Frenkel | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA - Part 2

Tag Archive | "Frenkel"

NY Judge Markey Uses Recent MA SJC “U.S. Bank v. Ibanez” in DEUTSCHE BANK v. RAMOTAR

NY Judge Markey Uses Recent MA SJC “U.S. Bank v. Ibanez” in DEUTSCHE BANK v. RAMOTAR

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Plaintiff,


Auditya S. Ramotar, et al., Defendants.


For the Plaintiff: Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, LLP, by Kevin M. Butler, Esq., 20 West Main St., Bay Shore, New York 11706

For the Defendant: Bachu & Associates, by Darmin T. Bachu, Esq., 127-21 Liberty Ave., Richmond Hill, New York 11419

Charles J. Markey, J.


Just recently, Massachusetts’s highest court, its Supreme Judicial Court, in U.S. Bank National Association v Ibanez, ___ NE2d ____, 2011 WL 2011 WL 38071 (Jan. 7, 2011) [6-0 decision, with majority and concurring opinions] unanimously held that two banks, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo, failed to prove that they owned the mortgages when they foreclosed on the homes. See, id. The fact that the homeowners owed a lot of money on the mortgages was conceded in the Court’s ruling that the banks did not properly prove ownership.


Chief Judge Lippman has stated that the New York court system should not stand by idly, during a tough economic crisis, where the integrity of the determination of home ownership is at stake. See discussion in Washington Mutual Bank v Phillip, 20 Misc 3d [*3] 127[A], 2010 WL 4813782, 2010 NY Slip Op 52034[U] [Sup Ct Kings County 2010] [Schack, J.].

The practices of the plaintiff in this case, in not carefully evaluating the merits of each mortgage foreclosure case individually, has been criticized by the courts in: Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v Harris, 2008 WL 620756, 2008 NY Slip Op 30308[U] [Sup Ct Kings County 2008]; Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 253926, 2008 NY Slip Op 50176 [Sup Ct Kings County 2008]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v Lewis, 14 Misc 3d 1201(A), 2006 WL 3593431, 2006 NY Slip Op 52368[U] [Sup Ct Suffolk County 2006], all of those decisions denying the plaintiff’s motion for relief without prejudice upon the submission of proper papers. See also discussion in Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton, 29 Misc 3d 1021 [Sup Ct Kings County 2010].

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=47155754 access_key=key-2o7wptvvwp0hghxppch9 height=600 width=600 /]

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

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)




In submitting any future orders of reference said application shall include an affidavit from plaintiff indicating whether this loan is subject to a H.A.M.P. review and whether plaintiff is or is not prevented from proceeding with the instant foreclosure by reason of any applicable federal H.A.M.P. directives.

Read each below as some are worded differently…

[ipaper docId=45801709 access_key=key-1bx4piyyyebnoga2vmrr height=600 width=600 /]

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

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)




Q So the original —
5 A — and I’ve been to her office.
6 Q — the original was located in your office?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Where’s your office located?
9 A Simi Valley, California.
10 Q And has the original of this allonge remained in your
11 office until you appeared here today?
12 A We had sent it on to — to our attorneys. They were in
13 possession of it.
14 Q And again, who do you believe is the holder of the note
15 and mortgage here?
16 A Well, Countrywide — Bank of America — whatever we’re
17 calling ourselves these days, we are Bank of America now — we
18 originated this loan. It was originated via a broker and it’s
19 really always been a Countrywide loan. The investor is Bank
20 of New York. We are the servicer of the loan.
21 Q Now, when you say it’s really a Countrywide loan, wasn’t
22 it sold? Wasn’t this loan securitized and ultimately sold —
23 sold to this trust?
24 A Right, it would have been securitized and sold. They are
25 the investors of the loan. But we are the ones that would


9 A Who is in possession of the note? We have the note in our
10 origination file.
11 Q So — so Bank of New York as trustee does not hold the
12 note, is that correct, or is not in possession of the note?
13 A The original note to my knowledge is in the origination
14 file.
15 Q Where is the — do you have it here today?
16 A No, I don’t have it with me here today.
17 Q So you don’t have the note?
18 A It’s in our office.
19 Q So it’s in your office, it’s not with this trust that owns
20 the — that’s supposedly holds the — or is the owner of this
21 note, is that correct?
22 A That’s correct.
23 Q And your testimony is that this allonge was never
24 submitted to — it was never in the possession of Bank of New
25 York as trustee for the certificate holder, is that correct?


9 Q And this allonge, it’s a stand-alone document, correct?
10 It’s not attached to anything, is that correct?
11 A I’m not sure I’m understanding your question.
12 Q Was there anything — when you brought the original that’s
13 in front of you, did you remove it? Was it stapled to
14 something else?
15 A No, it wouldn’t have necessarily been stapled to something
16 else. There would have probably been other documents showing
17 the — you know, we would have shown her the note. We would
18 have reviewed all of that before.

