FULL TESTIMONY
OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE DEWINE
“An Analysis of the Post-Conservatorship Legal Expenses of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 15, 2011

[ipaper docId=48911604 access_key=key-2ey08958a8h0n2fnbcp9 height=600 width=600 /]

Testimony of Michael J. Williams
President and Chief Executive Officer
Fannie Mae
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
“Analysis of the Post-Conservatorship Legal Expenses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”
February 15, 2011

[ipaper docId=48911272 access_key=key-dda5nrua1pf2ddcuxk8 height=600 width=600 /]

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

Statement of
Edward J. DeMarco
Acting Director
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Before the
Committee on Financial Services
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
U.S. House of Representatives
“An Analysis Post-Conservatorship Legal Expenses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”
February 15, 2011

[ipaper docId=48905756 access_key=key-fjapa4duj49vr0270fz height=600 width=600 /]

By ABIGAIL FIELD Posted 4:30 PM 02/07/11

An awful lot of attorneys are in deep trouble, two companies will be destroyed, two more will be deeply damaged and a venture capital firm faces big losses, if the allegations in a lawsuit updated Monday are true.

Jonathan and Darlene Thorne accuse the companies, LPS Default Solutions and Prommis Solutions, and their attorneys of having an illegal and fraudulent business model through which non-attorneys secretly practice law and illegally share legal fees. Because many of these fees are for bankruptcy work and are ultimately paid by the debtor, the suit explains, the business model isn’t just illegal — it’s also a fraud on the bankruptcy court system in violation of the the bankruptcy code, rules and processes.

Although many of the basic allegations have been known since last October, when the original suit was filed, the new complaint contains far more detail about some of the companies involved, particularly Prommis Solutions and its venture capital funder, Great Hill Partners. The suit also adds detail about the time pressure LPS Default Solutions puts on its network attorneys, and how that pressure allegedly feeds document fraud in foreclosure filings, whether in state or bankruptcy court. Given LPS’s dominant market position, those pressures have widespread consequences.

LPS and Great Hill Partners have not returned requests for comment about this case. Prommis Solutions general counsel Richard Volentine says: “Our position is pretty much the same as it’s always been. We think the claims are without merit and will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.”

And exactly where are the cost savings when it’s probably costing them a ton more defending MERS??

By: David Dayen Thursday January 20, 2011 7:15 am

Laurence Platt, a partner at the firm K&L Gates, which defended Wells Fargo and US Bank in the Ibanez case, basically threatened the American homeowner with sky-high interest rates if the banks aren’t allowed to run their own private land recording system.

If local governments succeed in the fight against how banks have recorded the transfer of mortgage notes through the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, home loans could become as expensive as credit cards, K&L Gates Partner Laurence Platt said Wednesday […]

Platt admitted there were issues with the system, but he warned that scoring short-term political points could be the end of affordable housing.

“They are making secured credit unenforceable,” Platt said. “If you think you’re going to get 4% mortgages on unsecured loans, you’re wrong. You’re going to get credit card rates. MERS was designed to make it easy to transfer assignments in modern economics.”

This occurred on a panel at a meeting of the Mortgage Bankers Association, where Platt appeared with Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitin, who has been critical of MERS. I corresponded with Levitin, and this was an accurate rendering of Platt’s remarks.

“My response was that’s nonsense,” Levitin wrote in an email. “No one, absolutely no one, is arguing that a valid security agreement should not be enforced. Instead, the issue is whether we should enforce invalid security interests or let parties that do not hold a security interest enforce someone else’s. I hardly think that denying parties that right will result in a change in the cost of credit. It might result in them changing law firms, however, to ones that didn’t screw up their securitization deals.”

Excerpts:

Q Can you tell me why these documents haven’t been produced prior to today?
April 18th, 1996, letter from Law Offices of Mr.
Stern to Vanessa Chernick, assistant general counsel
Fannie Mae, you didn’t maintain a copy of this document
in your Fannie Mae file and therefore, you didn’t
locate it when we asked you to produce these
documents?

MR. GEYER: Object to the form

A Repeat the question, please

(Thereupon, the portion was read by the reporter)

A At the time I was asked to produce the
documents, it was not in the file

By Mr. Guilday

Q Where did you find this document?
A In a Fannie Mae file
Q Whose Fannie Mae file?
A I’m not sure
Q Within the last few days, last few months,
when?
A I did not actually locate that letter. That
letter was located by one of my other staff members.
When, I don’t know. And to whom or by whom, I do not
know.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=45971754 access_key=key-2c85vvj1227k9wo0sese height=600 width=600 /]

By John Lux

Introduction

This article discusses some of the legal aspects of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or “MERS” with regard to its potential legal liabilities and how these liabilities may affect related public companies.

We maintain that the potential legal liabilities faced by these companies are very large and may seriously injure their stock prices. We believe that the affiliates of MERS may be held liable for MERS violations based on various legal theories, including conspiracy, and if the courts pierce the corporate veil of MERS.

A list of some of the companies that may be affected is found at the end of this analysis.

MERS

MERS is a private non-stock Delaware member corporation that operates an electronic registry to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgage loans in the United States. MERS acts as a so-called “straw man.” MERS clouds land records as the purported owner of mortgages transferred by lenders, investors and loan servicers. MERS maintains that it eliminates the need to file assignments in the county land records with the purpose of lowering costs for lenders. This naturally reduces county recording revenues from real estate transfers.

Legal Issues Faced by MERS

Not Qualified to do Business in Most States

MERS is not qualified to business in most of the states in which it operates. The problem here is that MERS has allowed itself to be the plaintiff in many hundreds of thousands of mortgage foreclosures in states where it is not qualified to do business and therefore has no standing to sue. Most, 95% or more of these cases, were uncontested and therefore resulted in the loss of the defendants home after a telephone hearing that lasted a few minutes.

Self-Appointment of Officers

By SHANNON BEHNKEN | The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 18, 2010 Updated: 07:41 am

DADE CITY – Pasco County Circuit Judge Susan Gardner decided to take a closer look at her foreclosure cases after law firms were accused recently of overbilling and forging documents.

She doesn’t like what she’s finding – a mountain of fees to serve notice of foreclosure lawsuits to homeowners and to people who don’t exist.

“Routinely, routinely, I’m seeing charges of $1,600, $1,800, $1,000, $800, any of those are ridiculous, and there had better be a good reason for it,” Gardner said, noting that these fees should typically be $45 to a couple hundred bucks.

The judge chose 12 random files and said she found 11 of them had what she says appear to be inflated charges to serve homeowners with lawsuits. Some of the lawyers who submitted affidavits to the court saying the fees are “reasonable” often sign their names and bar numbers in an illegible scribble, court records show.

“I used to think this was just sloppy work, but I truly have begun to wonder if it’s not concealment,” Gardner said.

The files in question involve two of the law firms that are currently under investigation by the Florida Attorney General’s Office for submitting fabricated or misleading documents in foreclosure cases.

Gardner plastered files with adhesive notes detailing her concerns and drew unhappy faces on beside fees. She issued orders this week requiring five lawyers from the firms to appear in court early next month and explain the fees and signatures. If they fail to show up, they could be arrested.

“I don’t want to throw anybody in jail, but I’m getting really angry, and I’m not going to tolerate it anymore,” Gardner said. “I want some answers. This stuff isn’t getting through on my watch.”

AMI has consistently supported federal remedial programs to offer eligible, distressed, homeowners relief from foreclosure through modifications through HAMP and 2MP. Additionally, we support principal forgiveness and total debt realignment. No first lien modification will be sustainable without properly addressing a borrower’s total mortgage debt. Regrettably, these programs have often proven unsuccessful due to the servicers, who invariably are the second lien holders, and who continue to inhibit sustainable modifications. Mortgage investors have no control over the modification process, and therefore share many of the frustrations that homeowners and state Attorneys General are experiencing when dealing with mortgage servicers.

“All too often, homeowners are being victimized by the servicers’ past and ongoing actions. The time is now for a permanent solution to America’s housing crisis,” continued Katopis.

[ipaper docId=43010181 access_key=key-s8nvqyfv3r1sacetcwf height=600 width=600 /]

Excellent Video.

Please visit links below for more info:

Max Gardner’s Boot Camp

Professor Katherine M. Porter

Kentucky Attorney Carole Friend

.

.

.

.

.

Christopher Lewis Peterson

University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Journal, Forthcoming

Abstract:

Hundreds of thousands of home foreclosure lawsuits have focused judicial scrutiny on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”). This Article updates and expands upon an earlier piece by exploring the implications of state Supreme Court decisions holding that MERS is not a mortgagee in security agreements that list it as such. In particular this Article looks at: (1) the consequences on land title records of recording mortgages in the name of a purported mortgagee that is not actually mortgagee as a matter of law; (2) whether a security agreement that fails to name an actual mortgagee can successfully convey a property interest; and (3) whether county governments may be entitled to reimbursement of recording fees avoided through the use of false statements associated with the MERS system. This Article concludes with a discussion of steps needed to rebuild trustworthy real property ownership records.

[ipaper docId=39287904 access_key=key-t9fm5292wmd8fg9fz88 height=600 width=600 /]

Scratch this record!!!!! Need help go to MERS!!

Last week Fannie Mae asked treasury for $1.5 billiion in assistance …now comes Freddie with loss and seeks aid.

You know this is outrageous! They applaud MERS and write recommendations of how they are excited with MERS but yet MERS does nothing but conceal information from the borrowers and has secret agreements with the possible beneficiaries of these loans. MERS takes tax dollars away from our schools, children, counties etc.

While we are on this subject of counties and states, why are they crying bankruptcy and major cut backs…how about ending the MERS sham and go after the fees that you cry about with them? Who does this benefit? Not us but the Mortgage Banking Industry and Wall Street so called Lending Institutions.

All these problems came about the same time MERS came to existence…now tell me something? Isn’t this a tad of a coincidence these issues became at the same time sub-prime loans hit peak?

By now we all have witness the Foreclosure Barons you have as designated counsel and what do you plan to do about it? No matter what dots there are, both Fannie and Freddie have a connection?

Why was all this NEVER a REAL PROBLEM in the past with assignments…lets say prior to 1998? Hmmm…

We are no fools.

Highlights:

Retirement of HomeSaver Advance
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 609: HomeSaver Advance

Technology Usage and Electronic Invoice Submission Charges to Attorneys and Trustees
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 501.03: Allowable Attorney Fees, and Part VIII, Section 104.04: Attorney (or Trustee) Fees

Prohibition Against Servicer-Specified Vendors for Fannie Mae Referrals
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 501.03: Allowable Attorney Fees, and Part VIII, Section 104.04: Attorney (or Trustee) Fees

Prohibition on Outsourcing Fees, Referral Fees, Packaging Fees, and Similar Fees
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 501.03: Allowable Attorney Fees, and Part VIII, Section 104.04: Attorney (or Trustee) Fees

Attorney or Trustee File Transfers
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 501: Selection of Bankruptcy Attorneys and Avoiding Delays in Case Processing, and Part VIII, Section 104: Referral to Foreclosure Attorney/Trustee

New Documentation Aging Requirements Established for Loss Mitigation Options
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 601.01: Requesting Preliminary Financial Information

Mandatory Nature of Retained Attorney Network
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 501.01: Fannie Mae-Retained Attorneys, and Part VIII, Section 104.01: Fannie Mae-Retained Attorneys

Deeds-in-Lieu of Foreclosure
Servicing Guide, Part VII, Section 606: Deeds-in-Lieu of Foreclosure

Clarification Regarding Foreclosure Actions in the Name of Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)

Monitoring Pooled from Portfolio (PFP) Mortgage Loans

Announcement 08-31, Fannie Mae 2009 Single-Family Master Trust Agreement, the Amended and Restated 2007 Single-Family Master Trust Agreement, and Certain Servicing Clarifications and Changes, Including Expanded Loss Mitigation Flexibility, and Announcement 07-03R, Reissuance of the Instructions for the Fannie Mae Single-Family MBS Master Trust Agreement

Servicer Responsibilities for Non-Escrow Mortgage Loans
Servicing Guide, Part III, Section 103: Escrow Deposit Accounts

Audit Confirmation Request Process Changes
Servicing Guide, Part X, Section 106: Audit Confirmations

[ipaper docId=35369764 access_key=key-hwlb9q7zv7ait78hgtk height=600 width=600 /]

From: b.daviesmd6605

COMPLAINT:

COMES the State of Tennessee ex rel. Barrett Bates, on behalf of real parties in interest, the counties of the State of Tennessee, above-named and hereby complains of Defendants as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Barrett Bates seeks recovery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-103, the False Claims Act, because Defendants made false representations in order to avoid payment in full of all recording fees reflecting the establishment and/or transfer of secured interests in real property in the State. After having recorded false, fraudulent, misleading and untruthful documents with the land records of the counties of this State, Defendants intentionally failed to cure/correct said false, misleading and untruthful documents and further failed to record subsequent assignments, deeds and other documents evidencing accurate changes in ownership interests in real property and, thereby, avoided, decreased and/or diminished their obligation to pay fees or monies to the counties of the State of Tennessee, the above-named real parties in interest.

PARTIES
1. Barrett Bates, relator, is a resident of the State of Nevada and an original source of information and authorized to bring this action pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-101, et seq., and as the qui tam Plaintiff because Bates has worked in the secondary mortgage market business and, during the course of his work in June 2009, became aware Defendants were concealing and avoiding the payment of recording fees or other monies to the above-named counties in this and other states and brings this action under Tenn. Code Ann. G 4-18-103 against Defendants for violations of these sections.

[ipaper docId=31137181 access_key=key-19q0ufo3vs69pn8pqxlf height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED:

.

MERS 101