Korell Harp | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "Korell Harp"

IN RE CHALGREN, Bankr. Court, ND California “Lender Processing Services admits faults in the documents produced by the DOCX office”

IN RE CHALGREN, Bankr. Court, ND California “Lender Processing Services admits faults in the documents produced by the DOCX office”


NOTE: Korell Harp misspelled, also see signature variations below.

In re: RICHARD AND KAREN CHALGREN, Chapter 13, Debtors.
RICHARD AND KAREN CHALGREN, Plaintiffs,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants.

Case No. 09-56729 ASW, Adv. Proc. No. 10-5057.
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California.
October 7, 2011.

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

ARTHUR S. WEISSBRODT, Bankruptcy Judge.

Before this Court are two motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint of debtors Richard Scott Chalgren and Karen Chalgren (” Plaintiffs”). For the following reasons, this Court grants Defendants’ motions with leave to amend with regard to the first, second, third, and sixth causes of action. This Court denies Defendants’ motions to dismiss with regard to the fifth cause of action and grants the motions in part with regard to the fourth cause of action.

This Memorandum Decision constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs initiated this adversary proceeding on February 25, 2010. On July 27, 2010, defendants American Home Mortgage Corp. d/b/a American Brokers Conduit and AHM SV, Inc. f/k/a American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in this adversary proceeding. Prior motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part at a hearing on September 20, 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 2, 2010 (“First Amended Complaint”). The First Amended Complaint alleges six causes of action. The first cause of action is for violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5. The second cause of action is for violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617 (“RESPA”). The third cause of action is for violation of the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code. The fourth cause of action is for declaratory relief. The fifth cause of action is for injunctive relief. The sixth cause of action is for cancellation of the deed of trust and other instruments and records.

On November 16, 2010, Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee of the GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 (“Deutsche Bank as Trustee”), and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“First Motion to Dismiss”). On November 29, 2010, Defendants Fidelity National Title Company and Default Resolution Network filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“Second Motion to Dismiss”).

The First Motion to Dismiss asserts that Plaintiffs’ response to the First Motion to Dismiss should not be considered by this Court because the response is late-filed, and that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Both motions to dismiss also allege that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed on the merits for various reasons.

Regarding the purported late-filing of Plaintiffs’ response to the First Motion to Dismiss, the hearing on the First Motion to Dismiss was originally set for December 16, 2010, meaning that Plaintiffs’ response should have been filed by December 2, 2010. No such response was filed. On December 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to a motion for relief from stay with a caption containing this adversary proceeding’s number. On December 10, 2010, pursuant to an amended notice of hearing, the hearing on the First Motion to Dismiss was continued to January 14, 2011. Plaintiffs’ response was filed on December 30, 2010, which is timely under the local rules with respect to the continued hearing date. While Plaintiffs should abide in the future with the deadlines set out in the local rules, there is no prejudice such that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed and the merits of Plaintiffs’ opposition ignored.

In Plaintiff’s opposition filed on December 30, 2010, Plaintiffs agreed to amend the First Amended Complaint with regard to the first, second, and third causes of action in response to the motions of defendants Fidelity National Title Company, Default Resolution Network, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank as Trustee, and AHMSI (collectively,” Defendants”), as well as to delete the sixth cause of action. The Court held a hearing on both motions to dismiss on January 14, 2011.

At the hearing on January 14, 2011, the Court provided the parties with the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed by American Brokers Conduit and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. in this adversary proceeding and asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs regarding why the motions to dismiss should proceed notwithstanding the automatic stay of the bankruptcy case of Defendant American Brokers Conduit. The matter was continued to March 1, 2011 with the parties to file a joint statement prior to the hearing.

On February 18, 2011, the parties filed a joint statement which the Court reviewed. The Court subsequently issued an order on February 23, 2011 taking the motions to dismiss off calendar without prejudice to being restored upon the filing of appropriate legal authority and/or declarations showing that this Court can proceed notwithstanding the automatic stay in Defendant American Brokers Conduit’s bankruptcy case.

On May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs dismissed American Brokers Conduit from this adversary proceeding. The motions to dismiss were re-set for hearing on June 30, 2011 at a Case Management Conference held on May 6, 2011. The June 30, 2011 hearing was continued to July 14, 2011 by stipulation of the parties. The July 14, 2011 hearing was taken off calendar to allow the Court to issue a written decision.

Meanwhile, on May 18, 2011, attorney Mitchell Abdallah substituted in as counsel for Plaintiffs.

On July 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.[1] The Second Amended Complaint named American Brokers Conduit as a defendant and did not make any substantive changes to the third, fourth, or sixth causes of action that Plaintiffs had said would be made. The Court suggests that if Plaintiffs file another amended complaint, Plaintiffs should consider that it appears to the Court that the bankruptcy case of American Brokers Conduit, case number 07-11051, is still pending in the District of Delaware. Plaintiffs should also consider that: (1) a cause of action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617 (” RESPA”) should specify which section(s) of RESPA Defendants allegedly violated; and (2) Plaintiffs should allege sufficient facts about the contents of Plaintiffs’ alleged letters to AHMSI to show that the letters qualify as “qualified written requests” under RESPA.

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the First Amended Complaint, as alleged by Plaintiffs, but have not yet been proven. On or about April 4, 2006, Plaintiffs obtained a home loan and executed a promissory note in favor of American Brokers Conduit. The note was secured by a deed of trust on 411 Quail Run in Aptos, California (the “Property”). Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) was listed as the beneficiary of the deed of trust, but MERS never held the note.

On February 1, 2009, Plaintiff Richard Chalgren became unable to work due to a physical disability and suffered a loss of income. Plaintiffs were unable to make the monthly payment on the note. Plaintiffs wrote letters to the loan servicer, AHMSI, requesting the name, address, and telephone number of the holder of the note and the name and address of any agent of the holder of the note which could discuss loan modification options with Plaintiffs. However, AHMSI did not respond to Plaintiffs’ letters and still, to this day, has failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ letters. The failure of AHMSI to respond caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress.

On May 5, 2009, AHMSI, Default Resolution Network, and Fidelity National Title Company acted in concert to cause a notice of default to be recorded in the official records of the county of Santa Cruz. The notice of default falsely stated that Default Resolution Network had contacted Plaintiffs before the notice of default was recorded as required by California Civil Code section 2923.5.

On June 25, 2009, MERS as nominee for defendant American Brokers Conduit assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank as Trustee. Kolrell Harper signed this document on June 30, 2009 as Vice President of MERS. The assignment was produced by defendant DOCX, LLC which is a subsidiary of defendant Lender Processing Services. Lender Processing Services has admitted that there were faults in the documents produced by the DOCX office and Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there was widespread document fraud.

The note was bundled into a pool of home mortgages which were securitized and sold to investors. At the time the note was assigned to the trust, the trust was closed. Also, at the time of the assignment, American Brokers Conduit was in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, but the assignment was made without approval from the bankruptcy court overseeing the American Brokers Conduit bankruptcy case.

On July 6, 2009, an instrument was recorded in the official records of the county of Santa Cruz purporting to be an assignment of the deed of trust from MERS to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

On July 17, 2009, Plaintiffs sent demand letters via certified mail to Defendants pursuant to RESPA, wherein Plaintiffs requested the name of the holder of the note or the agent for such holder with authority to discuss loan modifications. Defendants have failed to respond to those demand letters, causing Plaintiffs to be unable to communicate with anyone with the authority to modify Plaintiffs’ loan and threatening Plaintiffs with the loss of Plaintiffs’ home of 15 years.

On August 14, 2009, Plaintiffs filed this chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

On September 4, 2009, defendants Fidelity National Title Company, AHMSI, and Power Default Services acted in concert to cause a notice of trustee’s sale to be recorded in the official records of the county of Santa Cruz in violation of the automatic stay. This recordation caused Plaintiffs emotional distress.

C. LEGAL STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit has stated that the standard of review for motions to dismiss is:

The nature of dismissal requires us to accept all allegations of fact in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. However we are not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint, and we do not . . . necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.

Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

D. ANALYSIS

The First Motion to Dismiss asserts that the First Amended Complaint fails to differentiate between Defendants in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (a), as incorporated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008. The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint and has determined that the First Amended Complaint identifies the transactions giving rise to the causes of action and puts each Defendant on notice of each Defendant’s alleged conduct. The First Motion to Dismiss is denied on this basis.

(1) Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action

The first cause of action is against AHMSI, Default Resolution Network, and Fidelity National Title Company for violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5. Plaintiffs assert that Default Resolution Network did not contact Plaintiffs about alternatives to foreclosure prior to recording the notice of trustee’s sale. The First Amended Complaint only requests damages for this statutory violation.

The First Motion to Dismiss asserts that Plaintiffs need to allege tender before obtaining a postponement of the foreclosure sale. However, the case of Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 214 (2010), relied on by Defendants, explicitly held that tender was not required to postpone a foreclosure sale under California Civil Code section 2923.5. Mabry, 185 Cal. App. 4th at 213. In any event, Plaintiffs are only required to allege that Plaintiffs attempted to tender — or were capable of tendering — the value of the property, or that such equitable circumstances existed that conditioning rescission on any tender would be inappropriate. Mangindin v. Washington Mutual Bank, 637 F. Supp. 2d 700, 706 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

However, as conceded by Plaintiffs, the remedy for a violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5 is not damages, but a postponement of the foreclosure sale to allow such communications to take place. Mabry, 185 Cal. App. 4th at 214. Because the requested damages are not available, this Court dismisses this cause of action with leave to amend.

(2) Second Cause of Action

The second cause of action is against AHMSI for violation of RESPA for failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ letters requesting information relating to the identity of the holder of the note and such holder’s authorized agent. Plaintiffs have not provided copies of the letters to this Court. The First Motion to Dismiss asserts that Plaintiffs need to specify which section of RESPA AHMSI allegedly violated, and Plaintiffs have indicated, in Plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion, that Plaintiffs plan to specify 12 U.S.C. section 2605(f)(1) in any amended complaint.

While the First Motion to Dismiss asserts that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege damages caused by AHMSI’s failure to respond, the First Amended Complaint’s statement of facts alleges that the failure of AHMSI to respond caused Plaintiffs great emotional distress. This Court notes that the courts are divided on whether emotional distress damages are recoverable under section 2605(f)(1). Compare Allen v. United Financial Mortg. Corp., 660 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2009), with Espinoza v. Recontrust Co., N.A., 2010 WL 2775753, *4 (S.D. Cal. July 13, 2010). However, this Court will not decide this legal issue at the pleading stage. Therefore, the cause of action is not dismissed on this basis.

The First Motion to Dismiss also asserts that Plaintiffs’ letters do not qualify as “Qualified Written Requests” under RESPA. The statute defines a Qualified Written Request as either (1) a letter saying that the account is in error, or (2) a letter requesting other information. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(b). The RESPA statute provides that a response is required when the letter requests information relating to the servicing of the loan. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) (1) (a). Servicing is defined as: “receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any loan, . . . and making the payments of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the loan.” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(i).

While the First Motion to Dismiss asserts that Plaintiffs must allege that the letters stated that the account was in error, the statute defining what constitutes a Qualified Written Response is written in the disjunctive, and Plaintiffs have asserted that the letters contained requests for other information. This Court agrees with United States District Judge Fogel’s reading of 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(b) found in Luciw v. Bank of America, N.A., 2010 WL 3958715, *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2010), which holds that a letter can be a Qualified Written Request even if the letter does not state that the account is in error. The Court notes that the statute does not clearly state that a letter is not a Qualified Written Response if the letter requests information both about the servicing of the loan and information not related to the servicing of the loan. Luciw, 2010 WL 3958715 at *3.

However, the First Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts about the contents of the letters to show that Plaintiffs’ letters were related to the servicing of the loan such as to give rise to a statutory obligation by AHMSI to respond. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the letters request the identity of the holder of the note or such holder’s agent, which does not appear to relate to the receipt or application by AHMSI of periodic payments received from Plaintiffs. While Plaintiffs’ December 6, 2010 opposition to a motion for relief from stay provides a copy of the letter sent by Plaintiffs to Defendants, the Court is not considering that letter at this time because the letter was not incorporated into the First Amended Complaint.

The Court dismisses the second cause of action with leave to amend.

(3) Third Cause of Action

The third cause of action is against Fidelity National Title Company and AHMSI for violation of the automatic stay pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 362(k). While the Second Motion to Dismiss asserts that this cause of action should be dismissed for failure to allege conduct rising to a requisite level of outrageousness, the determination of outrageousness is a factual issue, and the case relied upon in the Second Motion to Dismiss is a California state law case not involving Bankruptcy Code section 362(k).

However, both motions to dismiss assert that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege that the two defendants willfully violated the automatic stay. Bankruptcy Code section 362(k) clearly requires a willful violation. In re Bloom, 875 F.2d 224, 227 (9th Cir. 1989). The First Amended Complaint contains no allegations of willfulness and/or knowledge of the bankruptcy case on the part of Fidelity National Title Company and/or AHMSI, and Plaintiffs have indicated that Plaintiffs plan to amend the First Amended Complaint to so allege. The Court dismisses the third cause of action with leave to amend.

(4) Fourth Cause of Action

The fourth cause of action is against all Defendants for declaratory relief. The First Amended Complaint requests the following declaratory relief: (1) a finding that the deed of trust is unenforceable because the deed of trust was severed from the note, rendering the note unsecured; (2) a finding that the notice of default is void because the deed of trust was unenforceable; (3) a finding that assignment of the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank as Trustee is of no effect because the assignment was (a) made while American Brokers Conduit was in bankruptcy and (b) made after the securitized trust had closed; and (4) a finding that the notice of trustee’s sale is void for being in violation of the automatic stay. This cause of action does not request that the note and deed of trust be rescinded or otherwise set aside.

Both motions to dismiss assert that the fourth cause of action must be dismissed because the First Amended Complaint fails to allege that Plaintiffs either have tendered, or can tender, the amount of the outstanding loan balance. All but one of the cases cited by Defendants are cases in which a party requested quiet title or declaratory relief rescinding a loan contract, and those cases are not applicable.

The reasoning of Chavez v. Recontrust Co., 2008 WL 5210893 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008), is not disposative here and this Court does not agree with it in any event. In Chavez, a plaintiff requested — among other things — an injunction against a foreclosure sale without either alleging that the plaintiff had tendered, or was able to tender, the amount outstanding on the loan. The Chavez court held: “[t]he law is long-established that a trustor or his successor must tender the obligation in full as a prerequisite to challenge of the foreclosure sale.” Chavez, 2008 WL 5210893 at *6 (quoting U.S. Cold Storage v. Great Western Savings & Loan Assn., 165 Cal. App. 3d 1214, 1222, (1985)). The quoted language is inapposite because the language of U.S. Cold Storage refers to an attempt to undo a foreclosure sale after the fact, rather than a request for declaratory relief based on a finding that a foreclosure sale cannot proceed because the wrong party is seeking to foreclose.

In the context of Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) violations, Judge Ware has held that the Ninth Circuit “gives a trial court discretion to condition rescission on a tender by the borrower of the property, or the property’s reasonable value, to the lender. Yamamoto v. Bank of New York, 329 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2003). Mangindin, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 705-06. Judge Ware stated:

Notably absent from Plaintiffs’ Complaint is any allegation that they attempted to tender, or are capable of tendering, the value of the property pursuant to the rescission framework established by TILA. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that such equitable circumstances exist that conditioning rescission on any tender would be inappropriate. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege that they are entitled to rescission under TILA.

Mangindin, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 706. Thus, Plaintiffs are only required to allege that Plaintiffs attempted to tender — or were capable of tendering — the value of the property, or that such equitable circumstances existed that conditioning rescission on any tender would be inappropriate.

The First Motion to Dismiss also asserts that the California nonjudicial foreclosure statutes do not require a foreclosing lender to produce the original copy of the note in order to foreclose. However, the First Amended Complaint does not request declaratory relief based on a finding that a foreclosure cannot take place because no party holds an original copy of the note. The First Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief regarding whether the note is secured; whether the assignment of the note is of any legal effect; and whether the notice of trustee’s sale is void.

The First Motion to Dismiss next asserts that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege with sufficient specificity that the purported transfer of the note from American Brokers Conduit took place while American Brokers Conduit was a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. The First Amended Complaint clearly alleges that: “at the time of the assignment, American Broker’s Conduit was in a bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the bankruptcy court did not authorize or approve the assignment of the deed of trust. . . .” First Amended Complaint at page 6, ¶ 20. This allegation is more than a mere threadbare recital and is sufficient to withstand this motion to dismiss. Therefore, the cause of action is not dismissed on this basis.

The First Motion to Dismiss asserts that American Brokers Conduit transferred the note and deed of trust on June 5, 2006 and provides a copy of a loan history for the property. This Court will not take judicial notice of the copy at this time because Plaintiffs have objected to the admissibility of this document and the copy was not part of an official record or court decision.

The First Motion to Dismiss also argues that — even if the deed of trust was transferred out of the bankruptcy estate of American Brokers Conduit without bankruptcy court approval — Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge the transfer. Plaintiffs assert that Plaintiffs have standing because the legal effect of the transfer directly affects Defendants’ ability to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ home. American Brokers Conduit filed for relief under chapter 11 as case number 07-11047 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Bankruptcy Code section 1109(b) provides: “a party in interest . . . may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.” 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b). The term party in interest is meant to be elastic, and whether a party is a party in interest is determined by the facts of the case. In re Amatex Corp., 755 F.2d 1034, 1042 (3d Cir. 1985). The First Amended Complaint clearly alleges that Plaintiffs have a very practical stake in the legal effectiveness of the transfer of the deed of trust. At least insofar as Plaintiffs seek to challenge that transfer, Plaintiffs’ interest in the American Brokers Conduit bankruptcy proceeding is sufficient to make Plaintiffs a party in interest.

The First Motion to Dismiss further asserts that, even if the assignment took place after American Brokers Conduit filed for bankruptcy, the assignment was in the ordinary course of business and did not require bankruptcy court approval. Under these circumstances, any assignment would be valid. 11 U.S.C. § 363(c)(1). The First Amended Complaint only alleges that the assignment was made when American Broker’s Conduit was in bankruptcy and that there was no authorization from the bankruptcy court, which is only required if the assignment was made outside of the ordinary course of business. Because the First Amended Complaint fails to allege that the assignment was not in the ordinary course of business, this Court dismisses the fourth cause of action with leave to amend with respect to the fact that the assignment from American Brokers Conduit was invalid as an unauthorized post-petition transfer from a bankruptcy debtor.

Finally, the First Motion to Dismiss asserts that the First Amended Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiffs’ bad faith — as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ failure to tender or to make post-petition payments on the note — estops Plaintiffs from seeking equitable relief. However, the issue of Plaintiffs’ bad faith is a factual issue which this Court will not decide at the motion to dismiss stage. Also, as previously mentioned, this Court does not hold — and leaves for trial, a possible summary judgment motion or other context — Defendants’ contention that alleging tender in the particular manner that Defendants say is mandatory is a requirement to obtaining the declaratory relief sought in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Mangindin, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 706.

For the above reasons, this Court dismisses the fourth cause of action with leave to amend only insofar as the fourth cause of action requests a finding that the assignment from American Brokers Conduit was without legal effect for being an unauthorized post-petition transfer from a bankruptcy debtor.

(5) Fifth Cause of Action

The fifth cause of action is against all Defendants for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs request an injunction against a foreclosure sale of the property. Both motions to dismiss assert that this cause of action should be dismissed because injunctive relief cannot be granted without the existence of a substantive cause of action. Shell Oil Co. v. Richter, 52 Cal. App. 2d 164, 168 (Cal. App. 1942). The First Amended Complaint has adequately pled a substantive cause of action for declaratory relief, so the motions to dismiss are denied as to the fifth cause of action.

(6) Sixth Cause of Action

The sixth cause of action is against all Defendants for cancellation of the deed of trust and other instruments and records. In Plaintiffs’ responses to both motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs have agreed to delete the sixth cause of action from future amended complaints based on Defendants’ arguments. Because, as noted earlier, Plaintiffs could allege that Plaintiffs attempted to tender — or were capable of tendering — the value of the property, or that such equitable circumstances exist that conditioning rescission on any tender would be inappropriate, this Court dismisses the sixth cause of action with leave to amend.

E. CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Defendants’ motions are granted in part with leave to amend and denied in part. Counsel for each set of moving parties shall prepare a form of order consistent with this ruling and submit the proposed order to the Court after service on counsel for Plaintiffs. The Court prefers for all counsel to sign off on the form of order.

[1] Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ filing of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint without leave from the Court or consent from Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a)(2), incorporated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 7015. The Court is deciding these motions to dismiss as to the First Amended Compliant only, and not as to the Second Amended Complaint.

Various Signatures of Korell Harp

[ipaper docId=68626783 access_key=key-1axgr4k8ofuv0gvoqkf9 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

BofA, Wells Fargo Mortgage Papers Challenged by North Carolina Official

BofA, Wells Fargo Mortgage Papers Challenged by North Carolina Official


BLOOMBERG-

The signatures of the same names on more than 4,500 documents handled by Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS) for real estate valued at $624.8 million varied enough to raise doubts about their validity, Jeff Thigpen, register of deeds in Guilford County, North Carolina, told reporters today in Greensboro.

Check out the link to documents below…

NC Reg. of Deeds Thigpen Releases Approx. 4,500 DocX Signature Spread Sheet

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Mortgage Fraud | Freddie Mac and Marshal C. Watson Law Firm

Mortgage Fraud | Freddie Mac and Marshal C. Watson Law Firm


Mortgage Fraud

Freddie Mac
Marshall C. Watson Law Firm

Action Date: March 12, 2011
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) announced on March 11, 2011, that it is taking its foreclosure cases away from the Marshall C. Watson Law Firm. The Watson firm, based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was one of the firms most often used by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and mortgage-backed trusts to foreclose in Florida. The Watson Firm came under the scrutiny of the Economic Crimes Division of the Florida Attorney General for improper loan documentation and foreclosure practices.

In over ten thousand Florida foreclosure cases, the Watson firm used mortgage assignments signed by the firm’s own employees to prove that their clients owned the mortgages. In most of these cases, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and mortgage-backed trusts were claiming to own the mortgages. Fannie, Freddie and the trusts lost or never obtained the mortgage assignments needed to prove ownership.

In these cases, two associate lawyers in the Watson firm, Patricia Arango and Caryn Graham, signed the Assignments to the trusts so that the foreclosures could proceed. When Arango and Graham signed these mortgage assignments, they did not disclose that they were lawyers in the Watson Firm. Instead, Arango and Graham signed as officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

In the last three years, Arango and Graham signed as officers of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for the following lenders on over 10,000 documents used in Florida foreclosures:

• Aegis Wholesale Corporation;
• America Imperial Mortgage Business, Inc.;
• American Bancorp Mortgage Corp.;
• American Home Mortgage;
• America’s Wholesale Lender;
• BNC Mortgage, Inc.;
• Century 21 Mortgage;
• Countrywide Bank, FSB;
• Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.;
• CTX Mortgage Company, LLC;
• Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services;
• Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC;
• E-Loan, Inc.;
• First Choice Funding Group;
• First Magnus Financial Corporation;
• Flagstar Bank, FSB;
• Greenpoint Mortgage Funding;
• Guaranteed Mortgage Bankers;
• HomeAmerica Mortgage Corp.;
• Interstate Home Loan Center, Inc.;
• Ivanhoe Financial, Inc.;
• KB Home Mortgage Company;
• MFC Mortgage Inc. of FL;
• Quicken Loans, Inc.;
• Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.; and
• Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC.

On the majority of these documents, the date of the alleged transaction is falsely stated. The documents were so poorly prepared that in many cases, the new owner is shown to have acquired the mortgage months and even years AFTER the foreclosure cases were filed by those new mortgage owners.

The Watson Firm was also the law firm that most frequently used mortgage assignments prepared by Docx, LLC. The assignments from Docx, LLC include thousands of documents with forged signatures of Linda Green, Tywanna Thomas and Korell Harp, as well as dozens of documents where the lenders were identified as “Bogus Assignee” and “A Bad Bene.” These Docx-prepared assignments also falsely stated the dates of the alleged transfers, and even the authority of the signers to sign on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Despite the well-documented problems with foreclosure cases brought by the Watson Firm, Fannie Mae has not removed the firm from its list of approved law firms. Fannie Mae removed Florida firm Ben-Ezra & Katz in February, 2011, and required the firm to transfer over 15,000 files. Fannie also removed The Law Offices of David J. Stern in Plantation, Florida. That firm announced that it would stop doing all foreclosure work as of March 31, 2011.

No criminal charges have been filed in any case involving forged or fraudulent loan documents used by banks and mortgage lenders to foreclose.

While courts have been critical of such documents and have added requirements to civil procedure rules so that law firms can be sanctioned for using such documents, no sanction has ever included any criminal charges.


© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

False Statements: Scott Anderson, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Law Offices of Marshall Watson, New Century Mortgage Corp., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

False Statements: Scott Anderson, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Law Offices of Marshall Watson, New Century Mortgage Corp., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC


False Statements

Scott Anderson
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
Law Offices of Marshall Watson
New Century Mortgage Corp.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Action Date: October 21, 2010
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

On October 21, 2010, in St. Petersburg, Florida, Circuit Court Judge Anthony Rondolino dismissed the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in a foreclosure action, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al. v. Donnie J. Decker, et al., Case No. 09-20548-CI-13, 6th Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida.

The complaint was brought by Deutsche Bank as trustee for a mortgage-backed trust, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital, Inc., under a Pooling & Servicing Agreement dated May 1, 2001. The original complaint was dismissed due to chain-of-title problems.

The amended complaint included an Assignment from New Century Mortgage Corp. to the plaintiff that was executed on February 17, 2010 by Scott Anderson in his capacity as an Executive Vice President of Residential Loan Servicing for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC through its authority as Attorney-In-Fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation. Regarding this Assignment, Judge Rondolino commented as follows:

“There is nothing about this assignment which would support a determination at the pleading stage that it is invalid. On the other hand, should evidence be presented at a summary judgment hearing that New Century Mortgage Corporation, LLC became the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding which resulted in a liquidation order, the validity of this assignment would be called into question. Then, absent specific proof that Ocwen had authority from either the bankruptcy court or the liquidation trustee, this disposition of New Century’s (the debtor in bankruptcy) asset there would be a disputed material fact precluding a summary judgment. These concerns however are not ripe at this time…”

In closing, Judge Rondolino warned the plaintiff and its counsel, the Law Offices of Marshall Watson, that any new complaint must be verified, in accordance with the revised Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Rondolino then warned very plainly, “If it is thereafter determined that the verification was not based on an appropriate investigation or that the allegations were false, the Plaintiff and the person who signed the verified complaint will be subject to sanctions which may include dismissal of the action with prejudice, assessment of fees and costs, monetary or incarcerative sanctions and referral to the State Attorney for prosecution pursuant to F.S. 837.”

Rondolino’s concerns arose in part because the Assignment came after the foreclosure action was filed. Plaintiff’s law firm is one of four law firms under investigation by the Florida Attorney General for using forged and fraudulent documents in foreclosure actions.

Scott Anderson of Ocwen has been named in foreclosure opinions of Brooklyn Judge Arthur M. Schack as an individual who signs using many different job titles. The trust in this case had a closing date in 2001, but according to the Anderson Assignment, acquired Decker’s non-performing loan in February, 2010. These same or similar facts have been presented in hundreds of foreclosure cases across the country.

Almost every major robo-signer, including Liquenda Allotey, China Brown, Linda Green, Alfonzo Greene, Korell Harp, Bethany Hood and John Kennerty have signed as Attorney-In-Fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation in 2009 and 2010 to transfer mortgages to securitized trusts that closed years earlier.

Judge Rondolino’s opinion lays a blueprint for other judges to follow when presented with mortgage assignments that appear to have been specially created to facilitate foreclosures. It is the first opinion in Florida to warn of possible “incarcerative sanctions.” (Five different versions of the “Scott Anderson” signature are posted in the “Pleadings” section of this web site.)

~


© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

FLORIDA AG ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) & DOCX 10-13-2010

FLORIDA AG ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) & DOCX 10-13-2010


Today the Florida Attorney General issued Subpoenas Duces Tecum’s to both Lender Processing Services Inc. and to a subsidiary DOCX. This involves employees past or present, the four foreclosure firms currently being investigated.

Both Assistant AG’s “McCollum’s Angels” June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards are doing an outstanding job!

.

.

[click image for ]

AG_Subpoena_DT-to-Docx_

AG_Subpoena_LPS

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

______________________________________
ECONOMIC CRIMES
INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

“You,” “Your” or “DOC X” as used herein means DOCX, L.L.c. and any ofthe respondents, their agents and employees or any “affiliate” of the aforementioned entities, as that term is herein defined. Your agents include but are not limited to your officers, directors, attorneys, accountants, CPA’s, advertising consultants, or advertising account representatives. Any document in the possession ofyou, your affiliates, your agents or your employees is deemed to be within your possession or control. You have the affirmative duty to contact your agents, affiliates and employees and to obtain documentation from them, if such documentation is responsive to this subpoena.

B. Unless otherwise indicated, documents to be produced pursuant to this subpoena should include all original documents prepared, sent, dated, received, in effect, or which otherwise came into existence at any time. If your “original” is a photocopy, then the photocopy would be and should be produced as the original.

C. This subpoena duces tecum calls for the production of all responsive documents in your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location ofsaid documents.

D. “And” and “or” are used as terms of inclusion, not exclusion.

E. The documents to be produced pursuant to each request should be segregated and specifically identified to indicate clearly the particular numbered request to which they are responsIve.

F. In the event that you seek to withhold any document on the basis that is properly entitled to some privilege or limitation, please provide the following information:

1. A list identifying each document for which you believe a limitation exists;

2. The name of each author, writer, sender or initiator of such document or thing, if any;

3. The name of each recipient, addressee or party for whom such document or thing was intended, ifany;

4. The date of such document, if any, or an estimate thereof so indicated if no date appears on the document;

5. The general subject matter as described in such document, or, if no such description appears, then such other description sufficient to identify said document; and

6. The claimed grounds for withholding the document, including, but not limited to, the nature of any claimed privilege and grounds in support thereof.

G. For each request, or part thereof, which is not fully responded to pursuant to a privilege, the nature of the privilege and grounds in support thereof should be fully stated.

H. If you possess, control or have custody of no documents responsive to any of the numbered requests set forth below, state this fact in your response to said request.

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “document” shall mean all writings or stored data or information ofany kind, in any form, including the originals and all nonidentical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation(s) made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation: correspondence, notes, letters, telegrams, minutes, certificates, diplomas, contracts, franchise agreements and other agreements, brochures, pamphlets, forms, scripts, reports, studies, statistics, inter-office and intra-office communications, training materials, analyses, memoranda, statements, summaries, graphs, charts, tests, plans, arrangements, tabulations, bulletins, newsletters, advertisements, computer printouts, teletype, telefax, microfilm, e-mail, electronically stored data, price books and lists, invoices, receipts, inventories, regularly kept summaries or compilations of business records, notations of any type of conversations, meetings, telephone or other communications, audio and videotapes; electronic, mechanical or electrical records or representations of any kind (including without limitation tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic tapes, hard drives and recordings to include each document translated, if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form).

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “affiliate” shall mean: a corporation, partnership, business trust, joint venture or other artificial entity which effectively controls, or is effectively controlled by you, or which is related to you as a parent or subsidiary or sibling entity. “Affiliate” shall also mean any entity in which there is a mutual identity of any officer or director. “Effectively controls” shall mean having the status of owner, investor (if 5% or more of voting stock), partner, member, officer, director, shareholder, manager, settlor, trustee, beneficiary or ultimate equitable owner as defined in Section 607.0505(11)(e), Florida Statutes.

K. The term “Florida affiliates” shall mean those of your affiliates which do business in Florida or which are licensed to do business in Florida.

L. If production of documents or other items required by this subpoena would be, in whole or in part, unduly burdensome, or if the response to an individual request for production may be aided by clarification of the request, contact the Assistant Attorney General who issued this subpoena to discuss possible amendments or modifications of the subpoena, within five (5) days of receipt ofsame.

M. Documents maintained in electronic form must be produced in their native electronic form with all metadata intact. Data must be produced in the data format in which it is typically used and maintained. Moreover, to the extent that a responsive Document has been electronically scanned (for any purpose), that Document must be produced in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) format and an opportunity provided to review the original Document. In addition, documents that have been electronically scanned must be in black and white and should be produced in a Group IV TIFF Format (TIF image format), with a Summation format load file (dii extension). DII Coded data should be received in a (Comma-Separated Values) CSV format with a pipe (I) used for multivalue fields. Images should be single page TIFFs, meaning one TIFF file for each page of the Document, not one .tifffor each Document. Ifthere is no text for a text file, the following should be inserted in that text file: “Page Intentionally Left Blank.”

Moreover, this Subpoena requires all objective coding for the production, to the extent it exists. For electronic mail systems using Microsoft Outlook or LotusNotes, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents, in their native file format (i.e., .pst for Outlook personal folder, .nsf for LotusNotes). For all other email systems, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents in OCR and TIFF formats as described above.

P. The relevant time period for the present request shall be from January 1, 2006 to present unless otherwise specifically stated. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce at said time and place all documents, as defined above, relating to the following subjects:

1. Copies ofall “Network Agreements” between DOCX and any law firm with offices located in the State of Florida.

2. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Linda Green to sign documents in the following capacities:

a. Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; ;

b. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.;

c. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

d. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Brokers Conduit;

e. Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation;

f. Vice President, Option One Mortgage Corporation;

g. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for HLB Mortgage;

h. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.;

1. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Family Lending Services, Inc.;

J. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as Successor -ininterest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

k. Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC by Citi Residential Lending, Inc., attorney-in-fact;

1. . Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation f/kJal Option One Mortgage Corporation;

m. Vice President, Amtrust Funsing (sic) Services, Inc., by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as Attorney-in -fact;

n. Vice President, Seattle Mortgage Company.

3. Copies of every document signed in any capacity by Linda Green.

4. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Korell Harp to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

5. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Jessica Ohde to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

6. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Pat Kingston to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

7. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Christina Huang to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

8. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Tywanna Thomas to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

9. All policy and procedure manuals and/or training materials regarding the methods and timing that DOCX uses, including without limitation relating to the drafting and/or execution of foreclosure and mortgage related documents, including but not limited to Assignments of Mortgage, Satisfactions ofMortgage and Affidavits ofany and all kind.

10. A list ofall employees, dates ofhire and termination, and their duties, including whether or not they provide any notary services for DOCX.

11. All documents in your possession regarding any contracts with Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. and The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., including contracts regarding payments to or from any of those entities.

12. Documents relating to the relationship between DOCX and NewTrac and/or NewInvoice, including but not limited to, documents relating to the types ofdocuments that are or can be generated or are requested to be generated.

13. Any price lists published in any manner to prospective customers, whether by printed or electronic means.

14. All communications between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices ofMarshall C. Watson, P.A. relating to procedures, policies, instructions or performance ofthe creation, backdating, modification, amendment, or other alteration ofany real property-related transactional document or records, including assignments, satisfactions ofmortgage, affidavits, notes, allonges, or other documents filed in any court.

15. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P .A.

16. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity that provides payments to DOCX in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

17. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity to whom DOCX provides payment(s) in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

WITNESS the FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of October, 2010.

June M. Clarkson
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 785709
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 110 S.E. 6th Street, 10th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954-712-4600
Facsimile: 954-712-4658

Theresa B. Edwards
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 252794

NOTE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact George Rudd, Assistant Attorney General at (954) 712-4600 no later than seven days prior to the proceedings. Ifhearing impaired, contact the Florida Relay Service 1-800-955-8771 (TDD); or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice), for assistance.

AUTHORITY

Florida Statute 501.206

501.206 Investigative powers of enforcing authority.(

1) If, by his own inquiry or as a result ofcomplaints, the enforcing authority has reason to believe that a person has engaged in, or is engaging in, an act or practice that violates this part, he may administer oaths and affinnations, subpoena witnesses or matter, and collect evidence. Within 5 days excluding weekends and legal holidays, after the service ofa subpoena or at any time before the return date specified therein, whichever is longer, the party served may file in the circuit court in the county in which he resides or in which he transacts business and serve upon the enforcing authority a petition for an order modifying or setting aside the subpoena. The petitioner may raise any objection or privilege which would be available under this chapter or upon service of such subpoena in a civil action. The subpoena shall infonn the party served of his rights under this subsection.

(2) If matter that the enforcing authority seeks to obtain by subpoena is located outside the state, the person subpoenaed may make it available to the enforcing authority or his representative to examine the matter at the place where it is located. The enforcing authority may designate representatives, including officials ofthe state in which the matter is located, to inspect the matter on his behalf, and he may respond to similar requests from officials ofother states.

(3) Upon failure ofa person without lawful excuse to obey a subpoena and upon reasonable notice to all persons affected, the enforcing authority may apply to the circuit court for an order compelling compliance.

(4) The enforcing authority may request that the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena on the ground that testimony or matter may incriminate him be ordered by the court to provide the testimony or matter. Except in a prosecution for perjury, an individual who complies with a court order to provide testimony or matter after asserting a privilege against selfincrimination to which he is entitled by law shall not have the testimony or matter so provided, or evidence derived there from, received against him in any criminal investigation proceeding.

(5) Any person upon whom a subpoena is served pursuant to this section shall comply with the tenns thereof unless otherwise provided by order of the court. Any person who fails to appear with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance in whole or in part with any investigation under this part or who removes, destroys, or by any other means falsifies any documentary material in the possession, custody, or control of any person subject to any such subpoena, or knowingly conceals any relevant infonnation with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

Affidavit of Service Attached

RELATED LINK:

LPS 101

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in assignment of mortgage, concealment, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, deed of trust, DOCX, FDLG, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, jeff carbiener, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, notary fraud, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.comComments (1)

OPEN LETTER TO ‘MERS’ BOARD OF DIRECTORS From Lynn Szymoniak

OPEN LETTER TO ‘MERS’ BOARD OF DIRECTORS From Lynn Szymoniak


Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq.
The Metropolitan, PH 2-5
403 S. Sapodilla Avenue
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(szymoniak@mac.com)

Mr. Ed Albrigo
Senior Vice President
FREDDIE MAC
8200 Jones Branch Drive MS 200
McLean, Virginia 22102

Mr. R.K. Arnold, President and CEO
Merscorp, Inc.
1595 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310
Vienna, Virginia 22182

Marianne Sullivan
Senior Vice President
FANNIE MAE
3900 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

September 6, 2010

Re: Abuses and Forgeries By MERS Officers in Mortgage Foreclosures

Dear Mr. Albrigo, Mr. Arnold and Ms. Sullivan:

I am writing to you in your capacity as members of the Board of Directors of MERS.

This letter concerns certain widespread abuses by individuals using MERS titles. After extensive research regarding Mortgage Assignments prepared in Alpharetta, Georgia, purportedly signed by MERS certifying officers, it is apparent that:

1. there were widespread forgeries by individuals who signed over a million Mortgage Assignments as MERS officers with many different individuals signing the same four names;

2. the individuals signing these names also used many different MERS titles,with Linda Green, Korell Harp and Tywanna Thomas claiming to be authorized by many different lenders to convey mortgages as MERS
officers;

3. the information on the Mortgage Assignments is false particularly regarding the dates on which mortgages were conveyed. In several hundred thousand cases, Assignments to Residential Mortgage-Backed Securitized
Trusts state that the Trusts acquired the mortgages AFTER foreclosure litigation was filed by the Trusts. This has resulted in a tremendous backlog of cases as the wrong parties often file the foreclosure actions.
These Mortgage Assignments are being used extensively in foreclosure actions in Florida and other states. Because of the apparent authority of MERS, these assignments are most often assumed to be correct by judges. Because so many foreclosure litigants are unrepresented by counsel, these Mortgage Assignments
are going unchallenged even though they are obvious forgeries.

Please carefully examine the attached mortgage assignments signed by Linda Green, Korell Harp, Tywanna Thomas and Jessica Ohde as MERS officers as these examples plainly show many variations of the Green, Harp, Ohde, and Thomas signatures.

Many of the MERS job titles that have been attributed to Linda Green are listed in Schedule A attached hereto. Many of the MERS job titles that have been attributed to Korell Harp are listed in Schedule B. Many of the MERS job titles that have been attributed to Tywanna Thomas are listed in Schedule C.

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. There were nearly 11,000 mortgage foreclosures granted in Palm Beach County, Florida in the last six weeks. Many of these foreclosures were granted based on these Mortgage Assignments signed by individuals using MERS titles. It is apparent that these signatures and MERS titles are misleading judges and homeowners. The Palm Beach County experience is occurring throughout the country.

The Florida Attorney General is investigating fraudulent documents used to “facilitate” foreclosures.

Most often, in Florida, these fraudulent Assignments are used by the same law firms that are hired by Lender Processing Services, in its role as a foreclosure management company. In Florida, the firms that most often use these documents to foreclose are the Law Offices of David J. Stern, Florida Default Law Group, Shapiro & Fishman, and the Law Offices of Marshall Watson.

All four of these law firms have also been named by the Florida Attorney General as being under investigation for using fraudulent documents in foreclosures.

I am prepared to brief you or your designees fully on my research.

Thank you for your attention to this most serious matter.

Yours truly,

Lynn E. Szymoniak


© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, fraud digest, Freddie Mac, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, Notary, notary fraud, R.K. Arnold, robo signers, shapiro & fishman pa, stopforeclosurefraud.comComments (1)

REO FRAUD: "I told you…I was trouble, You know that I'm (title) No GOOD!"

REO FRAUD: "I told you…I was trouble, You know that I'm (title) No GOOD!"


All over the US there is mass title defects that have been created to our homes…we are being evicted and titles to our stolen homes are being fabricated by means of Forgery/FRAUD! If these homes have been stolen from us…we have the right to claim them back! Let the unsuspecting homeowner who buys your home that it was fraudulently taken from you! What happens when your car is stolen and reclaimed? It goes back to it’s owner!