Continue Below…

Down Load PDF of This Case

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

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)




THE COURT: All right. I have the supplemental and
12 second supplemental submissions of Countrywide and the reply.
13 Mr. Kaplan, I look to you first. I am, frankly, appalled at
14 the confusion and lack of credibility of Countrywide’s
15 response to the issue of the note — the possession of the
16 note.
17 We started out with Ms. DeMartini’s testimony that
18 the note never leaves the servicer. She says that she saw a
19 Federal Express receipt whereby the actual note, the physical,
20 original note was transferred to the Foreclosure Department
21 internally in the same building, but that the note had not yet
22 been located. That’s where we stood at that point.
23 Then we had a submission, the supplemental
24 submission saying the original note has been found and can be
25 available for inspection. It doesn’t say where it was found,

1 who had possession or the like, but it was found and is
2 available for inspection.
3 And then without any explanation, there is a lost
4 note affidavit presented dated February of 2007 indicating
5 that the note cannot be found. No explanation provided. What
6 do I do with that, Mr. Kaplan?


THE COURT: It’s amazing how sloppy this
2 presentation was, and I’m very disappointed about that.
3 Anyway — all right. Well, thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Do you
4 want to present testimony? Does it matter, you know, because
5 there is no testimony regarding possession by Bank of New York
6 as Trustee, correct?

7 MR. KAPLAN: That’s correct, Your Honor. I’m not
8 disputing that. That’s what Ms. DeMartini testified to, that
9 the note — she had no record of this note leaving and going
10 across country, across wherever, to Bank of New York.

11 THE COURT: And you do understand as well that the
12 Pooling and Servicing Agreement requires that transfer, that
13 physical transfer of the note in accordance with — and
14 endorsement — in accordance with UCC requirements?
15 MR. KAPLAN: I understand that, Your Honor. I’ll
16 simply say for the sake of edification, but this is — and I
17 was told it was all e-filed — this is apparently the index to
18 this Master Servicing Agreement showing all the loans and it
19 does reference the Kemp loan. It’s a double-side document,
20 includes all the loans.
21 And I can say that, although Your Honor is right and
22 the UCC and the Master Servicing Agreement apparently requires
23 that, procedure seems to indicate that they don’t physically
24 move documents from place to place because of the fear of loss
25 and the trouble involved and the people handling them. They

basically execute the necessary documents and retain them as
2 long as servicing’s retained. The documents only leave when
3 servicing is released.
4 THE COURT: They take their chances.
5 MR. KAPLAN: I understand, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.
7 Counsel, the proof of claim was filed — let’s see
8 — it was filed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., servicer for
9 Bank of New York — now, that’s wrong. We understand that.
10 Can the — can these problems be corrected post-petition? In
11 other words, we know that claims can be transferred post12
13 What about if the note, the original note now that
14 has seemingly appeared, is now transferred to the Bank of New
15 York as Trustee and amended, it wouldn’t have to — well, it
16 would be amended to reflect that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
17 is not the right party, but Countrywide Home Loans, Master
18 Servicing or servicing whatever that name is, as servicer for
19 Bank of New York, Trustee, is filing this proof of claim,
20 what’s wrong with that?


[ipaper docId=43766376 access_key=key-ihmrb27iwescbiprqux height=600 width=600 /]

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

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

EXPLOSIVE |CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions In Testimony NOTES NEVER SENT to Trusts KEMP v. Countrywide

EXPLOSIVE |CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions In Testimony NOTES NEVER SENT to Trusts KEMP v. Countrywide

Mark my words …this is one you’re going to hear of over and over again. It’s beginning to appear … what we’ve been trying hard to break is cracking before our eyes and ears. This should raise concerns about the MERS System as well since the assignments clause states “together with the note(s) and documents therein described”.

Humpty Dumpty does indeed exist!


In the Matter of John T. Kemp

John T. Kemp

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Case No. 08-18700-JHW


Bruce H. Levitt, Esq.
Levitt & Slafkes, PC
76 South Orange Avenue, Suite 305
South Orange, New Jersey 07079
Counsel for the Debtor

Harold Kaplan, Esq.
Dori 1. Scovish, Esq.
Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, LLP
80 Main Street, Suite 460
West Orange, New Jersey 07052
Counsel for the Defendant


The new allonge was signed by Sharon Mason,
Vice President of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., in the Bankruptcy Risk
Litigation Management Department. Linda DeMartini, a supervisor and
operational team leader for the Litigation Management Department for BAC
Home Loans Servicing L.P. (“BAC Servicing”V testified that the new allonge
was prepared in anticipation of this litigation, and that it was signed several
weeks before the trial by Sharon Mason.

As to the location of the note, Ms. DeMartini testified that to her
knowledge, the original note never left the possession of Countrywide, and that
the original note appears to have been transferred to Countrywide’s foreclosure
unit, as evidenced by internal FedEx tracking numbers. She also confirmed
that the new allonge had not been attached or otherwise affIXed to the note.
She testified further that it was customary for Countrywide to maintain possession of
the original note and related loan documents.

In a supplemental submission dated September 9,2009, the defendant
asserted that “the Defendant/Secured Creditor located the original Note. The
original Note with allonge and Pooling and Servicing Agreement are available
for inspection.,,7 When the matter returned to the court on September 24,
2009, counsel for the defendant represented to the court that he had the
original note, with the new allonge now attached, in his possession. No
additional information was presented regarding the chain of possession of the
note from its origination until counsel acquired possession.

Continue reading below…

CASE FILE New Jersey Admissions In Testimony Notes Never Sent to Trusts Kemp v Countrywide

[ipaper docId=43537304 access_key=key-282sqkqnzukrmkam934g height=600 width=600 /]

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

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (12)

Advertise your business on


Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments