LLP | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "LLP"

Full Deposition of Michele Sjolander, Executive Vice President of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. “Stamp Endorsement”

Full Deposition of Michele Sjolander, Executive Vice President of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. “Stamp Endorsement”


Remember Michele Sjolander? Well, you can read about her in MERS, Endorsed Note Get SLAMMED by Kings County NY Supreme Court | BANK of NEW YORK v. ALDERAZI -

As well as in ARIZONA BK COURT ORDERS BONY MELLON TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL CUSTODIAN DOCUMENTS

and finally in the FULL DEPOSITION OF BANK OF AMERICA ROBO SIGNER RENEE D. HERTZLER

Fresh off the depo wagon comes her Full Deposition courtesy of 4closurefraud.

Excerpts:

Q It’s employees at Recontrust that stamp the
7 endorsements on the notes in general, including this one;
8 is that right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And you’ve seen that taking place?
11 A Yes.
12 Q In Simi Valley?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Is there some type of manual or set of
15 instructions?
16 A They have my power of attorney.
17 Q Well, okay. That’s not what I’m asking. But I
18 do want to know about that. But what I’m saying: Is
19 there some sort of manual or instructions or –
20 A If you want to know the desk procedures, you
21 would have to speak with an associate of Recontrust.
22 Q Okay. Okay. Sorry. I’m just reading the notes
23 again. Now, I’m going to try to explain this. I may
24 have to do it a couple of times, but just bear with me.
25 And you’ve been very helpful so far. I appreciate it,
1 there it sat is I guess what I’m asking.
2 A In safekeeping, yes.
3 Q Okay. All right. Now, this is something you
4 touched on a minute ago. I’m going to try to phrase it
5 in a way that makes sense. Who — and let’s just deal
6 with Countrywide in 2007.
7 Who is allowed to be an endorser as you were? I
8 mean, who — let me leave it at that and see if that
9 makes sense to you.
10 A I don’t know what you’re asking.
11 Q What I’m saying is: Are there people other than
12 you at Countrywide in 2007 whose names would appear on a
13 note as an endorsement?
14 A For Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.?
15 Q Yes.
16 A In 2007, I was the endorser for Countrywide Home
17 Loans, Inc.
18 Q Okay. And, I mean, can you explain why you, in
19 particular? I mean, how is that established?
20 A Just lucky.
21 Q I mean, I know this is going to sound silly, but
22 was there some competition for it? Did they come to you
23 and say, “Ms. Sjolander, we choose you?” I mean, how did
24 you come to be designated the person?
25 A It is the position I held within Countrywide.
1 Q Okay. And did you know that going in; you know,
2 if you take this job, you’re going to be the endorser?
3 Was that explained to you at some point?
4 A I knew that my previous boss was the endorser,
5 yes.
6 Q Oh, okay. Now, we covered this, that other
7 people stamped your signature and the other — her name
8 is — oh, it’s Laurie Meder?
9 A Meder.
10 Q Okay. So other people have a stamp with her
11 name and your name on it, and how do those people have
12 the authority to put her name and your name on a note for
13 it to be an effective endorsement?
14 A With my name, they have a power of attorney.
15 Q And what does the power of attorney say?
16 A The power of attorney allows them to place my
17 endorsement stamp on collateral.
18 Q How do they come to have your power of attorney?
19 A I gave that to them.
20 Q But, I mean, in what sort of process? You know,
21 how does someone at Recontrust — I mean, I understand
22 that a power of attorney document exists, I’m assuming;
23 correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And how do those people come to operate under
1 it?
2 A It’s common, standard practice.
3 Q I may not be asking it quite right. I guess
4 what I’m asking is: Do they — the people who actually
5 use the stamps — is there more than one, or is there
6 just one stamp? I said “stamps” multiple. Is there only
7 one, or is there –
8 A No, there’s multiple stamps.
9 Q So do these people sign something that says, “I
10 understand I’m under Michele Sjolander’s power of
11 attorney”?
12 A Once again, you would have to look at the desk
13 procedures for Recontrust, and you would have to talk to
14 someone at Recontrust.
15 Q So that’s your understanding that you — did you
16 sign a power of attorney document?
17 A Yes, I did.
18 Q And, I mean, can you explain just in — you
19 know, in general, not word for word what it says, but
20 what does it purport to grant as power of attorney?
21 A It grants Recontrust. They can endorse and
22 assign notes on behalf of myself.
23 Q And do you know if this applies to a select
24 group of people?
25 A I do not have — I would have to read the
1 document.
2 Q Okay. But just to clarify, once again, you
3 don’t actually know the legal mechanism by which these
4 people with the stamps operate under this power of
5 attorney?
6 A As I said, I would have to go back through all
7 of the documentation that surrounds the power of
8 attorney, and Recontrust has desk procedures, and it
9 would be their procedures for them to assign that, to
10 place the stamp on the collateral.
11 Q And this was a procedure in 2007, what we’re
12 talking here is 2007?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And to the present?
15 A No.

<SNIP>

4 Q All of it, okay. Let’s see. Now, you mentioned
5 documents that you had reviewed. The AS-400, that’s a –
6 can you just refresh my memory? What was that again?
7 A A servicing system.
8 Q A servicing system, okay. Now, when you looked
9 over these records and documents before that you
10 mentioned before, where were you when you looked at
11 those?
12 A Simi Valley.
13 Q Simi Valley. And where were the documents that
14 you were looking at?
15 A At that time, they were brought into my office.
16 Q Do you have any idea where they were brought
17 from?
18 A They were printed off the system.
19 Q Printed off the system.
20 A From one of my associates.
21 Q Is that a computer system?
22 A As I said, the collateral tracking is printed
23 off the AS-400, which is our servicing system. The
24 investor number commitment was printed off — it’s a
25 web-based application from secondary marketing. It’s
1 printed off of that. The note was printed off of our
2 imaging system. And I think in this case I asked for a
3 copy of the note showing the endorsements, because in our
4 imaging system it does not — the note is actually imaged
5 prior to my endorsement stamp being in place. So I had
6 my associate contact the bank, which is Recontrust, to
7 get a copy of the original note to show my endorsement
8 stamps, because in imaging it is not shown.
9 Q So if a copy is made of a note that you got from
10 Recontrust, it doesn’t have an endorsement? Is that what
11 you’re saying?
12 A From our bank, it does. In our imaging system,
13 it does not. The note is imaged prior to an
14 endorsement — in ’07, the note is imaged prior to an
15 endorsement being placed on the note. So if you look in
16 our imaging system, you wouldn’t see the chain of title
17 of endorsement.
18 Q And where would you see that?
19 A On the original note.
20 Q Which is — which is where?
21 A In this case, it was in the Fannie Mae vault in
22 Simi Valley, California.
23 Q We’ll come back to the Fannie Mae vault. Okay.
24 So they’re printed off in AS-400 imaging system.
25 A AS-400 and the imaging system are two different
systems.
2 Q Oh, you said AS-400 is a servicing software
3 platform of some type?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And the imaging system, what — can you describe
6 that?
7 A It’s a –
8 Q You know –
9 A It’s when all of the collateral documents and
10 credit file documents are imaged after the closing of a
11 loan, and they are put in our imaging system, and we can
12 go into the system by loan number and pull up the
13 documentation of a loan –
14 Q I guess –
15 A — if you have access to the system.
16 Q But imaging, I mean, I’m imagining a scanner of
17 some sort. Is that what it is?
18 A It is not my area. I cannot tell you.

continue below…

[ipaper docId=86409969 access_key=key-1jwwt069dbt1xut3euia height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (8)

FHFA Announces Senior Staff Appointments

FHFA Announces Senior Staff Appointments


Federal Housing Finance Agency Acting Director Edward J. DeMarco has announced the appointments of Richard B. Hornsby, as FHFA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO),
and Jon Greenlee, as the agency’s Deputy Director of the Division of Enterprise Regulation.

[ipaper docId=74182269 access_key=key-10adm7gp8ybl9s99w8j8 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

IN RE BANKS, Bankr. Appellate Panel, 8th Circuit: ““bearer” note, which requires actual possession of the note to enforce or negotiate it.

IN RE BANKS, Bankr. Appellate Panel, 8th Circuit: ““bearer” note, which requires actual possession of the note to enforce or negotiate it.


 In re: Edward D. Banks and Diane Marie Banks, Debtors.

Edward D. Banks and Diane Marie Banks, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Kondaur Capital Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
Shapiro & Zielke, LLP, formerly known as Shapiro Nordmeyer & Zielke, Defendant.

No. 11-6025.
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 13, 2011.
Filed: October 11, 2011.

Before VENTERS, FEDERMAN, and SALADINO, Bankruptcy Judges.

VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judge.

The Debtors, Edward and Diane Banks, appeal the bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Kondaur Mortgage Corp. in the Debtors’ adversary action seeking, inter alia, to avoid Kondaur’s mortgage lien on the Debtors’ residence. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand the matter to bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.[1] The bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.[2]

II. BACKGROUND

A. Uncontroverted Facts

On June 27, 2006, the Bankses purchased a home located at 964 Laurel Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104. To finance this purchase, the Bankses executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of New Century Mortgage Corporation (“NCMC”) in the amount of $415,800.00. On April 2, 2007, NCMC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.[3] NCMC’s bankruptcy case was jointly administered with the bankruptcy case filed by its parent company, New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.[4]

On May 2, 2007, New Century Financial Corporation (“New Century”) and certain of its subsidiaries (including NCMC) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) with Ellington Management Group, LLC.[5] Pursuant to the APA, Ellington purchased all of New Century’s right, title, and interest in numerous notes and mortgages (the “Purchased Assets”), which included the Bankses’ note and mortgage. The Delaware Bankruptcy Court approved the APA on May 7, 2007.

In connection with the APA, New Century also agreed to execute a power of attorney appointing Ellington as its attorney-in-fact, enabling Ellington to execute all documents necessary to assign or foreclose mortgages in the name of New Century. On March 12, 2008, New Century executed and delivered to Ellington a Limited Power of Attorney, which was recorded with the Ramsey County (Minnesota) Recorder on February 25, 2010.

On July 15, 2008, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court approved a plan of liquidation for New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. The remainder of New Century’s assets were transferred to a liquidating trustee pursuant to the plan.[6]

On May 11, 2009, Ellington, as attorney-in-fact for New Century, assigned the Bankses’ mortgage to Elizon LA 2007-2, LLC.[7] The assignment was recorded on June 23, 2009, but according to Kondaur, the assignment to Elizon was a mistake. On February 22, 2010, Ellington executed a “Corrective Assignment Mortgage” purporting to re-assign the Bankses’ mortgage to Kondaur. The Corrective Assignment was recorded on February 25, 2010.[8]

B. Procedural Background

The Bankses filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on May 17, 2010. On October 12, 2010, they filed a seven-count complaint against Kondaur, seeking a combination of declarative, injunctive, and compensatory relief. At essence, the Bankses challenge Kondaur’s standing as the holder of the promissory note and owner of the mortgage originally executed in favor of NCMC. Attached to the complaint as exhibits were copies of (a) the assignment of mortgage from NCMC to Elizon LA 2007-2, LLC; (b) the “Corrective Assignment,” purporting to assign the mortgage from NCMC to Kondaur; and (c) the limited power of attorney giving Ellington Management Group, LLC the power to endorse and transfer mortgages on NCMC’s behalf.

On November 24, 2010, Kondaur filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Kondaur attached a copy of the APA to the motion and referenced Kondaur’s proof of claim, to which was attached a copy of the original promissory note — endorsed in blank — and the original mortgage to NCMC.

The bankruptcy court held a hearing on Kondaur’s motion to dismiss on December 20, 2010, at which time the court indicated its intent to treat the motion as one for summary judgment since the motion referred to material outside of the pleadings. Counsel for the Debtors reiterated that they were there on a motion to dismiss — not a motion for summary judgment — but they didn’t specifically object to going forward, and they too referred to the APA in their argument.

On December 23, 2010, the bankruptcy court entered an order granting Kondaur summary judgment on all counts of the Debtors’ complaint.[9] The Debtors timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.[10] We view the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and afford that party all reasonable inferences.[11] An issue of fact must be based on specific factual allegations.[12]

Summary judgment was improper in this case because there was a material issue of fact regarding whether Kondaur has possession of the original promissory note.

As Kondaur admits, and is apparent from the copy of the note attached to its proof of claim, the promissory note the Debtors executed in favor of NCMC has not been specifically endorsed to Kondaur; it is endorsed in blank. Accordingly, it is a “bearer” note, which requires actual possession of the note to enforce or negotiate it.[13] The Debtors raised the issue of whether Kondaur is the proper party to enforce the note and cast further doubt on Kondaur’s standing by introduction of the Corrective Assignment. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the record evidencing the location of the note. Kondaur’s counsel represented at oral argument before this Court that Kondaur has possession of the note, but its failure to produce the note prior to or at the hearing on its motion to dismiss (treated as a motion for summary judgment) precluded a determination that Kondaur has the right, as a matter of law, to enforce the promissory note.

At oral argument, Debtors’ counsel conceded that there is a valid mortgage on the property and that production of the note most likely will remove the final hurdle to Kondaur’s pending motion for relief and Kondaur’s motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding.[14]

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the bankruptcy court’s order entering summary judgment in favor of Kondaur is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[1] See In re Waterman, 248 B.R. 567, 570 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2000).

[2] See U.S. v. Horras, 443 B.R. 159, 161-62 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.2011) (citing Taylor v. St. Louis County Bd. of Election Commissioners, 625 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2010)).

[3] Case No. 07-10419-KJC.

[4] In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., Case No. 07-10416.

[5] The relationship between NCMC and New Century Financial Corp. is not clear from the record, but it is not the basis of any challenge here.

[6] The Bankses’ argument that Ellington lacked the authority to assign the Banksees’ mortgage to Kondaur because the assignment took place some time after New Century’s assets were transferred to a liquidating trustee under New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.’s plan is without merit. Although New Century might have remained the titular owner of the mortgage, its substantive rights therein had already been transferred to Ellington pursuant to the APA.

[7] Inexplicably, the date on the assignment indicates that it was signed on May 11, 2009, but the notarization indicates that it was signed on May 11, 2007.

[8] Although we reverse on other grounds, we have serious concerns about the validity and effect of the “Corrective Assignment.” At oral argument, Kondaur represented that it was common practice in the mortgage industry. Considering the current state of the mortgage industry, this gives us little comfort. At the least, the Corrective Assignment would appear to create a cloud on Kondaur’s right to foreclose, necessitating a judicial foreclosure.

[9] The order did not include a judgment on Count VII of the complaint, which alleged that Kondaur’s attorneys violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, because the reference had been withdrawn on that count on April 14, 2011.

[10] Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, applicable herein pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7056; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

[11] See In re Patch, 526 F.3d 1176, 1180 (8th Cir. 2008).

[12] See Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 644 F.3d 728, 734 (8th Cir.2011) (citation omitted).

[13] See Minn. Stat. § 336.3-205(b).

[14] Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487, 494 (Minn. 2009).

[ipaper docId=69075230 access_key=key-27jsyanir04z0khwkv97 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

U.S. banks offered deal over lawsuits – FT

U.S. banks offered deal over lawsuits – FT


REUTERS-

Big U.S. banks in talks with state prosecutors to settle claims of improper mortgage practices have been offered a deal that is proposed to limit part of their legal liability, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday.

The FT said state prosecutors have proposed a deal to limit part of the banks’ liability in return for a multibillion-dollar payment.

The talks aim to settle allegations that banks including Bank of America (BAC.N), JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N), Wells Fargo (WFC.N), Citigroup (C.N) and Ally Financial (GKM.N). seized the homes of delinquent borrowers and broke state laws by employing so-called “robosigners”, workers who signed off on foreclosure documents en masse without reviewing the paperwork.

[REUTERS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

LETTER | Iowa AG: Banks may face criminal liability after robo-signing settlement

LETTER | Iowa AG: Banks may face criminal liability after robo-signing settlement


LIES: Didn’t we hear this before?

HW-

The eventual robo-signing settlement between the 50 state attorneys general and major mortgage servicers will not release these firms from any criminal and not all civil liabilities, according to Iowa AG Tom Miller.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and 20 members of the New York congressional delegation sent a letter to Miller Wednesday, chiding him for allegedly ousting New York AG Eric Schneiderman from the talks.

“We are deeply troubled by your recent action to silence New York’s voice by removing New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from an executive committee negotiating a nationwide settlement with the banks,” Nadler wrote.

[…]

“While a final multistate case release has not been negotiated and the release is a work in progress, attorneys general on the negotiation committee are not preparing to, nor will they agree to, release the banks from all civil liability,” Miller wrote in his letter to Nadler. “We are also not preparing to, nor can we agree to, release the banks from any criminal liability.”

[HOUSING WIRE]

[ipaper docId=63834830 access_key=key-1pa07f0fvx22a1cl256d height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Memo: BofA to Sell Correspondent Mortgage Business

Memo: BofA to Sell Correspondent Mortgage Business


WSJ-

From: Home Loan News Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:19am Subject: Important Message From Barbara DeSoer

To All IMS Associates

I wanted to provide this team with information about a strategic announcement our Home Loans business will make today that is consistent with our ongoing efforts to align the business to the bank’s customer-driven strategy.

Earlier this year, when we split out the Legacy Asset Servicing business, we did so in order for our team to focus on the future of the home loans business. We have made significant progress over the past several months and are taking steps to further position our business to serve the needs of the bank’s 58 million households and attract new mortgage customers with the potential to support growth across the franchise.

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

BREAKING: Bank of America to Exit Mortgage Business

BREAKING: Bank of America to Exit Mortgage Business


It’s going to tank!

WSJ-

Bank of America Corp. intends to sell its correspondent mortgage business, as the troubled lender looks to narrow its focus and bolster its financial strength, said people familiar with the situation.

Employees could be notified as soon as Wednesday that the lender has decided to exit the correspondent channel because it no longer fits with the long-term strategy for its mortgage unit. The company decided to get out roughly four to six weeks ago, following a review led by mortgage chief Barbara Desoer. The business employs more than 1,000 people.

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Federal Housing Finance Agency Action Regarding Court Consideration of Proposed Bank of America Settlement

Federal Housing Finance Agency Action Regarding Court Consideration of Proposed Bank of America Settlement


For Immediate Release

Contact:
Corinne Russell (202) 414-6921
Stefanie Johnson (202) 414-6376

August 30, 2011

Federal Housing Finance Agency Action Regarding
Court Consideration of Proposed Bank of America Settlement

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), in its capacity as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), today filed an Appearance and Conditional Objection regarding the proposed settlement between Bank of America and a consortium of 22 investors being considered by a court in New York. This pleading was filed to obtain any additional pertinent information developed in the matter. The conservator is aware of no basis upon which it would raise a substantive objection to the proposed settlement at this time. In fact, FHFA considers it positive that the proposed settlement includes subservicing requirements, specific terms for the servicing of troubled mortgages and the curing of certain document deficiencies. Additionally, FHFA is encouraged that a number of significant market participants support the proposed settlement.

Due to its duty to preserve and conserve Enterprise assets, the conservator believes it prudent not only to receive additional information as it continues its due   diligence of the proposed settlement, but also to reserve its capability to voice a substantive objection in the unlikely event that necessity should arise.

###

The Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks. These government-sponsored enterprises provide more than $5.7 trillion in funding for the U.S. mortgage markets and financial institutions.

[ipaper docId=63608461 access_key=key-28qkwf1hpfo6v93rjo0r height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Nadler and NY Delegation Assail Iowa Attorney General for Excluding NY Attorney General from Mortgage Settlement Talks

Nadler and NY Delegation Assail Iowa Attorney General for Excluding NY Attorney General from Mortgage Settlement Talks


Tuesday, 30 August 2011

NEW YORK, NY – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, and 20 members of New York’s congressional delegation chided Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller for his dismissal of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman last week from ongoing mortgage settlement negotiations, demanding that Attorney General Miller explain how he intends to ensure that New York’s interests are represented during the remainder of the negotiation talks.  The national committee of state Attorneys General are working to settle numerous complex legal matters arising from the 2008 housing collapse.


“As members of the New York congressional delegation, we are united in fighting for a fair resolution of the housing crisis that has devastated tens of thousands of families across our state,” the members wrote.  “That is why we are deeply troubled by your recent action to silence New York’s voice by removing New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from an executive committee negotiating a nationwide settlement with the banks.  We ask that you explain how New York’s interests will be protected as negotiations move forward.”

Below is the full text of the letter:

August 30, 2011

The Honorable Tom Miller
Attorney General
1305 East Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50319

Dear Attorney General Miller:

As members of the New York congressional delegation, we are united in fighting for a fair resolution of the housing crisis that has devastated tens of thousands of families across our state.  That is why we are deeply troubled by your recent action to silence New York’s voice by removing New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from an executive committee negotiating a nationwide settlement with the banks.  We ask that you explain how New York’s interests will be protected as negotiations move forward.

New York’s homeowners and investors have been hit hard by the economic impact of wrongdoing related to the mortgage crisis.  According to the FBI, New York ranked as one of the top ten states for known or suspected mortgage fraud activity for two consecutive years.  It also was one of the top ten states for reports of mortgage fraud across all originations in 2010.  Undoubtedly, our state, the third largest in the nation, deserves a seat at any negotiating table that could potentially limit our state’s ability to investigate and penalize wrongdoing done within our borders.

Raising legitimate concerns about elements of the proposed settlement is a responsibility of every member of the executive committee and should never be the basis for silencing a viewpoint.  Your removal of Attorney General Schneiderman sets a dangerous precedent for other attorneys general who, out of fear of what might happen, may choose silence over voicing valid concerns with particular aspects of the proposed settlement.  Moreover, your attempt to banish opposition rather than address varying viewpoints undermines both the validity of the process and any settlement reached by the committee.

New York deserves adequate representation during the remainder of the mortgage settlement negotiations.  We look forward to hearing how you will ensure that New York’s voice is heard.

Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler
Carolyn Maloney
Maurice Hinchey
Joseph Crowley
Edolphus Towns
Carolyn McCarthy
Jose Serrano
Gary Ackerman
Timothy Bishop
Eliot Engel
Charles Rangel
Nita Lowey
Louise Slaughter
Paul Tonko
Gregory Meeks
Bill Owens
Yvette Clarke
Kathleen Hochul
Brian Higgins
Nydia Velazquez
Steve Israel

###

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Matt Stoller: Power Politics – What Eric Schneiderman Reveals About Obama

Matt Stoller: Power Politics – What Eric Schneiderman Reveals About Obama


Absolute Must Read…

Naked Capitalism-

A lot of people have asked why New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is going after the banks as aggressively as he is. It’s almost unbelievable that one lone elected official, who happens to have powerful legal tools at his disposal, is doing something that no one with any serious degree of power has done. So what is the secret? What kind of machinations is he undertaking that no one else has been able to do?

I’ve known Schneiderman for a few years, back when he was a state Senator working to reform the Rockefeller drug laws. And my answer to this question is pretty simple. He wants to. That’s it. Eric Schneiderman is investigating the banks because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. So he’s doing it. This guy has thought about his politics. He wrote an article about how he sees politics in 2008 in the Nation, and in his inaugural speech as NY AG he talked about the need to restore faith in both public and private institutions. Free will still counts for something, apparently.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

The Man Who May Bring the Banksters to Justice (If They Don’t Break His Knees First)

The Man Who May Bring the Banksters to Justice (If They Don’t Break His Knees First)


New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman may will go down in history as the most important public official in reforming the corrupt financial system!!

HuffPO-

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman may go down in history as the most important public official in reforming the corrupt financial system that caused the great Financial Crisis of 2008 and holding the perps responsible — if he can hold out against pressure from Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and the Obama administration to give Wall Street a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

Eric Schneiderman has played a key role in the investigation of foreclosure fraud and robo-signing by 50 state attorneys general against JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Bank. Reportedly, most of of the attorneys general — with the support of the Obama administration — are advocating a $20 billion settlement with the banks (less than a year’s worth of Wall Street’s bonus pool) in exchange for broad immunity from future investigations and prosecutions, not only of illegal foreclosures but of a wide range of fraudulent activity in connection with mortgage securitization over the past decade.

[HUFFINGTON POST]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5 Billion Mortgage-Bond Pact

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5 Billion Mortgage-Bond Pact


There will be NO settlement!

Via Bloomberg-

The FDIC objected to Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s proposed mortgage-bond settlement.

Filing Courtesy of Naked Capitalism & Webber3292

[ipaper docId=63528705 access_key=key-zs0zok86w3cc6fo3fte height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Under fire, N.Y. AG wins plaudits in mortgage probe

Under fire, N.Y. AG wins plaudits in mortgage probe


Miller said he invited Schneiderman’s office in June to be part of a smaller negotiating committee, but Schneiderman declined, indicating he “would possibly pursue a different direction.”

LOL! this is telling him nicely to take his “$maller Negotiating Committee” and stuff it, I ain’t For $ale!

Baltimore Sun-

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The New York attorney general’s booting from a panel of state officials negotiating a settlement of mortgage abuses may shore up his political base and enforcement agenda.

Eric Schneiderman’s resistance to a possible $25 billion settlement being negotiated with the largest mortgage servicers has already drawn praise from groups representing minorities and organized labor.

“Anybody who takes on the banks is a hero,” political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said. “Whether he gets anything done is another story. In politics, it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it.”

[BALTIMORE SUN]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NY AG Eric T. Schneiderman Committed To Full Investigation into Banks’ Misconduct

NY AG Eric T. Schneiderman Committed To Full Investigation into Banks’ Misconduct


Via an email from his office-

You might have been following the latest developments related to the national settlement of the mortgage probe, including this story in today’s Huffington Post about our tough fight for a comprehensive resolution to this crisis.

Let me tell you directly: I am deeply committed to pursuing a full investigation into the misconduct that led to the collapse of America’s housing market, and to seeking a resolution that gives homeowners meaningful relief, allows the housing market to begin to recover, and gets our economy moving again.

Our ongoing investigation into the housing crisis cannot be shut down to accommodate efforts to settle quickly and give banks and others broad immunity from further legal action. If you have any thoughts or concerns about this critical issue, please contact me at 1-800-771-7755, or send a message via Facebook or Twitter.

Thank you for your support,

Eric T. Schneiderman
Attorney General

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal


Dirty, Dirty, Dirty…

TAIBBLOG-

A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.

On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

On the other side is the Obama administration, all the banks, and, now, apparently, all the other state attorneys general.

[ROLLINGSTONE]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

BREAKING: New York Removed From State Group Working on Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Deal

BREAKING: New York Removed From State Group Working on Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Deal


Truly remarkable that no one can convince Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to agree to back down! NY should support his team in any way, shape and form. He is NOT willing to let go of what is right for the NY people!

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) — The New York Attorney General’s office was removed from a group of state attorneys general that is working on a nationwide foreclosure settlement with U.S. banks, according to a state official.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has raised concern about terms of a possible deal, was removed from the executive committee of state attorneys general, according to an e-mail today from Iowa Assistant Attorney General Patrick Madigan.

[BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosure Deal

Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosure Deal


Gretchen Morgenson-

Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

In recent weeks, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and high-level Justice Department officials have been waging an intensifying campaign to try to persuade the attorney general to support the settlement, said the people briefed on the talks.

Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.

[NY TIMES]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

To put it another way, it’s a throwdown! Geithner and the Fed versus New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman

To put it another way, it’s a throwdown! Geithner and the Fed versus New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman


Bloomberg-

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) may settle a state and federal probe of foreclosure practices in a deal that lets New York proceed with an inquiry into securitizations, according to two people with direct knowledge of the talks.

The firm may pursue an accord with most of the 50 state attorneys general, even if it omits New York’s Eric Schneiderman and at least two other states who are opposed because a deal would impede related inquiries, said one of the people. Negotiations on a broad settlement stalled after Schneiderman indicated he wouldn’t let it block his probe into the bundling and sale of mortgages, said the people, who declined to be identified because talks are private.

[BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden also intends to intervene in the Bank of America case

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden also intends to intervene in the Bank of America case


Lets not forget some of the trusts in the settlement were established under Delaware law…

(Reuters) –

A day after New York’s attorney general called Bank of America Corp’s (BAC.N) $8.5 billion mortgage-backed securities settlement “unfair” and “inadequate”, another state attorney general hinted he may also oppose the deal.

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden plans on filing a motion to intervene next week, said an attorney from his office on Friday.

[REUTERS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

New York Attorney General Accuses Bank Of New York Mellon Of Fraud, Moves To Block Bank Of America’s Mortgage Deal

New York Attorney General Accuses Bank Of New York Mellon Of Fraud, Moves To Block Bank Of America’s Mortgage Deal


First broke on this site last year, a Bank of America executive, Linda DeMartini, testified that Countrywide routinely did not convey crucial documents for loans sold to investors in KEMP v. Countrywide.

HuffPO-

WASHINGTON — New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman asked a state judge to reject a proposed $8.5 billion settlement agreement over soured loans between Bank of America and a group of investors, claiming in court documents that a separate bank representing the investors committed fraud for failing to ensure that the mortgage securities were created in accordance with state law and for failing to act in the investors’ best interest.

Bank of New York Mellon, the trustee representing the investors, “knowingly, repeatedly, and consistently” misled investors into thinking that the mortgage bonds were created properly, Schneiderman said in court documents. BNY Mellon also put its own interests before those of the investors it’s supposed to represent, he said.

[HUFFINGTONPOST]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

LEYVA v. National Default Servicing Corp. | Nevada Supreme Court Remand and Reverse “Defective ASMT, U.C.C Article 3, No Endorsement, In Re Pasillas, Wells Fargo, MortgageIt”

LEYVA v. National Default Servicing Corp. | Nevada Supreme Court Remand and Reverse “Defective ASMT, U.C.C Article 3, No Endorsement, In Re Pasillas, Wells Fargo, MortgageIt”


Cite as: Leyva v. National Default Servicing Corp.

127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 40

July 7, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 55216

MOISES LEYVA,

Appellant,

vs.

NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORP.; AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY; AND WELLS FARGO,

Respondents.

Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in a foreclosure mediation action.  Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Donald M. Mosley, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Crosby & Associates and David M. Crosby and Troy S. Fox, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Snell & Wilmer, LLP, and Gregory A. Brower and Cynthia Lynn Alexander, Las Vegas, for Respondents America’s Servicing Company and Wells Fargo.

Wilde & Associates and Gregory L. Wilde, Las Vegas, for Respondent National Default Servicing Corp.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this appeal, we consider issues arising out of Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program.  First, we must determine whether a homeowner who is not the original mortgagor is a proper party to participate in the program.  We conclude that the Foreclosure Mediation statute, NRS 107.086, and the Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs) dictate that a homeowner, even if he or she is not the named mortgagor, is a proper party entitled to request mediation following a notice of default.

Second, we must determine if a party is considered to have complied with the applicable statute and FMRs governing document production in a mediation proceeding by producing what the district court referred to as “essential documents.”  In this, we address whether substantial compliance satisfies the mandates of the statute and FMRs.  Because we conclude that strict compliance is compelled by NRS 107.086(4) and (5), that the assignment offered was defective, and that no endorsement of the mortgage note was provided according to Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, we conclude that Wells Fargo failed to produce the documents required under NRS 107.086(4).  Additionally, we recently concluded in Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (Adv. Op. No. 39, July 7, 2011), that a party’s failure to produce the enumerated documents required by NRS 107.086 and the FMRs prohibits the district court from directing the program administrator to certify the mediation so that the foreclosure process can proceed.  Here, we again conclude that, due to the statute’s and the FMRs’ mandatory language regarding document production, a party is considered to have fully complied with the statute and rules only upon production of all documents required.  Failure to do so is a sanctionable offense, and the district court is prohibited from allowing the foreclosure process to proceed.  Therefore, we must reverse and remand this case to the district court for it to determine appropriate sanctions against respondents.[1]

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Moises Leyva received and recorded a quitclaim deed in 2007 in exchange for taking over monthly mortgage payments on a residence in Las Vegas.  Leyva did not expressly assume the mortgage note, however, and it remained in the original mortgagor’s name, Michael Curtis Ramos.  Nonetheless, Leyva made the mortgage payments in Leyva’s name to respondent Wells Fargo’s servicing company for 25 months.  Thereafter, Leyva defaulted on the mortgage and, upon receiving a notice of election to sell, decided to pursue mediation through the Foreclosure Mediation Program.  Both he and Ramos signed the form electing to mediate.  The mediation occurred on September 23, 2009,[2] and Leyva, Ramos, and Wells Fargo were represented by counsel at the mediation.  Leyva was present at the mediation, while Ramos was available by telephone.  At the mediation, Wells Fargo produced a certified copy of the original deed of trust and mortgage note, on both of which MortgageIT, Inc., not Wells Fargo, was named as the lender, as well as a notarized statement from a Wells Fargo employee asserting that Wells Fargo was in possession of the deed of trust and mortgage note, as well as any assignments thereto.  Wells Fargo did not submit copies of any assignments.  The parties failed to resolve the foreclosure at the mediation, and the mediator’s statement indicated that Wells Fargo failed to bring the statutorily required documents to the mediation.  The mediator did not, however, indicate that Wells Fargo participated in the mediation in bad faith.

Leyva then filed a petition for judicial review in district court, claiming that Wells Fargo mediated in bad faith and that it should be sanctioned.  After conducting hearings on the petition, the district court found that

there is a lack of showing of bad faith on the part of [Wells Fargo] in that all essential documents were provided, contrary to the indication of the mediator, and that [Wells Fargo] otherwise negotiated in good faith notwithstanding the fact that an agreement was not reached.

Absent timely appeal, a Letter of Certification shall enter.

(Emphasis added.)  This appeal followed.[3]

DISCUSSION

In resolving this appeal, as a preliminary matter, we must determine whether Leyva could properly elect to mediate and participate in the mediation even though he was not a named party on the mortgage note and did not assume the note in his purchase of the residence.  Determining that he could participate as the title holder of record, we next consider whether the district court erred in finding that Wells Fargo brought “all essential documents” to the mediation.  In doing so, we address Wells Fargo’s argument that possessing the original mortgage note and deed of trust is sufficient to demonstrate ownership of the same.  We conclude that Wells Fargo failed to produce the documents required under the applicable statute and FMRs and to otherwise show that it had an enforceable interest in the property subject of the mediation.  Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion, and sanctions are warranted pursuant to our holding in Pasillas, 127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___.

Leyva was a proper party to the mediation

Wells Fargo first argues that because Leyva was neither the grantor on the deed of trust nor the obligor on the note, he was not a proper party to the mediation.  We disagree.

NRS 107.086(3) allows “[t]he grantor or the person who holds the title of record” to elect to mediate.  (Emphasis added.)  Similarly, FMR 5(1) states that “any grantor or person who holds the title of record and is the owner-occupant of a residence” is eligible to participate in the Foreclosure Mediation Program.  (Emphasis added.)  Leyva recorded his ownership of the subject property in March 2007 and is therefore clearly the title holder of record eligible to participate in the Foreclosure Mediation Program.

Even though the mortgage note remained in Ramos’s name, this bifurcation of title ownership and liability on the note served only to potentially limit the foreclosure solutions available to Leyva at the mediation, not to exclude all possible remedies.  And while Wells Fargo argues that modification was not an option because Leyva lacked authority over the loan, the record reflects that Ramos, the person with such authority, signed the election-of-mediation form, was represented by counsel at the mediation, and was available by telephone during the mediation.  Therefore, Wells Fargo’s argument lacks merit.  Regardless, because both NRS 107.086(3) and FMR 5(1) permit the person holding the title of record to mediate, and Wells Fargo does not dispute that Leyva possessed a valid, recorded quitclaim deed, we conclude that Leyva could properly elect to mediate and was eligible to participate in the Foreclosure Mediation Program.

Wells Fargo failed to meet the mediation program’s documentation requirements, compelling consideration of sanctions

In Pasillas, we held that if a party fails to (1) provide the required documents, or (2) either attend the mediation in person or, if the beneficiary attends through a representative, that person fails to have authority to modify the loan or access to such a person, the district court is required to impose appropriate sanctions.  127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___. Here, despite Wells Fargo’s failure to bring the assignments for the mortgage note and deed of trust, the district court refused to impose sanctions.[4]  “[W]e . . . review a district court’s decision regarding the imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard.”  Id.

Wells Fargo concedes that it did not provide written assignments of the deed of trust and mortgage note as required by NRS 107.086(4) and FMR 5(6).  Nevertheless, it argues that it fulfilled the purpose of the statute and rule, and thus, its failure to bring actual copies of any assignments was harmless.  In essence, Wells Fargo asserts that its failure to strictly comply with the statute’s and FMRs’ requirements should not subject it to sanctions, because it substantially complied with those requirements.

“Substantial compliance may be sufficient ‘to avoid harsh, unfair or absurd consequences.’  Under certain procedural statutes and rules, however, failure to strictly comply . . . can be fatal to a case.”  Leven v. Frey, 123 Nev. 399, 407, 168 P.3d 712, 717 (2007) (quoting 3 Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 57:19, at 58 (6th ed. 2001)).  To determine whether a statute and rule require strict compliance or substantial compliance, this court looks at the language used and policy and equity considerations.  Id. at 406-07, 168 P.3d at 717.  In so doing, we examine whether the purpose of the statute or rule can be adequately served in a manner other than by technical compliance with the statutory or rule language.  See id. at 407 n.27, 168 P.3d at 717 n.27 (citing White v. Prince George’s County, 877 A.2d 1129, 1137 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005) (“Where the purpose of the notice requirements is fulfilled, but not necessarily in a manner technically compliant with all of the terms of the statute, this Court has found such substantial compliance to satisfy the statute.” (internal quotation omitted))).

Here, both the statutory language and that of the FMRs provide that the beneficiary “shall” bring the enumerated documents, and we have previously recognized that “‘shall’ is mandatory unless the statute demands a different construction to carry out the clear intent of the legislature.”  S.N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev. 15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278 (1992); see also Pasillas, 127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___.  The legislative intent behind requiring a party to produce the assignments of the deed of trust and mortgage note is to ensure that whoever is foreclosing “actually owns the note” and has authority to modify the loan.  See Hearing on A.B. 149 Before the Joint Comm. on Commerce and Labor, 75th Leg. (Nev., February 11, 2009) (testimony of Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley).  Thus, we determine that NRS 107.086 and the FMRs necessitate strict compliance.

Because we conclude that strict compliance is necessary, we must discuss what constitutes a valid assignment of deeds of trust and mortgage notes.  Transfers of deeds of trust and mortgage notes are distinctly separate, thus we discuss each one in turn.

The deed of trust, with any assignments, identifies the person who is foreclosing

In this case, Wells Fargo was not the original named beneficiary on the deed of trust, but it contends on appeal that it has the right to foreclose as the assignee of the original beneficiary, MortgageIT.  Although Wells Fargo conceded during oral argument that it did not provide the written assignment, it claims that because it provided a certified copy of the deed of trust and a notarized statement from its employee claiming that it was the rightful owner of the deed of trust, no written assignment was necessary.  We disagree.

A deed of trust is an instrument that “secure[s] the performance of an obligation or the payment of any debt.”  NRS 107.020.  This court has previously held that a deed of trust “constitutes a conveyance of land as defined by NRS 111.010.”[5]  Ray v. Hawkins, 76 Nev. 164, 166, 350 P.2d 998, 999 (1960).  The statute of frauds governs when a conveyance creates or assigns an interest in land:

No estate or interest in lands, . . . nor any trust or power over or concerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall be created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared . . . , unless . . . by deed or conveyance, in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by the party’s lawful agent thereunto authorized in writing.

NRS 111.205(1) (emphases added).  Thus, to prove that MortgageIT properly assigned its interest in land via the deed of trust to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo needed to provide a signed writing from MortgageIT demonstrating that transfer of interest.  No such assignment was provided at the mediation or to the district court, and the statement from Wells Fargo itself is insufficient proof of assignment.  Absent a proper assignment of a deed of trust, Wells Fargo lacks standing to pursue foreclosure proceedings against Leyva.

Mortgage note

The proper method of transferring the right to payment under a mortgage note is governed by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code- Negotiable Instruments, because a mortgage note is a negotiable instrument.[6]  Birkland v. Silver State Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00035-KJD-LRL, 2010 WL 3419372, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2010).  The obligor on the note has the right to know the identity of the entity that is “entitled to enforce” the mortgage note under Article 3, see NRS 104.3301, “[o]therwise, the [homeowner] may pay funds to a stranger in the case.”  In re Veal, No. 09-14808, 2011 WL 2304200, at *16 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 10, 2011) (holding, in a bankruptcy case, that AHMSI did not prove that it was the party entitled to enforce, and receive payments from, a mortgage note because it “presented no evidence as to who possessed the original Note.  It also presented no evidence showing [e]ndorsement of the note either in its favor or in favor of Wells Fargo, for whom AHMSI allegedly was servicing the [bankrupt party’s] Loan.”).  If the homeowner pays funds to a “stranger in the case,” then his or her obligation on the note would not be reduced by the payments made. See id. at *7 (“if a[n obligor on a mortgage note] makes a payment to a ‘person entitled to enforce,’ the obligation is satisfied on a dollar for dollar basis, and the [obligor] never has to pay that amount again”).

Wells Fargo argues that, under Nevada law, possession of the original note allowed it to enforce the note.  We disagree and take this opportunity to clarify the applicability of Article 3 to mortgage notes, as we anticipate increasing participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program, as well as a corresponding increase in the number of foreclosure appeals in this state.  As discussed below, we conclude that Article 3 clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than mere possession of the original note to be able to enforce a negotiable instrument under the facts of this case.

Pursuant to NRS 104.3102(1), Article 3 applies to negotiable instruments.  Negotiable instruments are defined as

an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:

(a) Is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

(b) Is payable on demand or at a definite time; and

(c) Does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money.

NRS 104.3104(1).  Thus, a mortgage note is a negotiable instrument, and any negotiation of a mortgage note must be done in accordance with Article 3.

A note can be made payable to bearer or payable to order.  NRS 104.3109.  If the note is payable to bearer, that “indicates that the person in possession of the promise or order is entitled to payment.”  NRS 104.3109(1)(a).  However, “[a] promise or order that is not payable to bearer is payable to order if it is payable to the order of an identified person . . . . A promise or order that is payable to order is payable to the identified person.”  NRS 104.3109(2).

For a note in order form to be enforceable by a party other than to whom the note is originally payable, the note must be either negotiated or transferred.[7]  A “‘[n]egotiation’ means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.”  NRS 104.3201(1).  “[I]f an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its endorsement by the holder.”[8]  NRS 104.3201(2) (emphasis added).  An “endorsement” is a signature that is “made on an instrument for the purpose of negotiating the instrument.”  NRS 104.3204(1).  Thus, if the note is payable to the order of an identifiable party, but is then sold or otherwise assigned to a new party, it must be endorsed by the party to whom it was originally payable for the note to be considered properly negotiated to the new party.  Once a proper negotiation occurs, the new party, or “note holder,” with possession is entitled to enforce the note.  NRS 104.1201(2)(u)(1) (“Holder means . . . [t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”).

If a party cannot attain “holder” status by showing a valid negotiation, the party may establish its right to enforce the note by showing that the note has been validly transferred.  NRS 104.3203(2).  The only distinction between a negotiation and a transfer is that, in the case of a transfer, the note need not be endorsed by the party who is relinquishing enforcement rights.  Because a transferred note is not endorsed, however, the party seeking to establish its right to enforce the note “must account for possession of the unendorsed instrument by proving the transaction through which the transferee acquired it.”  U.C.C. § 3-203 cmt. 2 (explaining the effect of § 3-203(b), codified in Nevada as NRS 104.3203(2)).  In other words, because the party seeking to enforce the note cannot “prove” its right to enforce through the use of a valid endorsement, the party must “prove” by some other means that it was given possession of the note for the purpose of enforcing it.[9]

In this case, the adjustable rate mortgage note provides:  “In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. $192,000.00 . . . plus interest, to the order of Lender.  Lender is [MortgageIT, Inc.]” (emphasis added).  Because the mortgage note is payable to the order of a specific party, MortgageIT, to negotiate the note to a new party, in this case Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo must have possession of the note and the note must be properly endorsed by MortgageIT.  See NRS 104.3201(2).  No such endorsement was included in the documents produced at mediation or in the documents filed with the district court, nor was a valid assignment produced as proof of the note’s transfer, and mere possession does not entitle Wells Fargo to enforce the note.  Therefore, because the mortgage note is payable to MortgageIT, unless Wells Fargo can prove that the note was properly endorsed or validly transferred, thereby making it the party entitled to enforce the note, it has not demonstrated authority to mediate the note.

As we concluded in Pasillas, a foreclosing party’s failure to bring the required documents to the mediation is a sanctionable offense under NRS 107.086 and the FMRs.  Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Leyva’s petition for judicial review.  Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine the appropriate sanctions for Wells Fargo’s violation of the statutory and rule-based requirement.  In doing so, the district court should consider the factors discussed in Pasillas.[10]

DOUGLAS, C.J., and CHERRY, SAITTA, GIBBONS, PICKERING, and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ., concur.

**********FOOTNOTES**********

[1]        Because we reverse on other grounds, we do not reach Leyva’s contention that respondent Wells Fargo also participated in the mediation in bad faith because it refused to offer anything other than a cash-for-keys option to avoiding foreclosure.

[2]        Therefore, this mediation was governed by the Foreclosure Mediation Rules in effect from July 31, 2009, until September 28, 2009, at which time the rules were amended.  See In the Matter of the Adoption of Rules for Foreclosure Mediation, ADKT 435 (Order Adopting Foreclosure Mediation Rules, June 30, 2009, and Order Amending Foreclosure Mediation Rules and Adopting Forms, September 28, 2009).  Although the changes required some renumbering of the rules, the language of the rules important to this case, namely, those specifying who can participate in the mediation and the documents that must be provided, remain essentially the same.

[3]        This court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the district court’s final order in the judicial review proceeding.  Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; NRAP 3A(b)(1).

[4]        At the time the district court entered its order, the Pasillas opinion had not been published.

[5]        “‘Conveyance’ shall be construed to embrace every instrument in writing, except a last will and testament, whatever may be its form, and by whatever name it may be known in law, by which any estate or interest in lands is created, aliened, assigned or surrendered.”  NRS 111.010(1).

[6]        Article 3 is codified in NRS 104.3101-.3605.

[7]        Since the documents provided at the mediation did not establish transfer of either the mortgage or the note, we express no opinion on the issue addressed in the Restatement (Third) of Property section 5.4 concerning the effect on the mortgage of the note having been transferred or the reverse.

[8]        Under NRS 104.3301(1)(a), a person entitled to enforce an instrument is “[t]he holder of the instrument.”

[9]        To “prove” a transaction under NRS 104.3203(2), a party must present evidence sufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that the transaction took place.  NRS 104.3103(1)(i) (defining “prove”); NRS 104.1201(h) (defining “burden of establishing”).

[10]      In Pasillas, we concluded that the following nonexhaustive list of factors would aid district courts in determining what sanctions are appropriate: “whether the violations were intentional, the amount of prejudice to the nonviolating party, and the violating party’s willingness to mitigate any harm by continuing meaningful negotiation.”  Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. ___, ___, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (Adv. Op. No. 39, July 7, 2011).


*****************************

[ipaper docId=59629180 access_key=key-1rxuzowvxn02h09lwmc9 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

PASILLAS v. HSBC Bank USA | Nevada Supreme Court Reverse “Sanctionable offenses under the Foreclosure Mediation Program, IBANEZ, AHMSI, Alleged Assignment”

PASILLAS v. HSBC Bank USA | Nevada Supreme Court Reverse “Sanctionable offenses under the Foreclosure Mediation Program, IBANEZ, AHMSI, Alleged Assignment”


Cite as: Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA

127 Nev. Adv. Op. 39

EMILIANO PASILLAS AND YVETTE PASILLAS, Appellants,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, AS TRUSTEE FOR LUMINENT MORTGAGE TRUST; POWER DEFAULT SERVICES, TRUSTEE; AND AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Respondents.

No. 56393.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

July 7, 2011.

Terry J. Thomas, Reno, for Appellants.

Pite Duncan, LLP, and Gregg A. Hubley, Laurel I. Handley, and Cuong M. Nguyen, Las Vegas, for Respondents.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this appeal, we consider issues arising out of Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program and address whether a lender commits sanctionable offenses when it does not produce documents and does not have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan, as set forth in the applicable statute, NRS 107.086, and the Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs).

Because NRS 107.086 and the FMRs expressly require that certain documents be produced during foreclosure mediation and that someone with authority to modify the loan must be present or accessible during the mediation, we conclude that a party’s failure to comply with these requirements is an offense subject to sanctions by the district court. In such an event, the district court shall not direct the program administrator to certify the mediation to allow the foreclosure process to proceed until the parties have fully complied with the statute and rules governing foreclosure mediation.

Here, because respondents HSBC Bank USA, Power Default Services, and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (AHMSI), did not bring the required documents to the mediation and did not have access to someone authorized to modify the loan during the mediation, we conclude that the district court erred in denying appellants Emiliano and Yvette Pasillas’s petition for judicial review. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order and remand this matter to the district court so that the court may determine sanctions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Pasillases purchased a home in Reno in 2006 with a loan from American Brokers Conduit. The note and deed of trust were allegedly assigned to HSBC.[1] Near the end of 2009, Power Default Services became a substitute trustee, removing HSBC from that role. Allegedly, the servicer for the Pasillases’ loan is AHMSI.[2]

When the Pasillases defaulted on their mortgage and received a notice of election to sell, they elected to mediate pursuant to the Foreclosure Mediation Program provided for in NRS 107.086. Two separate mediations occurred, one on February 18, 2010, and one on March 8, 2010,[3] but neither mediation resulted in a resolution.

While a representative of AHMSI was available by phone at both mediations, it is unclear whether HSBC was present or represented by counsel. There is some disagreement between the parties regarding who the respondents’ attorneys represented at the mediations and at the hearing on the petition for judicial review. In the addendum to the mediator’s statement, the mediator stated that “HSBC . . . was identified as Beneficiary . . . and represented by Cuong Nguyen, Esq. of Pite Duncan, LLP.” In the second mediation, the mediator indicated that “HSBC . . . was again identified as Beneficiary . . . and represented by Heather Hudson, Esq. of Pite Duncan, LLP.” However, in responding to the Pasillases’ petition for judicial review, the Pite Duncan law firm indicated that it was not counsel for HSBC. Specifically, the response opened with the following statement: “Respondents AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. (`AHMSI’), erroneously named herein as HSBC BANK USA AS TRUSTEE FOR LUMINENT MORTGAGE TRUST.” Respondents also claimed that the Pasillases were “incorrect that Pite Duncan, LLP attended [the mediations] on behalf of HSBC.” At oral argument before this court, respondents’ counsel stated that they represented all of the respondents named in this case at the mediations, but they did not dispute the mediator’s finding that respondents needed additional authority from investors to agree to a loan modification.

After both mediations were completed, the mediator filed a statement indicating that (1) “[t]he parties participated but were unable to agree to a loan modification or make other arrangements,” (2) “[t]he beneficiary or his representative failed to participate in good faith,” and (3) “[t]he beneficiary failed to bring to the mediation each document required.” The mediator also filed an addendum to his statement, wherein he stated that two pages of the mortgage note were missing, that the assignment purportedly assigning the mortgage note and deed of trust to HSBC was incomplete, that instead of an appraisal HSBC provided a broker’s price opinion,[4] and that respondents stated they would need additional investor approval before agreeing to a loan modification. The mediator concluded that he would not recommend that the administrator issue a certificate authorizing further foreclosure proceedings because HSBC “failed to participate in [the] mediation in good faith as evidenced by its failure to produce required documents and information initially, or subsequently to cure its failures.” The Pasillases subsequently filed a petition for judicial review in the district court. In the petition, the Pasillases requested sanctions in the form of a modification of their mortgage and attorney fees.

The district court conducted a short hearing, during which the only issue addressed was the parties’ failure to come to an agreement. The district court did not address whether respondents failed to provide the required documents at the mediation or whether respondents lacked the requisite authority at the mediation to modify the loan. After the hearing, the district court entered an order finding that “Respondents] [have] met the burden to show cause why sanctions should not lie,” and directed the Foreclosure Mediation Program administrator to issue a certification authorizing the foreclosure to proceed. The Pasillases appealed.

DISCUSSION

In resolving this appeal, we must determine whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to enter sanctions against respondents for failing to satisfy express statutory requirements and allowed respondents to continue with the foreclosure process. We begin our discussion with a brief background of the Foreclosure Mediation Program.

The Foreclosure Mediation Program

The Nevada Legislature enacted the Foreclosure Mediation Program in 2009 in response to the increasing number of foreclosures in this state. Hearing on A.B. 149 Before the Joint Comm. on Commerce and Labor, 75th Leg. (Nev., February 11, 2009) (testimony of Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley). The program requires that a trustee seeking to foreclose on an owner-occupied residence provide an election-of-mediation form along with the notice of default and election to sell. NRS 107.086(2)(a)(3). If the homeowner elects to mediate, both the homeowner and the deed of trust beneficiary must attend, must mediate in good faith, provide certain enumerated documents,[5] and, if the beneficiary attends through a representative, that person must have authority to modify the loan or have “access at all times during the mediation to a person with such authority.” NRS 107.086(4), (5); FMR 5(7)(a). After the conclusion of the mediation, the mediator must file a mediator’s statement with the program administrator, indicating whether all parties complied with the statute and rules governing the program. FMR 12(2). If the beneficiary does not (1) attend the mediation; (2) mediate in good faith; (3) provide the required documents; or (4) if attending through a representative, have a person present with authority to modify the loan or access to such a person, the mediator is required to “submit … a petition and recommendation concerning the imposition of sanctions.”[6] NRS 107.086(5). The homeowner may then file a petition for judicial review with the district court,[7] and the court “may issue an order imposing such sanctions against the beneficiary of the deed of trust or the representative as the court determines appropriate.” See FMR 5(7)(f).[8] But if the district court finds that the parties met the four program requirements, it will direct the program administrator to certify the mediation, allowing the foreclosure process to proceed. See NRS 107.086(2)(c)(2), (3), (6), (7).

Respondents failed to meet the mediation program’s statutory requirements

The Pasillases argue that respondents failed to meet the program’s requirements—the document requirement because respondents failed to bring a complete mortgage note and failed to provide assignments of the note and deed of trust, and the loan modification authority requirement because they failed to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan. We agree.

The scope and meaning of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. ___, ___ P.3d ___. (Adv. Op. No. 29, June 2, 2011). Court rules are also subject to de novo review. Moon v. McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 245 P.3d 1138, 1139 (2010). “When the language in a provision is clear and unambiguous, this court gives `effect to that meaning and will not consider outside sources beyond that statute.'” City of Reno v. Citizens for Cold Springs, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 236 P.3d 10, 16 (2010) (quoting NAIW v. Nevada Self-Insurers Association, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 225 P.3d 1265, 1271 (2010)).

Both NRS 107.086 and the FMRs use the word “shall” or “must” when listing the actions required of parties to a foreclosure mediation. Use of the word “shall” in both the statutory language and the FMRs indicates a duty on the part of the beneficiary, and this court has stated that “`shall’ is mandatory unless the statute demands a different construction to carry out the clear intent of the legislature.” S.N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev. 15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278 (1992). Additionally, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “shall” as meaning “imperative or mandatory. . . . inconsistent with a concept of discretion.” 1375 (6th ed. 1990). And as it is used here, “must” is a synonym of “shall.” We conclude that NRS 107.086(4) and (5) and FMR 5(7)(a) clearly and unambiguously mandate that the beneficiary of the deed of trust or its representative (1) attend the mediation, (2) mediate in good faith, (3) provide the required documents, and (4) have a person present with authority to modify the loan or access to such a person.

Here, the mediator’s statement and his addendum to that statement, which were provided to the district court in the Pasillases’ petition for judicial review, clearly set out respondents’ failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present with authority to modify the loan. Additionally, respondents do not dispute that they failed to bring all the required documents to the mediation.[9] Although respondents argue on appeal that their counsel at the mediation “had the requisite authority and/or access to a person with the authority to modify the loan,” they do not controvert the mediator’s statement that their counsel claimed at the mediation that additional investor approval was needed in order to modify the loan. The record before the district court demonstrates that respondents failed to meet the statutory requirements. Nonetheless, respondents argue that the district court’s conclusion that sanctions were unwarranted did not constitute an abuse of discretion because, despite the failures noted above, they mediated to resolve the foreclosure in good faith. We disagree.

Standard of review

At the outset, we establish that we will review a district court’s decision regarding the imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard. See Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 414, 168 P.3d 1050, 1052 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard used to review district court’s imposition of sanctions on a party for discovery abuses); Banks v. Sunrise Hospital, 120 Nev. 822, 830, 102 P.3d 52, 58 (2004) (reviewing sanctions imposed for spoliation of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard). When determining whether the district court has abused its discretion in such cases, we do not focus on whether the court committed manifest error, but rather we focus on whether the district court made any errors of law.

Failure to satisfy statutory mandates is a sanctionable offense

As discussed above, under NRS 107.086(5), there are four distinct violations a party to a foreclosure mediation can make: (1) “fail[ure] to attend the mediation,” (2) “fail[ure] to participate in the mediation in good faith,” (3) failure to “bring to the mediation each document required,” and (4) failure to demonstrate “the authority or access to a person with the authority [to modify the loan].” If any one of these violations occurs, the mediator must recommend sanctions. Id. If the homeowner petitions for judicial review, “[t]he court may issue an order imposing such sanctions against the beneficiary of the deed of trust or the representative as the court determines appropriate.” Id. We interpret NRS 107.086(5) to mean that the commission of any one of these four statutory violations prohibits the program administrator from certifying the foreclosure process to proceed and may also be sanctionable. See Tarango v. SIIS, 117 Nev. 444, 451 n.20, 25 P.3d 175, 180 n.20 (2001) (explaining that “may” can be interpreted as “shall” in order to carry out the Legislature’s intent, which in the instant case was to make mandatory the requirements set forth in NRS 107.086(5)).

In this case, despite the mediator’s opinion that respondents did not participate in the mediation in good faith based on their failure to comply with the FMRs, the district court did not impose sanctions and instead entered a Letter of Certification that allowed respondents to proceed with the foreclosure process on the Pasillases’ property. The district court essentially ignored the fact that respondents failed to bring “to the mediation each document required” and did “not have the authority or access to a person with the authority” to modify the loan, failures which we determine constitute sanctionable offenses. Thus, the district court’s order directing the program administrator to enter a letter of certification and its failure to consider sanctions was an abuse of discretion because respondents clearly violated NRS 107.086 and the FMRs.[10] This abuse requires us to remand the case for the district court to consider appropriate sanctions.

The nature of the sanctions imposed on the beneficiary or its representative is within the discretion of the district court. We have previously listed factors to aid district courts when considering sanctions as punishment for litigation abuses. See Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, 106 Nev. 88, 93, 787 P.2d 777, 780 (1990); see also Bahena v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 126 Nev. ___, ___, 235 P.3d 592, 598-99 (2010); Arnold, 123 Nev. at 415-16, 168 P.3d at 1053. However, we conclude that other factors, more specific to the foreclosure mediation context, apply when a district court is considering sanctions in such a case. When determining the sanctions to be imposed in a case brought pursuant to NRS 107.086 and the FMRs, district courts should consider the following nonexhaustive list of factors: whether the violations were intentional, the amount of prejudice to the nonviolating party, and the violating party’s willingness to mitigate any harm by continuing meaningful negotiation.

Because, in this case, the foreclosing party’s failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan were sanctionable offenses under the Foreclosure Mediation Program, the district court abused its discretion when it denied the Pasillases’ petition for judicial review and ordered the program administrator to enter a letter of certification authorizing the foreclosure process to proceed. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine the appropriate sanctions for respondents’ violations of the statutory and rule-based requirements.

DOUGLAS, C.J., CHERRY, SAITTA, GIBBONS, PICKERING and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ., concur.

[1] The Pasillases claim that HSBC failed to provide a valid assignment; the one it provided during the mediation was signed by American Brokers Conduit but did not state who the assignee was.

[2] The parties do not argue and we do not reach the question of whether AHMSI is a valid agent for HSBC or the real party in interest, or the “person entitled to enforce” the promissory note in this case. See In re Veal, No. 09-14808, 2011 WL 2304200, at *12-14 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 10, 2011).

[3] These mediations were governed by the Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs) as amended on November 4, 2009.

[4] We note that while FMR 11(7)(b) currently allows for a broker’s price opinion in lieu of an appraisal, the rules applicable to this matter called for an appraisal without mention of a broker’s price opinion. In the Matter of the Adoption of Rules for Foreclosure Mediation, ADKT 435 (Order Adopting Foreclosure Mediation Rules, June 30, 2009, and Order Amending Foreclosure Mediation Rules and Adopting Forms, November 4, 2009).

[5] With regard to the documents required, NRS 107.086(4) provides that “[t]he beneficiary of the deed of trust shall bring to the mediation the original or a certified copy of the deed of trust, the mortgage note[,] and each assignment of the deed of trust or mortgage note.” The FMRs echo this documentation requirement nearly word for word. FMR 5(7)(a). FMR 7(2) also provides that “[t]he beneficiary of the deed of trust or its representatives shall produce an appraisal. . . and shall prepare an estimate of the `short sale’ value of the residence.”

[6] If the homeowner fails to attend the mediation, the administrator will certify that no mediation is required. NRS 107.086(6).

[7] Generally, if the parties fail to reach an agreement and neither party files a petition for judicial review, the program administrator will certify the mediation, which allows the foreclosure process to proceed. NRS 107.086(3), (6), (7).

[8] The current version of the FMRs requires the district court to review a case de novo when a party files a petition for judicial review. FMR 21(5) (rules including amendments through March 1, 2011). De novo review may include an evidentiary hearing concerning what transpired at the mediation. See Black’s Law Dictionary 924 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “de novo judicial review” as “[a] court’s nondeferential review of an administrative decision, usu[ally] through a review of the administrative record plus any additional evidence the parties present”).

[9] At oral argument, respondents’ counsel argued that an assignment for the mortgage note was provided, but the name of the assignee was missing. We determine that an assignment provided without the name of the assignee is defective for the purposes of the Foreclosure Mediation Program because it does not identify the relevant parties.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently reached the same conclusion regarding the production of assignments to mortgage notes and deeds of trust, albeit in a slightly different context. In U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011), two separate banks foreclosed on the mortgages of two homeowners whose properties the banks then bought at the foreclosure sales. Id. at 44. The banks later filed complaints in the lower court seeking a declaration that they had clear title to the properties. Id. Because the banks failed to show an interest in the mortgages at the time of the foreclosure sales, the sales were invalid, and the lower court entered judgment against the banks. Id. at 45. On appeal, the court determined that, similar to this case, the banks were not the original mortgagees and, therefore, they had to show that the mortgages were properly assigned to them in writings signed by the grantors before they could notice the sales and foreclosures of the properties. Id. at 51. In an attempt to prove that they had the authority to foreclose on the properties, the banks provided contracts purporting to assign to them bundles of mortgages; however, the attachments that identified what mortgages were being assigned were not included in the documents provided. Id. at 52. The court concluded that the banks demonstrated no authority to foreclose on the properties because they did not have the assignments. Id. at 53 (“We have long held that a conveyance of real property, such as a mortgage, that does not name the assignee conveys nothing and is void; we do not regard an assignment of land in blank as giving legal title in land to the bearer of the assignment.”). The court additionally stated that “[a] plaintiff that cannot make this modest showing cannot justly proclaim that it was unfairly denied a declaration of clear title.” Id. at 52. We agree with the rationale that valid assignments are needed when a beneficiary of a deed of trust seeks to foreclose on a property.

[10] Respondents argue that this court should decline to address the Pasillases’ argument that respondents failed to provide someone at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan because it was not raised in the petition for judicial review. First, we note that our decision here would require the district court to impose sanctions even if respondents’ only omission was the failure to provide the required documents. However, we determine that the Pasillases adequately raised this issue in their petition for judicial review by alleging that respondents’ counsel at the mediations did not accurately state who they were representing. Therefore, our decision of the issue is appropriate.

[ipaper docId=59602935 access_key=key-rckck71ucb7lsl18mx6 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

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

Archives