure and sale was taken while the defendant was unrepresented by counsel. Consequently, he had no legal understanding of making an earlier technical motion to challenge the standing of the plaintiff. Since the notice of the sale is defective, the sale must set aside. Moreover due to the failure of the plaintiff to have ownership of the note and mortgage at the time it commenced this action, it lacked the capacity and standing to bring this action and to file a notice of pendency. Therefore, this action must be dismissed, without prejudice.
This will never end and the fraud will go on forever with no end in sight.
REUTERS-
Bond insurer Assured Guaranty Ltd filed new claims against JPMorgan Chase & Co over a mortgage-backed security sold by Bear Stearns, saying more than 35 witnesses have come forward to testify about how loans in the $337 million transaction were misrepresented.
The lawsuit contends Bear Stearns and its EMC mortgage arm, acquired by JPMorgan after their collapse in 2008, knew the pool of more than 6,000 home-equity lines of credit that served as collateral for the investment was filled with defective loans.
EFFINGHAM — A major Wall Street bank is apologizing to a Maine couple who allege that the bank wrongfully claimed ownership of their second home on Green Mountain Road in Effingham. But the apology rings hollow for the Drew family.
Apparently, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. confused a little red house, owned by Travis and Paula Drew, at 529 Green Mountain Road, for a no-longer-existent mobile home at 519 Green Mountain Road.
The structures were owned by different people even though they once shared the same lot. The confusion led the bank’s agents to change the locks on the Drews’ home and remove $14,000 worth of belongings from the property.
The Drews don’t live in the Effingham house. They live in Stow, Maine.
Now that’s what you call a HIGH PERCENTAGE of “clear defects”!
REUTERS-
JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) was sued by Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), which seeks to force it to buy back more than 800 soured mortgage loans that it oversees as trustee.
In a complaint made public on Wednesday in the Delaware Chancery Court, Wells Fargo accused JPMorgan’s EMC Mortgage LLC unit of refusing its demands that EMC buy back the loans, which were contained in Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR2.
JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns and its EMC unit in 2008.
On March 30, an Alabama judge issued a short, conclusory order that stopped foreclosure on the home of a beleaguered family, and also prevents the same bank in the case from trying to foreclose against that couple, ever again. This may not seem like big news — but upon review of the underlying documents, the extraordinarily important nature of the decision and the case becomes obvious.
* Syncora can pursue claims based on entire loan pool
* Insurer need not show breaches of individual loans
NEW YORK, March 28 (Reuters) – JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) could be forced to repurchase thousands of home equity loans, after a judge ruled in favor of a bond insurer that argued it could build its case based on a sampling of loans.
The ruling against EMC Mortgage Corp, once a unit of Bear Stearns Cos, comes amid many lawsuits seeking to force banks to buy back tens of billions of dollars of mortgage and other home loans that went sour. JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns in 2008.
You may read the court Order below:
SYNCORA GUARANTEE INC., f/k/a XL Capital Assurance Inc.,
v. EMC MORTGAGE CORP.,
No. 09 Civ. 3106 (PAC).
USDC, S.D. New York.
March 25, 2011.
OPINION & ORDER
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge.
This breach of contract lawsuit arises out of a securitization transaction (“Transaction”), involving 9,871 Home Equity Line of Credit (“HELOC”) residential mortgage loans, which were purchased and used as collateral for the issuance of $666 million in publicly offered securities (“Notes”). (Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Am. 3). Defendant EMC Mortgage Corp. (“EMC”) aggregated the HELOCs, sold the loan pool to the entity that issued the Notes, and contracted with Plaintiff Syncora Guarantee Inc., formerly known as XL Capital Assurance Inc., (“Syncora”) to provide a financial-guaranty insurance policy protecting the investors in the Note. (Id.) Syncora claims that EMC breached its representations regarding 85% of the loan pool. It now moves for partial summary judgment or, alternatively, a ruling in limine, that it was not required to comply with a repurchase protocol as the exclusive remedy for all such claims. The Court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment on the grounds that, in light of the broad rights and remedies for which Syncora contracted, any such remedial limitation would have to be expressly stated.
1. In mid-2006, Bear Stearns induced investors to purchase, and Ambac as a financial guarantor to insure, securities that were backed by a pool of mortgage loans that – in the words of the Bear Stearns deal manager – was a “SACK OF SHIT.”1 Within the walls of its sparkling new office tower, Bear Stearns executives knew this derogatory and distasteful characterization aptly described the transaction. Indeed, Bear Stearns had deliberately and secretly altered its policies and neglected its controls to increase the volume of mortgage loans available for its “securitizations” made in patent disregard for the borrowers’ ability to repay those loans. After the market collapse exposed its scheme to sell defective loans to investors through these transactions, JP Morgan executives assumed control over Bear Stearns and implemented an across-the-board strategy to improperly bar EMC from honoring its contractual promises to disclose and repurchase defective loans through a series of deceptive practices. In what amounts to accounting fraud, JP Morgan’s bad-faith strategy was designed to avoid and has avoided recognition of the vast off-balance sheet exposure relating to its contractual repurchase obligations – thereby enabling JPMorgan Chase & Co. to manipulate its accounting reserves and allowing its senior executives to continue to reap tens of millions of dollars in compensation
following the taxpayer-financed acquisition of Bear Stearns.
In order to commence a foreclosure action, plaintiff must have a legal and equitable interest in the subject mortgage (Wells Fargo Bank v Machine 69 AD3rd 204). Here, the subject mortgage was not assigned until October 2, 2007, which was after the action was commenced on October 1, 2007. A retroactive assignment to September 25, 2007 cannot be used to confer standing upon the foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment. (Countrywide Home Loans v Giess 68 AD3rd 709).
<SNIP>
The plaintiff, not being the holder of the assignment at the time the action was commenced, it did not have standing to commence this action. Accordingly, the Court vacates the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, which the County Clerks minutes indicate was executed on April 9, 2009 and dismisses the complaint.
PACHECO v. EMC Mortgage Corp & The Bear Stearns Companies LLC [Read Complaint Below]
SEATTLE, January 10, 2011 (GlobeNewswire) – Attorney Advertising. Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (www.krclassaction.com) announces that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of all mortgagors in the State of Washington whose home mortgage loans are serviced by EMC Mortgage Corporation and who (a) have attempted to obtain modifications of their loan terms from EMC; and (b) have made payments pursuant to a “Repayment Agreement,” a Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) trial modification plan, or any other temporary modification plan.
The complaint alleges, among other things that the Defendants: engaged in bad faith as to home mortgage loan modification negotiations; led mortgagors to reasonably believe and rely on Defendants’ representations that they would permanently modify their mortgage loans upon successful completion of “Repayment Agreements” or other trial programs; charged unreasonable, unlawful, or excessive fees; failed to properly disclose and/or concealed fees and other charges; failed to provide to mortgagors a proper or comprehensible accounting of fees, payments, credits, arrearages, and amounts owed; improperly or under-applied mortgage payments to accounts; and breached “Repayment Agreements” or other trial modification program contracts or promises. The complaint has been filed pursuant to the Washington Consumer Protection Act and contains additional claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
Keller Rohrback is also investigating the following mortgage loan servicers regarding mortgage loan modifications in Washington and elsewhere:
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Citimortgage, Inc.
GMAC Mortgage, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
Litton Loan Servicing LP
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
OneWest Bank
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
If your home mortgage loan is serviced by EMC Mortgage Corporation or any of the above-listed servicers and you have questions regarding these matters, please contact paralegal Nick Wallace or attorneys Gretchen Obrist or Lynn Sarko at 800.776.6044 or via email at info@kellerrohrback.com.
For additional information regarding the litigation, please click here.
Keller Rohrback, with offices in Seattle, Phoenix, Santa Barbara and New York, is committed to helping individuals protect their investments. Keller Rohrback has successfully provided class action representation for over a decade. Its litigators have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven billion dollars.
Attorney Advertising. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome.
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AND
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., (“MERS”) AS NOMINEE FOR:
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA,
Patricia M. Esdinsky, Esq., as an individual,
Janan Weeks, as an individual,
Excerpt:
WHY an Order should not be made and entered herein:
1. Granting Plaintiff Stay, restraining order and vacatur of foreclosure action due to
the lack of standing associated with Assignments of FRAUD. The Defendants did not have
assignment rights to foreclose on the property. The Defendants received foreclosure sale
subject to presentment of Assignments, but failed to address the fact that the Assignments must
precede the filing of the Complaint of the subject property. The Referee sale would not have
taken place if Plaintiffs had discovered this FRAUD earlier.
<SNIP>
ORDERED, that until such time as this matter is heard that defendants, their agents or attorneys’ actions are restrained from moving forward from pursuing further foreclosure proceedings under Index No. 93 19/03
PRESENT:
Honorable Karen V. Murphy
Justice of the Supreme Court
JP. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp.,
v.
Richard Simmons, Eleanor Simmons, Bank of
America, NA, First Chicago, et aI.,
Excerpts:
The Notice of Pendency fied May 27 2009 stated that Plaintiff “is also in possession
of the original note with a proper endorsement and/or allonge and is therefore the holder of
both the note and mortgage” and the complaint contained a similar allegation however Margaret Dalton, a self proclaimed “Officer” of EMC Mortgage Corporation, a non-par,
submitted an ‘ affidavit of lost note’ sworn to on Januar 27, 2010. It is not clear whether the
alleged servicer, EMC has authority to act on Plaintiff’s behalf in this matter , as no power
of attorney was submitted to the Court. The basis for Ms. Dalton s purported knowledge of
the circumstances surrounding the assignment in question are not clearly stated in her
affidavit, which by its terms, is contradictory. Bald assertions of possession of the original
note, without more, in light of the conflicting evidence, is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case.
Furthermore, the assignment recorded on May 20, 2009 specifically states that it is
an “assignment of mortgage ” and makes no reference to the note. Thus, a question of fact
exists as to whether the note was ever assigned or delivered to Plaintiff. It may well be that
the note was neither assigned nor delivered to Plaintiff prior to commencement of this action
and Plaintiff would then be without authority to bring this action.
P R E S E N T :
Hon. RALPH. T. GAZZILLO
Justice of the Supreme Court
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.
c/ 0 Wells Fargo Bank, NA
3470 Stateview Boulevard
Ft, Mill, SC 2971 5
v.
THOMAS STANDFORD, UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA ACTING THROUGH THE IRS
EXCERPT:
Based up0n the submissions herein, it appears that plaintiff “MERS” had no standing to
commence the present action as it was not the owner of the mortgage and note when the action was
commenced. As of January 28,2005, “MERS” had already relinquished its interest in the note and
mortgage and at no subsequent lime did it regain an interest in the subject mortgage and note. In
addition, the affidavit of merit that is attached in support of the moving papers as Exhibit C, was
executed b) “Certifying Officer” Carolyn Brown of “MERS” on February 13,2009. “MERS” had no
demonstrable interest or standing in this matter on Feb.l3,2009 and, accordingly, the affidavit of its
of officer has no probative value.
I could not get excerpts out of it because it’s ALL perfection!
CASE NAME: EMC Mortgage Corporation vs. Karen A. Krondes, et al
STATE: Florida
DATE: October 19, 2010
RE: Defenandants Motion For Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Transfering, Selling Alleged Note and Mortgage
This motion pertains to the pending Florida foreclosure matter ofEMC Mortgage Corporationvs. Karen A. Krondes, et al – (Case No: 56-2008-CA-000066), in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court InSt. Lucie County, Florida.
Recent Comments