Stop by, say hello to the new owner of your stolen home and welcome them to the bogus neighborhood! Oh make sure to show some hospitality and bring them a gift…Umm your Foreclosure Mill Docs!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ9p6ZFquNY]

 

 

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, robo signer, robo signers, roger stottsComments (0)

Mortgage series part 8—they are trying to steal your house after they already stole your money

Mortgage series part 8—they are trying to steal your house after they already stole your money


user

Mortgage series part 8—they are trying to steal your house after they already stole your money

By: Cynthia Kouril Tuesday April 6, 2010 4:19 am

Imagine, if you will, a bank sets up a mortgage backed security.  The security is backed by a trust that holds all the mortgages and notes. The trust document says that all of the mortgages that would be included in that particular security had to be transferred into the trust by a particular date. That date is long since passed.

You are now in foreclosure, and attached to the summons and complaint is a copy of an assignment of your mortgage, within the last few days before the date of the summons and complaint, transferring your mortgage into the trust. What does that all mean?

It could  mean that the trustee did not actually own your mortgage and that all the money that you have paid on that mortgage that went to pay the holders of the security associated with that trust was paid to the wrong party.

Why? Because the mortgage was not transferred into the trust before your payments were directed to it. And the after the fact assignment doesn’t remedy it, because the trust was required to close the book on adding new mortgages into the trust, on a date long since passed. So, the trustee accepted payments from you even though your mortgage was not a part of that trust. You were paying the wrong party.

Then to add insult to injury, the trustee is trying to take your home away.

Oh, and the last minute assignment –may be a forgery.  Ain’t that just the icing on the cake?

These are the cranium exploding allegations being made by white collar fraud expert Lynn Szymoniak, Esq.

In a letter to an Assistant United States Attorney, Ms. Szymoniak alleges

This letter concerns possible fabricated and forged mortgage-related documents that are being filed by banks in foreclosure actions in Massachusetts, Florida and throughout the country.

These documents were prepared by a company known as DOCX, LLC, a company that claims to “expedite” the mortgage foreclosure process for banks and mortgage lenders. DOCX is located in Alpharetta, Georgia, and is owned by a Jacksonville, Florida company, Fidelity National Financial, Inc.

In many cases, DOCX has provided Assignments so that banks that have purchased mortgages from the original lender may pursue foreclosure even when the proper documents have not been prepared, executed and filed. These documents very often appear in cases where the mortgage has been purchased, and combined with others to create to an asset-back security. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is one of the banks that have frequently used mortgage-related documents prepared by DOCX.

 

Similar letters have been sent to Phil Angelides, Sheila Bair, Barnie Frank, a Clerk of the Court in Florida, and a Florida State’s Attorney.

Ms. Szymoniak goes on to reveal that clerks at DOCX are signing these documents pretending to be employees of varies banks and other financial institutions. For example:

… on mortgage documents prepared by DOCX, since January 1, 2006, Linda Green has signed as a Vice President of at least eight different banks and mortgage companies, including: Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Option One Mortgage Corporation, American Home Mortgage Servicing, American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, Sand Canyon Corporation, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as a nominee for HLB Mortgage.

Korell Harp’s purported signature appears on documents where he is identified as Vice President of MERS as nominee for Quick Loan Funding, Vice president and Assistant Secretary for Argent Mortgage Company, Authorized Signer for USAA Federal Savings Bank, Vice President of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as successor-in- interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation, Vice President of American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc., and Vice President of Sand Canyon Corporation.

 Tywanna Thomas’s purported signature appears on documents where she is identified as Assistant Vice President of MERS, as nominee for Quick Loan Funding, Inc.; Assistant Secretary of MERS, as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; Assistant Vice President of Sand Canyon Corporation, formerly known as Option One Mortgage; and Vice President & Assistant Secretary of Argent Mortgage Company.

 Other names that appear on hundreds of DOCX assignments, as officers of many different banks, include Jessica Odhe, Brent Bagley, Christie Baldwin, Cheryl Thomas and Linda Thoresen. These documents have all been notarized in Fulton County, Georgia. An examination of the signatures also reveals that the signatures of the same person vary significantly.

Via: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/39238

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, erica johnson seck, FIS, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, fraud digest, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, robo signer, robo signersComments (0)

LPS Offers Clarification to Recent Article: PRNewsWire

LPS Offers Clarification to Recent Article: PRNewsWire


Not Sooooo Fast! What corrections have you made here… exactly?? Have you corrected the families who are torn apart? Have you made corrections to notified all the many who lost their home by this? Have you made corrections to notify the lenders? Click Here

LPS Offers Clarification to Recent Article 

JACKSONVILLE, Fla., April 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Lender Processing Services, Inc. (NYSE: LPS), a leading provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage industry, today provided clarification to a recent article published by the Wall Street Journal.

As indicated in LPS’ most recent Form 10-K, filed in February 2010, LPS reported that during an internal review of the business processes used by its document solutions subsidiary, the Company identified a business process that caused an error in the notarization of certain documents, some of which were used in foreclosure proceedings in various jurisdictions around the country.

The services performed by this subsidiary were offered to a limited number of customers, were unrelated to the Company’s core default management services and were immaterial to the Company’s financial results. LPS immediately corrected the business process and has completed the remedial actions necessary to minimize the impact of the error.

LPS subsequently received an inquiry relating to this matter from the Clerk of Court of Fulton County, Georgia, which is the regulatory body responsible for licensing the notaries used by the Company’s document solutions subsidiary. In response, LPS met with the Clerk of Court, along with members of her staff, and reported on the Company’s identification of the error and the status of the corrective actions that were underway. LPS has since completed its remediation efforts with respect to all of the affected documents and believes the Clerk of the Court has completed its review and closed the matter.

As stated in the Company’s Form 10-K, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida is reviewing the business processes of this subsidiary. LPS has expressed its willingness to fully cooperate with the U.S. Attorney. LPS continues to believe that it has taken necessary remedial action with respect to this matter.

About Lender Processing Services

LPS is a leading provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage industry. LPS offers solutions that span the mortgage continuum, including lead generation, origination, servicing, portfolio retention, risk management and default, augmented by the company’s award-winning customer support and professional services. Approximately 50 percent of all U.S. mortgages are serviced using LPS’ MSP. LPS also offers proprietary mortgage and real estate data and analytics for the mortgage and capital markets industries. For more information about LPS, please visit www.lpsvcs.com.

SOURCE Lender Processing Services, Inc.

Back to top

RELATED LINKS
http://www.lpsvcs.com

PRNewsWire.com

Posted in fraud digest, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQComments (0)

Mortgage Fraud: Lender Processing Services by Lynn Szymoniak, ESQ.

Mortgage Fraud: Lender Processing Services by Lynn Szymoniak, ESQ.


Mortgage Fraud 

Lender Processing Services
 

Action Date: April 4, 2010 
Location: Jacksonville, FL 

In the first 3 days of April, 2010, the Wall Street Journal and the Jacksonville Business Journal both reported that Lender Processing Services was the subject of a federal criminal investigation involving a subsidiary company, Docx, LLC in Alpharetta, Georgia. A representative of the company reportedly acknowledged the investigation. Foreclosure defense blogs, and this website, have reported some of the problems with mortgage assignments prepared by Docx including Assignments where the grantor or grantee was described as “Bogus Assignee for Intervening Asmts” or “A Bad Bene.” Docx also produced many assignments with an effective date of 9/9/9999. In other cases, the effective date was listed as 1950. Other Assignments listed the amount of the original mortgage as $.00 or $.01. Still other assignments were missing signatures. The Docx office has produced over one million mortgage assignments in the last few years and filed these assignments in recorders’ offices across the country. How many Assignments were defective? Did any foreclosures occur based on the defective documents? Were court clerks notified of the defective assignments? Were borrowers notified? Were mortgage companies and banks notified? The company disclosures to date raise even more questions regarding the role of document mills in the national foreclosure crisis. Courts and litigants everywhere will be waiting for more complete disclosures. 

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, FIS, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, forensic mortgage investigation audit, fraud digest, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, robo signer, robo signersComments (8)

U.S. Probing LPS Unit Docx LLC: Report REUTERS

U.S. Probing LPS Unit Docx LLC: Report REUTERS


By REUTERS Published: April 3, 2010
Reuters

CHICAGO (Reuters) – A unit of Lender Processing Services Inc, a U.S. provider of paperwork used by banks in the foreclosure process, is being investigated by federal prosecutors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

Citing people familiar with the matter, the newspaper said a government probe into the business practices of the LPS unit was “criminal in nature.” According to the report, the probe was disclosed in LPS’s annual report in February.

The subsidiary being investigated is Docx LLC, which processes and sometimes produces documents used by banks to prove they own mortgages, the report said.

According to the report, among Docx documents being reviewed was one that incorrectly claimed an entity called “Bogus Assignee” was the owner of the loan.

The report cited LPS spokeswoman Michelle Kersch as saying that the “bogus” phrase was used as a placeholder and that some documents had been “inadvertently recorded before the field was updated.”

(Writing by James B. Kelleher)

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQComments (2)

U.S. Probes Foreclosure-Data Provider:Lender Processing Services Unit Draws Inquiry Over the Steps That Led to Faulty Bank Paperwork (LPS VIDEOS)

U.S. Probes Foreclosure-Data Provider:Lender Processing Services Unit Draws Inquiry Over the Steps That Led to Faulty Bank Paperwork (LPS VIDEOS)


Keep in mind this is only on the Georgia Subsidiary “DocX” mean while back at the ranch in Minnesota much, much, much more fraud has been created see the videos below.

APRIL 3, 2010 The Wall Street Journal

U.S. Probes Foreclosure-Data Provider

Lender Processing Services Unit Draws Inquiry Over the Steps That Led to Faulty Bank Paperwork

By AMIR EFRATI and CARRICK MOLLENKAMP

A subsidiary of a company that is a top provider of the documentation used by banks in the foreclosure process is under investigation by federal prosecutors.

The prosecutors are “reviewing the business processes” of the subsidiary of Lender Processing Services Inc., based in Jacksonville, Fla., according to the company’s annual securities filing released in February. People familiar with the matter say the probe is criminal in nature.

Michelle Kersch, an LPS spokeswoman, said the subsidiary being investigated is Docx LLC. Docx processes and sometimes produces documents needed by banks to prove they own the mortgages. LPS’s annual report said that the processes under review have been “terminated,” and that the company has expressed its willingness to cooperate. Ms. Kersch declined to comment further on the probe.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the middle district of Florida, which the annual report says is handling the matter, declined to comment.

The case follows on the dismissal of numerous foreclosure cases in which judges across the U.S. have found that the materials banks had submitted to support their claims were wrong. Faulty bank paperwork has been an issue in foreclosure proceedings since the housing crisis took hold a few years ago. It is often difficult to pin down who the real owner of a mortgage is, thanks to the complexity of the mortgage market.

During the housing boom, mortgages were originated by lenders, quickly sold to Wall Street firms that bundled them into debt pools and then sold to investors as securities. The loans were supposed to change hands but the documents and contracts between borrowers and lenders often weren’t altered to show changes in ownership, judges have ruled.

That has made it hard for banks, which act on behalf of mortgage-securities investors in most foreclosure cases, to prove they own the loans in some instances.

LPS has said its software is used by banks to track the majority of U.S. residential mortgages from the time they are originated until the debt is satisfied or a borrower defaults. When a borrower defaults and a bank needs to foreclose, LPS helps process paperwork the bank uses in court.

LPS was recently referenced in a bankruptcy case involving Sylvia Nuer, a Bronx, N.Y., homeowner who had filed for protection from creditors in 2008.

Continue reading … The Wall Street Journal

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY4aRn6bWKg]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tL8mNL4bYw]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbE6ryohJY]

and this is their video of the Minnesota Branch where they worry about “security”. I wonder if Christina Allen, Topako Love, Eric Tate, Laura Hescott were in this video?? Listen towards (4:41), they use “Delivery” or “Destruction“.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec4LpBa5nsk]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, FIS, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPSComments (5)

Feds Investigating LPS Subsidiary DOCX: Jacksonville Business Journal

Feds Investigating LPS Subsidiary DOCX: Jacksonville Business Journal


LPS statement “Technical Error” how about “HUMAN Robo-Signors FORGING, FABRICATING ERROR” to many tens-of- thousands (possibly in the miilions) of Assignmnet FRAUD “errors”. Preparing Docs in one state, Executing them in another and Notarizing in another? How about the signatures not matching the people who are signing? What about the folks in Minnesota where most of these were signed?

Via 4ClosureFraud

Well well well…

I wonder if this has anything to do with The Whole Country is BOGUS – Fabricated Mortgage Assignments All Over the Country???

Jacksonville Business Journal – by Rachel Witkowski Staff reporter

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tampa is investigating a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services Inc. that processes mortgage documents for lenders.

Jacksonville-based company (NYSE: LPS) stated in its 2009 annual report that the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Middle District of Florida recently began inquiring about the business processes of a subsidiary, DOCX LLC, based in Alpharetta, Ga.

LPS also acknowledged that there was an “error” in DOCX’s business processes and LPS immediately corrected it, according to the annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“We have representatives speaking with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and we are cooperating with all inquiries made by the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” said Michelle Kersch, LPS’ senior vice president of marketing and corporate communications, in an e-mailed response. “We changed the business process that created the technical error, provided additional training to our employees and corrected documents.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on its investigation.

Kersch said LPS was contacted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in February. That same month, another investigation by the Clerk of Superior Court in Fulton County, Ga. into DOCX had closed without taking any further action, officials said.

LPS has become a dominant player in the mortgage servicing market since it spun off from Fidelity National Information Services in July, 2008. LPS serviced about 70 percent of the non-performing loan market and 40 percent of foreclosed loans nationwide as of Dec. 31, according to LPS’ latest “mortgage monitor” report.

LPS increased revenue to nearly $2.4 billion in 2009 and recently announcing it will add 350 jobs through 2011. The Jacksonville Economic Development Commission has recommended nearly $3 million in city and state incentives for LPS to add those jobs in Jacksonville.

More to come…

Sample of their work “in-house” Minnesota…not only Alpharetta, GA

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tL8mNL4bYw]


© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, FIS, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, Former Fidelity National Information Services, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, robo signer, robo signers, scamComments (1)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments