“Obviously there aren’t many days when I wake up and think positively about the Countrywide acquisition in 2008,” said Brian Moynihan during a conference call arranged by Fairholme Capital Management, one of the bank’s biggest shareholders. 8/2011

Bloomberg-

U.S. Bancorp asked a New York court to force Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s Countrywide Financial unit to repurchase more than 4,000 loans in a mortgage pool to repair breaches of contract related to improper underwriting.

U.S. Bancorp, Minnesota’s largest bank, sued Countrywide yesterday in state court in New York, saying the lender agreed when it sold the pool in 2005 that it would repurchase all the loans within 90 days of receiving notice of a material breach. U.S. Bancorp is trustee for HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005- 10, which held the pool. The pool’s original value was $1.75 billion, the bank said in court papers.

[BLOOMBERG]

(Reuters) –

Top Bank of America Corp lawyers knew as early as January that American International Group Inc was prepared to sue the bank for more than $10 billion, seven months before the lawsuit was filed, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Bank of America shares fell more than 20 percent on August 8, the day the lawsuit was filed, adding to worries about the stability of the largest U.S. bank. It wasn’t until Warren Buffett stepped up with a $5 billion investment that those fears were eased, though hardly eliminated.

[REUTERS]

Abigail C. Field-

The American Home Servicing lawsuit against consummate and prolific robosigner Lender Processing Services is a pretty good read, but if you don’t have the time, I’ve highlighted the best nuggets.

Page 1: American Home Servicing Inc. says that over 30,000 assignments of mortgage in Texas and across America are fraudulent—“improperly executed, notarized and recorded”.

Page 2: American Home renames robosigners “Special Officers” to suggest the robosigners were legitimately signing the assignments of mortgages.

…

[REALITY CHECK]

Via NAKED CAPITALISM-

Wow, Jones Day just created a huge mess for its client and banks generally if anyone is alert enough to act on it.

The lawsuit in question is American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. v Lender Processing Services. It hasn’t gotten all that much attention (unless you are on the LPS deathwatch beat) because to most, it looks like yet another beauty contest between Cinderella’s two ugly sisters.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

.

Looks to me like the year was changed from 2009 to 2008 below…VERY SUSPICIOUS!

[ipaper docId=113924002 access_key=key-bo4zjmcs0z1kverjrx2 height=600 width=600 /]

UPDATE 9/25:

PETITION | American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. Vs. Lender Processing Services Inc., DOCX “Bombshell Admission of Failed Securitization Process”

`

Rumor has it for a bit now that all things robo-signing would see an end shortly after “Labor Day”, so now what happens to those who were unlawfully foreclosed upon? How do you justify that AHMSI knew of this for over a year to come to an unsuccessful agreement to settle with LPS?

HousingWire-

Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS: 17.07 -2.29%) and its DocX affiliate caused American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. to lose millions from the robo-signing of mortgage documents, a lawsuit filed Tuesday contends.

Coppell, Texas-based AHMSI filed suit in a Dallas district court against Jacksonville, Fla.-based LPS alleging more than 30,000 residential mortgages across the country were affected by  “improper execution, notarization and recording of assignments of mortgage.”

[HOUSING WIRE]

Oh it’s getting hard to escape this word connected to Mr. Stern. Just last month GMAC dropped a bombshell of it’s own in case you missed it.

Kim Miller-

An insurer for former foreclosure giant David J. Stern wants out of its policy, saying in a lawsuit that the company doesn’t cover “claims based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving a dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or malicious act or omission.”

Admiral Insurance Company filed a lawsuit Thursday in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, saying it shouldn’t be responsible for defense expenses in two class-action claims filed against Stern in Palm Beach County. Stern had a $3 million policy with Admiral that expired last year.

[PALM BEACH POST]

[ipaper docId=62351330 access_key=key-25ryyro2lukh48q51slx height=600 width=600 /]

Attorney’s are hired to fix “mistakes”, not make thousands!

Imagine all the people who lost their homes to this. There is a right way and wrong way but this just goes to the core of the allegations made in the Class action again David J Stern, MERS and Shareholders including GMAC, in Florida.

Continue down below to the stunning admissions.

[ipaper docId=62178221 access_key=key-237zpkgmot81a9s9aywq height=600 width=600 /]

Mortgage Fraud

GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Law Offices of David J. Stern

Action Date: August 12, 2011
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL

GMAC Mortgage, LLC filed counterclaims in a federal court lawsuit brought against GMAC by its former lawyers, The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (“Stern”). The case, No. 11-CV-61526, was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, where Stern’s offices were located.

GMAC accuses Stern of gross legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act and Misrepresentation/Suppression. GMAC seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

GMAC alleges that Stern:

1. caused or permitted Stern employees to execute, witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgage that were back-dated;

2. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgages, affidavits of indebtedness and/or other affidavits on a daily basis prior to and without actually witnessing execution of the document by the person whose signature was to be witnessed and/or notarized;

3. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to prepare and execute affidavits of indebtedness for submission to the foreclosure court that failed to follow appropriate professional practices and procedures;

4. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to sign the name of another person on various foreclosure-related documents without any indication of that fact on the documents;

5. charged GMAC substantial fees and costs for legal services that Stern knew or should have known fell below the minimum standard of professional care owed by Stern to GMAC; and

6. committed acts or omissions that have subjected GMAC to claims, losses and liabilities of third-parties.

Essentially, GMAC claims that Stern’s malpractice carrier should be held responsible for all of the allegedly fraudulent acts of Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons, and other Stern employees who signed mortgage assignments and affidavits to push through foreclosures at record-breaking speed.

On July 27, 2011, Stern filed its Answer to these GMAC claims including the following:

“ 9. GMACM’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands because of GMACM’s: breach of contract; failure to retain replacement counsel in a timely manner; signing inaccurate affidavits; affidavits that were not properly notarized; not confirming whether loan and mortgage documents were properly endorsed; assigned or in possession of the appropriate party; and other misconduct identified in the Consent Order entered on April 13, 2011 by Order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC, and because, to the extent DJSPA committed legal malpractice, which is expressly denied, any such malpractice was the result of GMACM’s own actions and/or instructions.”

Homeowners and investors are lost in this battle of the giants. Tens of thousands of Florida homeowners lost their foreclosure cases because of the fraudulent documents produced by GMAC.

These documents most certainly came from Stern, but they also came from GMAC’s own employees, including master-signer Jeffrey Stephan, and employees in many other major foreclosure mills used by GMAC. The Stern defense that “Everybody was doing it” is unfortunately true.

An important question for homeowners and investors is whether GMAC has instructed its new lawyers to advise the Courts and homeowners of these findings.

Malpractice insurance carriers throughout the country could not imagine a more ominous case. Copies of the Counterclaim and Answer are available in the Pleadings section of Fraud Digest.

McKenna raps trustee’s claim that it doesn’t have to abide with state law

SEATTLE – Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced that his office is suing ReconTrust Company, a subsidiary of Bank of America, for conducting illegal foreclosures on thousands of Washington homeowners.

“ReconTrust ignored our warnings, repeatedly broke the law and refused to provide information requested during our investigation,” McKenna said. “ReconTrust’s illegal practices make it difficult, if not impossible, for borrowers who might have a shot at saving their homes to stop those foreclosures.”

ReconTrust is a foreclosure trustee that is legally required to act as a neutral party on behalf of both the lender and the borrower while conducting foreclosure proceedings in good faith and in accordance with the law.

The lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court by McKenna and Assistant Attorney General Jim Sugarman, of the office’s Consumer Protection Division, alleges that “ReconTrust has failed to comply with the Washington Deed of Trust Act, RCW 61.24, in each and every foreclosure it has conducted since at least June 12, 2008.” The company is also accused of violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

The Attorney General’s Office announced the suit during a news conference held outside a foreclosed home in Seattle. McKenna and Sugarman were joined by two women whose homes were foreclosed by ReconTrust and several private attorneys who are also concerned about ReconTrust’s actions.

“My home is being foreclosed on. The situation has caused great pain for my son and myself,” said Myra Cole, a single mother from Spanaway who struggled to find employment after a layoff. Her loan servicer was reviewing her Spanaway home for a loan modification when ReconTrust sold the house at foreclosure.

“I couldn’t understand how this could have happened,” Cole continued. “I got the run-around. I just can’t believe that the company that’s supposed to be helping me is foreclosing on me. … We are trying to save our homes. We’re doing the steps they tell us. In the end, it’s all for nothing. It’s an injustice.”

Ruby Barrus told a similar story about the home where she and her husband live in Marysville. During a time of financial hardship, their loan servicer promised not to foreclose while they worked out a loan modification.

“Our payments were never late,” Barrus said, adding that they only stopped making payments because the bank indicated they needed to default to qualify for the modification. “We just figured they knew what they were doing because they were our servicer. … Months later, we get a letter from ReconTrust saying they’re our foreclosure attorneys. We had never heard of them.”

Both women are in court battles to keep their homes.

McKenna said an essential requirement of the Deed of Trust statute is that a trustee maintains an office in the state where homeowners can go to ask questions, make last-minute payments and request a foreclosure be postponed for a legitimate reason. But ReconTrust doesn’t have an office in Washington.

“ReconTrust’s claim that the company doesn’t have to follow Washington law and procedures because it is a national bank is wrong,” McKenna added.

The Attorney General’s Office alleges the company:

• Failed to maintain a physical office with telephone service in Washington.
• Failed to identify the actual owner of the promissory notes being foreclosed.
• Provided confusing information regarding how borrowers defaulted and how they can cure that default.
• Failed to conduct foreclosures in a public place, instead holding them at private sites including an office park in Bellevue.
• Created or permitted the use of documents that were improperly executed, notarized or sworn to. Sugarman said notices and agreements contained conflicting dates and improper notarizations and ReconTrust employees sometimes signed as officers of other entities.
• Failed to exercise its duty of good faith toward the borrower by deferring solely to the lender when deciding whether to postpone a foreclosure.

The complaint states that homeowners facing foreclosure are “captive to ReconTrust’s services” and that the company’s failures to abide by the law have concealed material information needed by homeowners to assert rights and defenses, negotiate a loan modification, cure defaults, and postpone or stop a foreclosure sale.

Sugarman said, “It is particularly important right now for trustees to understand and strictly comply with Washington foreclosure law. There have been several changes including a new right for homeowners to request mediation to discuss a possible loan modification or forbearance before the bank pursues foreclosure.”

The complaint asks that the court require ReconTrust to comply with the law and impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation, as well as restitution for consumers.

Based on information obtained during its investigation, the Attorney General’s Office estimates that ReconTrust has issued 9,900 foreclosure notices since January 2008 in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties alone.  ReconTrust forecloses across the state.  It’s unknown how many foreclosures may have been prevented had ReconTrust complied with laws.

In May 2010, the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division began investigating reports of lenders and trustee services not properly reviewing foreclosure documents or following other legal procedures. McKenna sent letters in October 2010 and April 2011, outlining concerns and calling on trustees to suspend questionable foreclosures in the state. The office is investigating more than a dozen other trustees for suspected violations.

The office also remains very involved with the multistate investigation into problems in the foreclosure industry.

For more information about these investigations and resources for homeowners, including new mediation rights, visit www.atg.wa.gov/foreclosure.aspx.

Private lawsuits against ReconTrust have been filed in Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon and Arizona concerning its role in foreclosures in those states, as well as by private attorneys in Washington.  The Attorney General of Utah sent a public letter to Bank of America threatening suit if ReconTrust continued to violate Utah foreclosure law.

DOCUMENTS

ReconTrust Complaint

This link lists properties that are listed for sale or have been sold by ReconTrust: http://www.recontrustco.com/upcoming_counties.aspx?state=Washington

Media Contact:

Kristin Alexander, Media Relations Manager,

(206) 464-6432, cell: (206) 437-2654,

kalexander@atg.wa.gov

source: http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=28750

[ipaper docId=61703531 access_key=key-2myrtxu8dr1d5ngpzxp6 height=600 width=600 /]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
———————————-
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
AS CONSERVATOR FOR THE FEDERAL
NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
AND THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

-AGAINST-

UBS AMERICAS INC., UBS REAL ESTATE
SECURITIES INC., UBS SECURITIES,
LLC, MORTGAGE ASSET
SECURITIZATION TRANSACTION, INC.,
DAVID MARTIN, PER DYRVIK, HUGH
CORCORAN, and PERTER SLAGOWITZ

[ipaper docId=61071280 access_key=key-2fomkzd72dimz4spdbu4 height=600 width=600 /]

.
.
.
.

Real Town-

OMG! Just when you think you’ve seen it all, along comes a new horror story that makes the thought of doing short sales even more disgusting than before!!

Because of our intense hatred of all banks (BofA and Chase head the top of the list) we decided to stop doing short sales, and most conventional real estate transaction last summer and have been buying and flipping properties instead!

The last short sale we did was one we were referred to in October of 2009 (no good deed goes unpunished!!). The client (Tom) had recently lost his job due to downsizing and, to make matters worse, his mother had been diagnosed with a life threatening disease. There was no way we could turn this opportunity down to assist him so we took the listing on his one bedroom condo in southern California. He had purchase it in 2007 for $224K and we figured the current value was about $125K. We put it on the market and got an offer for $130K within a couple of weeks! Tom moved out of state to assist his mother in her remaining days on earth and we were happy to have an offer. After 5 months of negotiating with BofA (loan servicer) with 2 different negotiators, we finally got approval for a sale price of $123k!! (First negotiator said it was worth $180K!!!- Surprise)!

We closed the deal in April, 2010 and both the Seller and Buyer were ecstatic! All was right with the world!

Fast forward to July 2011! Last week, we received a document from our Seller that he had received. Are you sitting down? It was a LAW SUIT on behalf of MERS and Fannie Mae (Plaintiffs) against the Seller and Buyer (Defendants) and a possible 23 other defendants, (Does) who are at this point unnamed!

Continue reading [REAL TOWN]

Wonder what AG Madigan means by “RESOURCES”. Betcha it’s lots & lots O’documents!

BLOOMBERG-

Two state attorneys general who are among those leading negotiations with the five largest U.S. mortgage servicers over their foreclosure practices said the banks would be sued if a settlement isn’t reached.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper threatened litigation if settlement talks with the companies, including Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), break down.

Continue reading [BLOOMBERG]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION BOARD, as
Liquidating Agent of U.S. Central Federal
Credit Union Western Corporate Federal
Credit Union, Members United Corporate
Federal Credit Union, and Southwest
Corporate Federal Credit Union,

v.

J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC., J.P.
MORGAN ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION I, AMERICAN HOME
MORTGAGE ASSETS LLC, INDYMAC
MBS, INC., and BOND
SECURITIZATION, LLC,

[ipaper docId=58313591 access_key=key-3fabu8obe8zi8bw2hda height=600 width=600 /]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION BOARD, as
Liquidating Agent of U.S. Central Federal
Credit Union,

v.

RBS SECURITIES, INC., f/k/a
GREENWICH CAPITAL MARKETS, INC.,
GREENWICH CAPITAL ACCEPTANCE,
INC., FINANCIAL ASSET SECURITIES
CORP., FREMONT MORTGAGE
SECURITIES CORP., RESIDENTIAL
FUNDING MORTGAGE SECURITIES II,
INC., INDYMAC MBS, INC., NOVASTAR
MORTGAGE FUNDING CORP.,
NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC.,
LARES ASSET SECURITIZATION, INC.,
SAXON ASSET SECURITIES CO., and
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST,
LLC,

[ipaper docId=58313347 access_key=key-po3c7c8bbfaih107t49 height=600 width=600 /]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as Receiver of
Washington Mutual Bank,

v.

LSI APPRAISAL, LLC; FIDELITY
NATIONAL INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC.; LENDER
PROCESSING SERVICES, INC.;
LEENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC; LPS PROPERTY TAX
SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a FIDELITY
NATIONAL TAX SERVICE, INC.; LSI
TITLE COMPANY;
and LSI TITLE AGENCY, INC.

[ipaper docId=55234793 access_key=key-21ksyhpjhgw03av1x0v9 height=600 width=600 /]

According to an 8k form filed on May 10, 2011,

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), in its capacity as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (“WAMU”), filed a complaint on May 9, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to recover alleged losses of approximately $154,519,000. The FDIC contends these losses were a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ alleged breach of contract with WAMU and alleged gross negligence of the defendants with respect to the provision of certain services by LPS’s subsidiary LSI Appraisal LLC, an appraisal management company. In particular, the FDIC claims that the services provided failed to conform with federal and state law, regulatory guidelines and other industry standards, including specifically the provisions of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”). LPS previously described the possibility of this suit in its Form 10-Q filed May 5, 2011.

In its complaint, the FDIC cites, as the cause of the damages claimed, 220 appraisals performed between June 2006 and May 2008. However, for more than 75 percent of the appraisals identified by the FDIC, LSI was contracted only to provide reviews of appraisals, not to conduct the initial, full appraisals. For these properties, the full appraisals were provided by other entities, unrelated to LSI. For all appraisals subject to this complaint, LPS believes there is no basis for a claim that LSI engaged in “gross negligence” or breach of contract related to these appraisal services.

LPS stands firmly behind the integrity of the services it provides to the mortgage industry and intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

Source: Edgar Online

H/t Social Apocalypse

.
.
.