Fis Desktop | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "fis desktop"

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)

SAMPLE: FIDELITY “NETWORK AGREEMENT” BETWEEN LAW FIRMS

SAMPLE: FIDELITY “NETWORK AGREEMENT” BETWEEN LAW FIRMS


Exhibit from the Harris Case SFF published in 3/2010:

Excerpts from complaint:

1. This case involves the undisclosed kickback/sharing of bankruptcy creditor attorney fees to a non-law firm corporate entity.

2. Mortgage servicers routinely appear in this Court seeking relief from the automatic stay or in opposition to proposed chapter 13 plans. The Mortgage servicers appear through counsel who announce their appearance on behalf of those mortgage servicers.

3. But, unbeknownst to this Court, those counsel often answer not to the mortgage
servicers on whose behalf they appear, rather these counsel answer to an undisclosed
middleman such as the Defendants.

4. Defendants provide what is known in the mortgage-servicing industry as default
servicing. Loans which are subject to default servicing include loans which may be
subject to foreclosure and loans which are in bankruptcy.

5. Some of the services which are provided by default servicers such as the Defendants
include: 1) executing documents on behalf of the original servicer; 2) ordering and
providing broker price opinions; 3) track and provide fees for payoffs and
refinancings, and; 4) provide centralized billing to vendors.

6. An additional function of default servicing is the identification and retention of legal
services which may be necessary for any particular mortgage in default, e.g. noticing
and posting a property for foreclosure or seeking relief from the automatic stay in a
bankruptcy proceeding.

7. In managing the performance of the legal services for their mortgage servicing
clients, Defendants require law firms to execute a “Network Agreement,” which
details the agreement for services between the Defendants and the particular law firm.

8. The claims covered in this Complaint relate to the illegal fixing of fees in the
bankruptcy context and the requirement that law firms that execute the “Network
Agreement” to kickback a contractual prearranged fixed portion of their attorney fees
to the Defendant.

[ipaper docId=44787181 access_key=key-1dhqqv0jeski96cvyvsf height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NBKDC] JUDGE LINDA B. RIEGLE: MITCHELL v. MERS 2009 (4)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NBKDC] JUDGE LINDA B. RIEGLE: MITCHELL v. MERS 2009 (4)


UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

In re JOSHUA & STEPHANIE MITCHELL)

Case No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR ) Chapter 7 )
Debtor(s).)

Excerpt:

In Hawkins the motion was brought by MERS “solely as nominee for Fremont Investment
& Loan, its successors and/or assigns.
” However, in his affidavit at ¶ 6, Victor Parisi states 45 46
that the beneficial ownership interest in the Hawkins note was sold by Fremont Investment &
Loan and ownership was transferred by endorsement and delivery. While the affidavit goes on to
the say that MERS was a holder at the time the motion was filed, it is obvious that MERS has no
rights to bring the motion as nominee of Fremont given that Fremont no longer had any interest
in the note.

[ipaper docId=40410866 access_key=key-22eoddwqf0r1xwydpksl height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NYSC] JUDGE JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER: JPMORGAN v. MUNOZ 2009 (3)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NYSC] JUDGE JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER: JPMORGAN v. MUNOZ 2009 (3)


SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 21 – SUFFOLK COUNTY

JPMORGAN CHASE as Trustee of Equity One

against

ALBA MUNOZ

EXCERPTS:

the affidavit of its Vice President, Victor Parisi, who alleges that Premium, its
signor. paid valuable consideration for the mortgage. Mr. Parisi points to a copy of the HUD
Settlement Statement from the Premium closing, which indicates that
out of the $315,000.00 loan
proceeds~ $222.S62.63 was paid to Washington Mutual to satisfy a prior mortgage, $237.00 was paid to
satisfy an obligation to CBUSASears, and $71,228.07 was disbursed to Munoz. Additionally, Mr. Parisi
asserts that Premium did not know or have reason to know about O’Connor’s claim. He argues that at
the time of the mortgage, O’Connor’s judgment had not yet been docketed and there was nothing in the
property records that disclosed Zambrano’s liability to O’Connor. Thus, alleges Mr. Parisi, having
paid valuable consideration and having taken without knowledge or notice of O’Connor’s claims,
Premium and Chase are bona fide mortgagees ofthe premises and are entitled to protection under Real
Property Law 266 and Debtor and Creditor Law $278(1).
In addition, Mr. Parisi alleges that even if
O’Connor was able to show that Premium was on notice of Zambrano’s liability or alleged fraudulent
conveyance. pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law $278(2), Chase would be entitled to retain and enforce

<SNIP>

Chase has failed to make such a prima facie showing. The affidavit of Victor Parisi is not in
admissible form because it was signed and notarized in the State of New Jersey, and is not accompanied by the required certificate of conformity with the laws of the State of New Jersey.
For an out-of-state affidavit to be admissible, it must comply with CPLR 2309 [c] which requires that an out-of-state
affidavit accompanied by a certificate of Conformity (see Real Property Law $ 299-a [l]; PRA ZU,
b , L ( ’ 1 4 CoitialeZ. 54 AD3d 917, 864 NYS2d 140 [2008]). In the absence ofa certificate of conformity,
the affidavit, is, effect, unsworn (see Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC v Simpson, 17 MiscSd
’ ISA. 851 YYS2d 75 [ 20071). Consequently, Mr. Parisi’s affidavit cannot be considered by the Court.

[ipaper docId=40409315 access_key=key-1zj1occa7x6s18kbp2mt height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NYSC] JUDGE ARTHUR SCHACK: HSBC Bank USA v. Perboo 2008 (2)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NYSC] JUDGE ARTHUR SCHACK: HSBC Bank USA v. Perboo 2008 (2)


New York Supreme Court, Kings County

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR PEOPLE’S CHOICE HOME LOAN SECURITIES TRUST SERIES 2006-1, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARCIE PERBOO ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

Excerpt:

Plaintiff’s moving papers for an order of reference fails to present an “affidavit made by the party,” pursuant to CPLR § 3215 (f). The application contains an “affidavit of merit and amount due,” by Victor F. Parisi, who states that he is “the Vice-President of, EQUITY ONE, INC. [EQUITY ONE] AS AUTHORIZED SERVICER FOR HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR PEOPLE’S CHOICE HOME LOAN SECURITIES TRUST SERIES 2006-1, Plaintiff.” For reasons unknown to the Court, plaintiff HSBC has failed to provide any power of attorney authorizing EQUITY ONE to proceed on HSBC’s behalf with the instant foreclosure action. Therefore, the proposed order of reference must be denied without prejudice. Leave is granted to plaintiff HSBC to comply with CPLR § 3215 (f) by providing an “affidavit made by the party,” whether by an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC.

Further, plaintiff must address a second matter if it renews its application for an order of reference upon compliance with CPLR § 3215 (f). In the instant action, as noted above, Victor F. Parisi, in his affidavit, dated December 14, 2007, states he is Vice President of EQUITY ONE. Yet, the September 28, 2007 assignment from MERS as nominee for PEOPLE’S CHOICE to HSBC is signed by the same Victor F. Parisi, as Vice President of MERS. In my November 20, 2007 decision and order in HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-FM2 v SANDOVAL, Index Number 8758/07, the same Victor F. Parisi assigned the underlying mortgage and note as Vice President of MERS to HSBC on March 13, 2007, and then signed the affidavit of merit as Vice President of EQUITY ONE, authorized servicer for HSBC, the next day, March 14, 2007. Did Mr. Parisi change his employment from March 13, 2007 to March 14, 2007, and again from September 28, 2007 to December 14, 2007? The Court is concerned that Mr. Parisi might be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Mr. Parisi describing his employment history for the past three years.

Also, while MERS served as nominee for PEOPLE’S CHOICE, the mortgage servicer for the PERBOO mortgage was POPULAR MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. [POPULAR], [exhibit B of application – July 24 default letter to PERBOO], whose address is 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. The MERS as nominee for PEOPLE’S CHOICE to HSBC assignment lists HSBC’s address as 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. The instant verified complaint [part of exhibit B of application] states that EQUITY ONE’S address is 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. How convenient to have the assignor’s servicer, the assignee’s servicer and the assignee all at the same address. This makes for one-stop shopping! The Court needs to know what corporate chicanery is being played at 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. Is the building large enough to house POPULAR, EQUITY ONE, MERS and HSBC under the same roof? Is there enough closet space to store Mr. Parisi’s various corporate hats?

Last, the verified complaint notes, in ¶ 6, that defendant PERBOO defaulted with her February 1, 2007 principal and interest payment. The first sentence in the July 24, 2007-POPULAR default letter to defendant PERBOO states “[p]lease be advised that your account is presently in default.” On September 28, 2007, 240 days after the instant mortgage loan ceased to perform, and 72 days subsequent to the POPULAR default letter to PERBOO, plaintiff HSBC accepted the assignment of the instant non-performing loan from MERS as nominee for PEOPLE’S CHOICE. The Court needs a satisfactory explanation of why HSBC, whose directors have a fiduciary responsibility to HSBC’s shareholders, purchased a non-performing loan from MERS as nominee for PEOPLE’S CHOICE, in an affidavit by an officer of HSBC.

<SNIP>

Plaintiff has failed to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party.” The “affidavit of facts” is submitted by Victor F. Parisi, “Vice-President of, EQUITY ONE, INC. AS AUTHORIZED SERVICER FOR HSBC.” Mr. Parisi, must have, as plaintiff’s agent, a valid power of attorney from HSBC to EQUITY ONE for that express purpose. Additionally, if a power of attorney is presented to this Court and it refers to pooling and servicing agreements, the Court needs a properly offered copy of the pooling and servicing agreements, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of plaintiff. (EMC Mortg. Corp. v Batista, 15 Misc 3d 1143 (A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v Lewis, 14 Misc 3d 1201 (A) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2006]).

[ipaper docId=40409269 access_key=key-nborvkleciyxj0ig6aq height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NYSC] JUDGE LAURA JACOBSON: Equity One v. James 2006 (1)

VICTOR PARISI ROBO-SIGNER CALLED OUT BY [NYSC] JUDGE LAURA JACOBSON: Equity One v. James 2006 (1)


At an I AS Term, Part 2 1 of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, held in and
for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse,
at the Oivic Center, Brooklyn, New York on
the 4th (Lay of December, 2006
1 —-X Index No.: 16705/2006

PRESENT:

HON. LAURA L. JACOBSON
Justice
—————-L————————————-
EQUITY ONE AS SERVICER FOR NOMURA
HOME EQUITY LOAN INC. HOME EQUIl’Y
LOAN TRUST SERIES 2006-FM1, ASSET
BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE S,
SERIES 2006-FM1
,
,
-against-

JANICE JAMES, MERS, INC. AS NOMINEE FOR
FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN
; PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY
PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU; NEW YORK
CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD;
TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, “JOHN DOE 1
to JOHN DOE 25″, said names being fictitiouh, the
persons or parties, corporations or entities, if any,
having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the
mortgaged premises described in the complaint,

excerpt:

The Affidavit of Merit submitted by the plaintiff appears to have been prepared by one Victor F. Parisi. The signor or the assignment of the mortgage, on behalf of MERS, Inc. as nominee for Fremont Investment & Loan, is also named Victor F. Parisi. Are these two signators the same people? If so, movant must submit an affidavit/affirmation advising the Court as to whether the assignment is a valid transfer or simply a paper one.

[ipaper docId=40409192 access_key=key-oz6wl6idxu3hw5qlmxe height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)


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

Archives